Prós
Good management Real business scenarios
Contras
I don’t agree with how this process works, especially regarding rerouted tickets. The idea of rerouting is to escalate cases that cannot be handled at expert level due to access limitations, sensitive data, or system restrictions. During the induction call, we are clearly told: “If you don’t know the solution, you should not claim the question.” However, this guidance conflicts with how reroutes are treated in practice. For example, last week I claimed 10 tickets and rerouted 7 of them — not because I didn’t know how to solve them, but because, as a Level 1 expert, I’m not allowed to access systems, sensitive data, or perform actions required to fully resolve the issue. Even in reroute cases, I still had to research, analyze, and spend time providing a proper response. In the end, rerouting brings zero value to the expert, despite requiring real effort. It also makes me question whether many of the tickets assigned are simply “skipped” tickets from other experts who don’t want to spend time on low-value or complex cases. Another major issue is with Resolve tickets (the ones that actually have value). Users often don’t respond quickly — which is understandable — but that means experts may need to wait up to 21 days to maybe get paid. And even after those 21 days, the answer is still subject to QA review, which adds more uncertainty. The conclusion is frustrating: Reroute tickets = unpaid work, even though the company still benefits from the escalation. Resolvable tickets = long waiting periods with no payment guarantee. The only realistic way to make this worthwhile is to be an expert across many different technologies (SAP MM, GRC AC, CPI, BASIS, HP, SONY, AUTODESK, etc.). That way, you can handle 30–40 tickets a day and hope that maybe 10 of them per week are actually paid, resolvable questions. Overall, the model heavily favors the platform, while experts take on most of the risk and unpaid effort.
