Your thoughts around "Routine" Emergency Changes?

[JuanChange]

We have a support group within our organization that periodically performs emergency changes to replace faulty disk drives in our storage arrays. They do these 3-4 times a week and is adversely impacting our metrics of keeping the emergency volume to a minimum.

We, the Change Management team consider these as valid emergency changes but the support group consider these as routine and reactionary changes that when performed, pose no risk. The risk comes if they are not performed in a timely manner, data might get lost and we lose the redundancy. The support team wants us to re-categorize their routine emergency change as a normal change so our metrics are not impacted by their Emergency changes.

What do you guys think would be a viable solution? I have several ideas roaming around but based on our definition of an Emergency changes, which is basically the standard ITIL definition, their reactionary changes would still be Emergencies. They just don't want to get penalized for having such high number of E-CRQs.

By the way, re-aligning our emergency metric is not an option.
Thank you.

[UKVIKING]

one

there should be no such thing as Routine emergency changes

second, the fact that the fault leads to an emergency h/w fix is a fault restoration and if the work has to be done quickly and your CM policy has such h/w work as changes, then the work is an emergency

Third, the ticket classification is correct

foruth the issue is not the classification forCM but the fact that the storage environment is poor.

Cease worrying about the statitistics

Worry more about the shitty storage environment.... and escalate this to your management
_________________
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter

[JScratch]

agreed, the words routine and emergency should not be used together in relation to CM.
_________________
Josh - Senior Change Manager - Minnesota