Reconstructing a incident prioritisation baseline from records you already have
Nobody measured the before state. It is usually still recoverable.
The evidence to look for: a priority, severity or impact column, and a distribution that is not seventy percent one value
An artefact can only evidence the practice it is a record of. A ticket export shows what was captured on tickets. It is silent about strategy, and a reconstruction that pretends otherwise is the kind of number that discredits everything beside it.
Absent is evidence. Present but mostly empty is different evidence, and usually a more interesting finding: somebody configured the field and the work went on around it.
Label it reconstructed everywhere it appears, quote the file and the line for every score, and let the person who has to defend it override anything they disagree with before it is locked. What good looks like for incident prioritisation: Priority is set from impact and urgency using a rule anyone can repeat, not from who is asking, and the highest priority is rare enough to mean something.
Do this with Adoption Evidence
One engagement free. Curate the questions, baseline the team, and generate a report where every number traces to a response or a file. No card.
Already have a The Art of Service account? Sign in.
Related
- Reconstructing a incident categorisation baseline from records you already have
- How to measure incident prioritisation adoption after an implementation
- Why incident prioritisation stalls after go live
- Reconstructing a incident ownership baseline from records you already have
- Reconstructing a service level targets baseline from records you already have
- Reconstructing a change approval baseline from records you already have