A service provider is struggling to ensure timely incident resolution. The reports show that the majority of incidents that can be resolved without implementing a change are resolved on time…

Question

Options

• AReview the incident resolution targets
• BReview the incident resolution value stream
• CReview the change authorization procedures
• DReview the incident management process

• A
  3% (1)
• B
  70% (21)
• C
  17% (5)
• D
  10% (3)

Explanation

Reviewing the incident resolution value stream is correct because the problem clearly spans two processes - incident management and change management - and only a value stream analysis captures the full end-to-end flow, including handoffs, delays, and coordination gaps between them. Since incidents without changes resolve on time, the incident management process itself is working; the breakdown occurs at the boundary where a change is needed, which is a value stream problem, not a single-process problem.

Why the distractors fail:

• A (Review resolution targets): Adjusting targets masks the problem rather than fixing it - you'd simply be accepting slower resolution as the new norm.
• C (Review change authorization procedures): Too narrow. Authorization may be one bottleneck, but the delay could stem from handoff gaps, prioritization failures, or communication breakdowns elsewhere in the flow - none of which authorization review would surface.
• D (Review incident management process): The data tells you incident management works - incidents without changes resolve on time. The process isn't the problem; the cross-process integration is.

Memory tip: When a problem only appears at the intersection of two processes, the answer is always the value stream - it's the only lens wide enough to see the full picture, including what happens between processes, not just within them.

No community discussion yet for this question.