A service provider is struggling to meet the incident resolution objectives for some incidents. Reports generated by the service management tools show that the resolution time is often longer than…

Question

Options

• AReview the incident resolution targets
• BReview the change enablement practice
• CReview the incident management practice
• DReview the incident resolution value stream

• A
  19% (7)
• B
  30% (11)
• C
  8% (3)
• D
  43% (16)

Explanation

Reviewing the incident resolution value stream is correct because the delays span three distinct scenarios involving different teams and practices (change enablement, software development, and external suppliers). A value stream analysis examines the end-to-end flow of work across all contributing activities and handoffs, making it the right tool when problems are cross-functional rather than isolated to one practice.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A (Review targets): Changing the SLA targets just moves the goalposts - it addresses the measurement, not the cause of the delays.
• B (Review change enablement): This only covers one of the three problem scenarios; the dev team and supplier delays would remain unresolved.
• C (Review incident management): The incident management practice itself isn't the bottleneck - the delays come from interactions with other teams and processes, which sit outside that practice's scope.

Memory tip: When a performance problem spans multiple practices or teams, think value stream - it's the lens for cross-functional, end-to-end issues. If only one practice were involved, reviewing that practice alone would suffice. Three different causes = look at the whole flow.

No community discussion yet for this question.