Workplace
“I asked HR about this three weeks ago” is unanswerable in every company.
Because the asking happened in a chat message, a corridor, or an email to somebody who was on leave — and none of those leave a trace that can be counted, chased or learned from.
The shape
Categories with their own targets, and a queue that is somebody's.
A ticket belongs to a category, and the category carries its own targets — how quickly a first response is owed, and how quickly it should be resolved. A payslip query and a document request are not the same urgency and should not share a number.
Tickets sit in a queue an agent picks up or is assigned. Awaiting a reply is its own state rather than a ticket that looks abandoned.
Two clocks, per category
- Payslip queryfirst reply 4h · resolved 2 days
- Document requestfirst reply 8h · resolved 3 days
- Systems accessfirst reply 2h · resolved 1 day
A payslip query and a document request are not the same urgency, so they do not share a target.
One ticket, two kinds of comment
- EmployeeMarch payslip shows a deduction I do not recognise.
- Agent · internalChecking against the loan schedule before replying.
- AgentThat is the staff loan instalment — here is the schedule.
The middle one is invisible to the employee. Without it, agents discuss the ticket somewhere the ticket cannot see.
- Internal comments, on the ticket —
The agent's working-out lives on the ticket rather than in a side conversation, so whoever picks it up next has the context.
- Resolution carries notes —
What was actually done, not just that it closed — which is the only way the tenth identical ticket becomes a policy change.
- Reopening is normal —
A resolved ticket that was not actually resolved goes back, rather than becoming a second ticket with no history.
- Nobody has to guess whose turn it is —
Awaiting a reply is a state, and the label is written for whoever is looking — "awaiting your reply" to one of them, "awaiting the raiser" to the other. A neutral label reads as somebody is waiting on me to both, which is wrong for one of them.
- Writing a comment never moves the ticket —
Intent is carried by an explicit action, so a raiser typing "any update?" does not silently bounce it back to themselves.
Where it deliberately stops
Harassment complaints do not come here.
A general ticket queue is visible to whoever staffs it. Routing a harassment complaint through it would expose it to people who should never see it, so that has its own surface with its own access and its own process.
This is for the everyday: a payslip that looks wrong, a letter somebody needs, access that has not been granted.
What HR asks
Mostly about whether it will actually get used.
›Will employees use a ticket system instead of messaging someone?
Some will not, and no product fixes that. What changes is that the ones who do get an answer with a clock on it, and you can finally see how much of this work there actually is.
›Can we set different targets per category?
Yes — first response and resolution, per category.
›Can agents talk privately on a ticket?
Yes. Internal comments are on the ticket and not visible to the employee, which is what keeps the working-out attached to the work.
›Where do harassment complaints go?
A separate surface with separate access, deliberately not this queue.
›Does it suggest answers?
No. Nothing auto-responds to an employee about their own pay.
›Can somebody work the queue without an admin licence?
Yes — whoever a ticket is assigned to can work it from the same portal they check their own payslip in.
Book a demo
Raise a ticket as an employee.
The third step is the one that decides whether agents will actually use it.
- Set two categories with different targets
- Raise one from the portal and watch the clock start
- Add an internal comment, then check the portal view
- Resolve it, then reopen it