Incident team declares "service restores" but i di

[Diarmid]

Boris,

this is where I'm supposed to cringe because you have taken the moral high ground of the "real world" and I should quickly reassure everybody that I too subscribe to "service is king".

In case I have not made myself clear, I am not disputing that it was correct to restore service with the chosen workaround, I am questioning whether the organization collectively knew that it was correct at the time it did it, or, to put it another way, whether the management system is sufficiently robust to protect service.

The difference between

"appropriate resolutions would not include anything that adversely impacts online service"
and
"appropriate resolutions would not include anything that adversely impacts system security"

is one of context. And the reality is that balance is required.

Had this incident been dealt with appropriately, then the security team would have been focussing on the problem resolution much in the way that John suggested, rather than breathing down the problem manager's neck and the problem manager would already be overseeing/co-ordinating this activity.

The serial approval described is not certain to be "appropriate" because tentative decisions gather momentum and this distorts risk assessment in areas subsequently considered.
_________________
"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

[BorisBear]