I have quiet frequently come across queries where I have been asked "what would be the involvement of a Service Level Manager in Incident Management?"
Predominantly following two views were put forth to me:
1) Service Level Manager is accountable and Incident Manager is responsible for incident resolution.
2) Service Level Manager is accountable as well as responsible for incident resolution.
I have a different view on this.
Incident Management process is owned by incident manager. So ensuring timely resolution of incidents is the accountability of incident manager and responsibility of its resolution lies with various support teams.
Service Level Manager is accountable for reporting the SLA and ensuring that the SLAs are met. Responsibility of its adherence would lie with the concerned process managers.
Thus, in case of an incident following would hold true:
1) Service Level Manager is 'Accountable' for SLA adherence
2) Incident Manager is 'Responsible' for SLA adherence
3) Incident Manager is 'Accountable' for incident resolution
4) Functional/technical teams are 'Responsible' for incident resolution
The escalation matrix ensures that after a certain time, if unresolved, incident is escalated to service level manager as well. This does not mean that accountability of incident resolution shifts to service level managers. Their involvement is triggered because accountability of SLA being breached lies with them. Co-ordination of various teams and ensuring that incident is resolved is managed by incident manager. In such a situation Service Level Managers involvement is predominantly "Consultive".
However, since in most of the organizations, individual in a Service Level Manager role is senior to the individual in Incident Manager role in hierarchy, their involvement in incident resolution changes from 'consulting' to 'managing'. This does not mean that Service Level Manager becomes accountable for incident resolution. Actually, in such a situation that individual is wearing the hat of 'Incident Manager'.
Predominantly following two views were put forth to me:
1) Service Level Manager is accountable and Incident Manager is responsible for incident resolution.
2) Service Level Manager is accountable as well as responsible for incident resolution.
I have a different view on this.
Incident Management process is owned by incident manager. So ensuring timely resolution of incidents is the accountability of incident manager and responsibility of its resolution lies with various support teams.
Service Level Manager is accountable for reporting the SLA and ensuring that the SLAs are met. Responsibility of its adherence would lie with the concerned process managers.
Thus, in case of an incident following would hold true:
1) Service Level Manager is 'Accountable' for SLA adherence
2) Incident Manager is 'Responsible' for SLA adherence
3) Incident Manager is 'Accountable' for incident resolution
4) Functional/technical teams are 'Responsible' for incident resolution
The escalation matrix ensures that after a certain time, if unresolved, incident is escalated to service level manager as well. This does not mean that accountability of incident resolution shifts to service level managers. Their involvement is triggered because accountability of SLA being breached lies with them. Co-ordination of various teams and ensuring that incident is resolved is managed by incident manager. In such a situation Service Level Managers involvement is predominantly "Consultive".
However, since in most of the organizations, individual in a Service Level Manager role is senior to the individual in Incident Manager role in hierarchy, their involvement in incident resolution changes from 'consulting' to 'managing'. This does not mean that Service Level Manager becomes accountable for incident resolution. Actually, in such a situation that individual is wearing the hat of 'Incident Manager'.
No comments:
Post a Comment