Skip to main content

Incidents when a Defect is Involved

Question: We currently track defects in a separate system than our ticket management system. With that said, my question is does anyone have suggestions and/or best practices on how to handle incidents when a defect is involved? Should the incident be closed since the defect is being worked on in another defect tracking system if it is noted in the incident ticket?
I am considering creating an incident status of 'closed-unresolved' so the incident can still be reported on in our ticket management system but know it is being worked on/tracked in the defect system.
With defects, it is possible that we may never work on them because they are very low priority and the impact is low to the user. However, in some cases a defect is being worked on. Should we create a problem ticket instead?
Thanks, René W.

Answer: René. In ITIL, the activity you are describing is handled by the Problem Management process. ITIL does not use the term “defect” but it does use the term “known error” to describe a problem that has a documented root cause and a workaround. A “problem” is the cause of one or more incidents. It is understood that you may not know the cause of a known error or have a workaround initially. ITIL suggests creating known error records “as soon as it becomes useful to do so.” What’s important to keep in mind is that a known error record, like any other record, can have any number of statuses. For example, a known error record could have a status of “detected” when it is first logged. A status of “informational” could be used to reflect that the known error is being investigated but neither a workaround nor a root cause has been identified. A status of “diagnosed” could mean you know the cause but do not yet have a workaround. A status of “resolved” could mean you have both a documented root cause and a workaround. A status of “closed” could mean that you’ve implemented a permanent resolution via the Change Management process. It’s up to your organization to define statuses as needed to reflect the activities within your Problem Management process. An important benefit of logging and tracking known errors is a reduction in the time it takes to handle incidents. Whether the decision is made during testing to release something with known errors into the production environment, or the errors are detected after the system/application is live, the known errors should be logged and made available to Incident Management so that any recurrences can be more quickly diagnosed and fixed. Without such an interface, it is likely that you’ll waste effort re-diagnosing and re-resolving incidents. As you are suggesting, you can also define statuses within Incident Management that reflect the relationship between problems/known errors and incidents. For example, some organizations use a status of “resolved” when a workaround is delivered to “stop the clock” relative to service level reporting and to reflect the fact that service has been restored to the customer. These organizations often have a field or a link that they use to point to the actual known error record to minimize the rekeying of details. Some then use a status of “closed” to indicate the customer is satisfied. A status of “closed-unresolved” could be used; however, you would still want to ensure that your customer is satisfied with the information or workaround that you have provided. You would also still want to be able to report on those incidents as the number and impact of those incidents should, over time, influence how you are prioritizing the handling of your problems/known errors. I hope this helps Rene. Please let us know if you have additional questions.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Four Service Characteristics

Recently I came across several articles by researchers and experts that laid out definitions and characteristics of services. ITIL provides us with a definition that can help drive the creation of value-laden services: A means of delivering value to customers by facilitating outcomes customers want to achieve without the ownership of specific costs and risks. An area that ITIL is not so clear is in terms of service characteristics. Several researchers and experts put forth that services have four basic characteristics (IHIP): Intangibility—Services are the results of actions not things. They have no physical presence and represent a logical set of elements. One way to think of service is “work done for others.”  Heterogeneity—Also known as “variability”; services are unique items because of the mechanisms used to deliver services, which is people. Because the people element adds variability, the service is variable. This holds true, especially for the value proposition—not eve...

What Is A Service Offering?

The ITIL 4 Best Practice Guidance defines a “Service Offering” as a description of one or more services designed to address the needs of a target customer or group.   As a service provider, we can’t stop there!   We must know what the contracts of our service offering are and be able to put them into context as required by the customer.     Let’s explore the three elements that comprise a Service Offering. A “Service Offering” may include:     Goods, Access to Resources, and Service Actions 1. Goods – When we think of “Goods” within a service offering these are the items where ownership is transferred to the consumer and the consumer takes responsibility for the future use of these goods.   Example of goods that are being provided in the offering – If this is a hotel service then toiletries or chocolates are yours to take with you.   You the consumer own these and they are yours to take with you.      ...

What is the difference between Process Owner, Process Manager and Process Practitioner?

This article was originally published in 2015. With the Introduction of ITIL 4, some of this best practice has changed. See  ITIL 4 and the Evolving Role of Roles . Updated Definitions in ITIL 4: Process Owner: In ITIL 4, the concept of 'processes' has expanded into broader 'practices.' Consequently, the Process Owner is now often referred to as the 'Practice Owner.' This individual is accountable for the overall design, performance, integration, and improvement of a specific practice within the organization. They ensure that the practice achieves its intended outcomes and aligns with the organization's objectives. Process Manager: Now commonly known as the 'Practice Manager' in ITIL 4, this role is responsible for the day-to-day management of the practice. The Practice Manager ensures that activities are carried out as intended, manages resources assigned to the practice, and oversees the practitioners performing the work. Process Practit...