Why service level targets stalls after go live
It rarely stops all at once. It decays, and the decay has a shape.
The usual failure: Targets are configured once during implementation and never looked at. Nobody can say whether performance improved, so the investment case cannot be closed out.
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: Targets are agreed with the people who depend on the service, measured automatically, and reviewed when they are missed rather than quietly reset.
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
- Why incident prioritisation stalls after go live
- Why incident ownership stalls after go live
- How to measure service level targets adoption after an implementation
- Reconstructing a service level targets baseline from records you already have
- Why change approval stalls after go live