Why incident prioritisation stalls after go live
It rarely stops all at once. It decays, and the decay has a shape.
The usual failure: Everything becomes high priority within a quarter, usually because the only way to get attention is to escalate. The scale stops carrying information and the team goes back to working by whoever shouts.
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: 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.
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
- Why incident categorisation stalls after go live
- How to measure incident prioritisation adoption after an implementation
- Reconstructing a incident prioritisation baseline from records you already have
- Why incident ownership stalls after go live
- Why service level targets stalls after go live
- Why change approval stalls after go live