How to measure incident prioritisation adoption after an implementation
Whether incident prioritisation is actually happening now, expressed as a number you can put in front of management.
What good looks like, so there is something to measure against: 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.
Ask the people doing the work, not the system. A tool reports what was typed into it, which is a claim about the tool. Whether incident prioritisation is followed is a fact about the team, and the team is the only source for it.
Ask the same question again a month later. One measurement is an opinion with a decimal point. Two measurements taken the same way is the first thing anyone can act on.
Where the records help: a priority, severity or impact column, and a distribution that is not seventy percent one value. That is what a reconstruction reads, and it is also the cheapest ongoing check that the survey answers and the system agree with each other.
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
- How to measure incident categorisation adoption after an implementation
- Why incident prioritisation stalls after go live
- Reconstructing a incident prioritisation baseline from records you already have
- How to measure incident ownership adoption after an implementation
- How to measure service level targets adoption after an implementation
- How to measure change approval adoption after an implementation