Why incident categorisation stalls after go live
It rarely stops all at once. It decays, and the decay has a shape.
The usual failure: The category list is too long, so people pick the first plausible entry or leave it blank. Six months later nobody can answer what the team spends its week on, and the reporting that justified the tool cannot be produced.
It is worth being precise about the difference between not started and decayed. A practice that never began needs a decision. A practice that began and slid back needs to know which week it slid, and who noticed.
What it should look like instead: Every ticket carries a category chosen from a short agreed list, set when it is logged rather than corrected at close, and the list is reviewed when the same 'other' entries keep appearing.
The measurable version of this is a score that falls between two rounds in one area while the rest hold. That is specific enough to ask three people about directly, which is how it gets fixed.
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
- Reconstructing a incident categorisation baseline from records you already have
- Why incident prioritisation stalls after go live
- Why incident ownership stalls after go live
- Why service level targets stalls after go live
- Why change approval stalls after go live