Coming from ConnectWise ticketing, it was a very handy feature to have. If we received an email ticket with multiple users or a manager in the to/cc field they would all get updates as the ticket was being worked. There were also a handful of clients with smaller companies that wanted the owner cc on all tickets.
I think the best way to go about this would be to have 2 fields. The first one would be the primary contact for the ticket (ticket owner) and the second would be a CC or additional contacts field that would allow adding other customers. Screenshot below from what this looks in CW:
I’ve looked into Zammad a number of times, but never bothered continuing past basic investigation because Zammad hasn’t added this capability. Currently on RT, and we regularly handle tickets that need to include multiple users who have no fixed association other than that ticket, and I can’t imagine going without it.
I agree. @shift.cx shared a great example use case.
I’d add another one:
A customer creates a ticket for an important issue but then falls ill.
The customer’s Head of Team wants to know the status but can’t access the ticket and ends up calling instead - exactly what a ticket system is meant to avoid.
If I could add the Head of the Team to the ticket, he could look into it himself.
Another use case:
Two (or more) tickets come in, all concerning the same issue. Technically, I can merge these tickets, but one of the customers will be lost. So, if the feature allows a ticket to have multiple customers, this should also be taken into account when merging.
as this feature would be very important for us and would significantly simplify our work, I wanted to ask if you have any idea when it will be available?
Thank you very much for any information you can provide.
This is a feature request. It hasn’t been accepted as of now. At least what I can tell from it’s categories and state.
Zammad generelly doesn’t communicate any ETAs on features nor any roadmaps.
You can always try to boost a function by inserting coins by sponsoring it, no guruantee though that it will be accepted as standard feature.
Give that role only access to the specific group(s)
Limit the agents visibility, limit fields/options with core workflow etc
That’s how we do this for a couple of our customers, works quite well. Please give them a new email to use for their agent role, mixing agent and customer might have implications.
Also.. allowing multiple customers to a ticket sounds fine and dandy but GDPR is going to bite you down in the end here, there’s too many factors and breaking points which will just cause tons of headaches.
I would rather suggest to show all interacted email addresses to ticket in a CC field dropdown menu. Perhaps an “Add all listed” with criteria that list is only shown if no character has been entered to engage search.
Right now we utilize a Freetext object in ticket view, which could be used to add involved people so you can copy paste them into CC
Logically, wouldn’t this be similar to creating say a temporary organization (group of users/customers), allowing the program to reuse logic and from an end-user perspective, the interface would be similar?
I just don’t think people want to go in and add a bunch of organizations in their system just because they want one-off organizations for a particular ticket, but logically it seems the same to me.
As someone else who came from RT looking for this feature, it hasn’t been quite the problem with thought it would be. Most of our “customers” are internal and most of our staff interface with Zammad via email. Zammad’s ability to change the CC/To address on replies to anyone we want largely negates the need for having multiple customers assigned to a ticket. Any reply from those people is captured on the ticket.
The multi-customer feature would from what I can tell would largely only benefit those where customers are mainly using the web app, or for more a more formal helpdesk where status updates and things need to be communicated with multiple stakeholders.
For someone like me who runs a service, where either a business owner or a developer could create a ticket and I need to keep BOTH of them in the loop, this is a MUST HAVE, not a nice to have.
I compared multiple helpdesk and set-up, clean look, ease of use and customization options were the best with Zammad. We launched it internally and quickly found out this is missing.
The multiple use cases of why it is necessary internally already written out here.
It baffles me that it is not in Zammad, but I get that it was designed with it being used for MSP’s in mind.
It is the highest feature request for a reason and I really hope it will it least be discussed soon (and that the outcome of that explained in this thread).
This has been an open feature request for nearly 4 years with resounding evidence from the community that this feature is clearly missed. If they haven’t added it by now, who knows when they will.
At this point, if its a dealbreaker for your team, you might as well jump ship because they clearly have no desire to implement this feature.
I mean if it is so important, the community could also come with a merge request. Or sponsor it (if it‘s so important). It‘s fairily high voted, I‘m sure it‘s on the radar. Timing and priorities in terms of what comes next is not always easy, apart from the new tech stack that might block such a funamdental logic change.
See that’s quite interesting. Because back when I was still at Zammad, this kind of feature virtually never (or very infrequiently) came up. But AI requested bombarded us quite a while.
I am not saying that this feature request is not valid - I’m just trying to say, that you might not see the whole image. And that’s absolutely fine. Let’s be real, paying customers are what this product allows to be there and keep going to a certain level. So if the market tells people that AI is the thing, you’ll have to adapt or you’re gone for good.
I set up Zammad about 6 Months ago within our company as an IT Helpdesk (~300 Users). We constantly get asked to add multiple users (customers) to a ticket for multiple reasons. Leadership is thinking about switching to antoher system because this single basic missing feature.
Would it be possible to create a custom object and manipulate it via a PUT-Request to be an user_autocompletion instead of a text field? This was the way how i added half sized text fields to my custom objects.
I guess if a company stands behind it, a feature sponsoring could be an option? That is, if Zammad is your best pick beside that “one missing feature”. Not telling you that you should, but this would be a way.
Apart from the UI switch that needs to happen before. Other wise the developers would burden themselves so much with useless overhead, that it would need even more time.
