Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: CHG vs. INC
I have seen many times the KPI: "#of INCs resulting from RfCs" in order to assess and to steer the CHG process performance.
Valid point in theory but right now I'm asking myself how do other companies get a clear picture of the incidents which come from lets say inproper implemented RfCs?
In our company we have different tools for CHG and INC and I find it pretty hard to bring INC and changes together in one picuture. Maybe there is a good and easy way to figure out which incidents belong to certain change requests.
Joined: Oct 07, 2007 Posts: 441 Location: Jakarta, INA
Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 12:44 am Post subject:
I guess an incident could not be associated directly at first level with a particular RFC. It needs investigation and cannot be done automatically.
In my office, an incident that after investigation was found out as a result of improper change will be informed to Change Management, and Change Management will bring it to the PIR Meeting, Change Manager will add one to the related KPI manually.
If it caused a medium and high severity level, an emergency RFC would be raised to fall back.
Joined: Mar 04, 2008 Posts: 1884 Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme
Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject:
of course it is not only poor implementations that lead to incidents. The change could have been implemented perfectly, but it then unmasked an unforeseen consequence for example. In that case it is the analysis and specification for the change that leads to issues. _________________ "Method goes far to prevent trouble in business: for it makes the task easy, hinders confusion, saves abundance of time, and instructs those that have business depending, both what to do and what to hope."
William Penn 1644-1718
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum