What are the common challenges and risks of closing problems prematurely or late?

Agreed on the missed opportunities there on the Premature closure of the problem, We potentially having the window open for the future incidents. It certainly lacks the professionalism, the entire basis of the service agreements and the huge dent on the performance of the teams.

Again, when it comes to the closure of a problem the word mitigation or efforts to mitigate should not be used or even in the thought process. The definition of mitigation is “to make less severe or painful”. This is great for a work around to help lessen the impact of associated incidents but the goal of closing problems is to eliminate permanently the root cause.

1. Incomplete Resolution: Risk: The underlying issues may not be fully addressed, leading to recurring incidents and unsatisfied users Challenge: Rushing to close a problem without thoroughly investigating and resolving the root cause may result in temporary fixes that don't address the core issue 2. Customer Dissatisfaction: Risk: Users may experience repeated disruptions, causing frustration and dissatisfaction Challenge: Premature closure can lead to a perception of negligence and a lack of commitment to resolving issues, eroding trust with customers 3. Escalation of Problems: Risk: Unresolved issues may escalate into more significant problems over time Challenge: Closing a PRB too early may overlook potential connections to big issues

1. Extended Downtime: Risk: Delayed problem resolution can result in extended downtime for affected services. Challenge: Prolonged disruptions can negatively impact business operations, leading to financial losses and reduced productivity. 2. Escalation of Costs: Risk: The longer a problem remains open, the higher the associated costs may become. Challenge: Delayed resolutions can result in increased expenses related to incident management, potentially straining the IT budget. 3. Impact on SLA Compliance: Risk: Extended problem resolution times may lead to non-compliance with service level agreements (SLAs). Challenge: IT service providers may face penalties or damaged relationships with customers if SLA commitments are consistently not met

I would like to add to the Late closure Challenges and Risks, When the Problem Record is closed later than it need to, It skews the metrics pretty badly, and also even takes away the concentration & time of the teams from focusing on the next task at hand.

Problem Management is not an external facing practice so CSAT should not be that big of an issue as long as your Incident practice is performing well. The key is to status open Problems on a regular basis and give feedback to the IT Stakeholders accordingly. If you keep up with regular reviews and feedback then closing at the appropriate time will occur. The main thing is to make sure that the fix actually did what it was supposed to do. Repeat problems show an ineffective problem practice

I'd like to contribute to the discussion on challenges and risks associated with late closure. When a problem record is closed later than necessary, it significantly distorts metrics and detracts the team's focus and time from the next task at hand. Prolonged problem resolution durations could result in failing to meet service level agreements (SLAs). Challenge: IT service providers risk facing penalties or harming relationships with customers due to consistent failure to meet SLA commitments.

If you’re measuring the mean time from one step to another in the process as a performance metric e.g from fix implemented to close, the stats won’t be representative of the actual performance leading to a risk of reputational damage to the team.

Effective problem management requires strict adherence to closure criteria and guidelines. At White Internet, we mitigate the risks associated with premature or delayed problem closure by aligning our processes with IT service level agreements. Our criteria are comprehensive, ensuring problems are not only resolved but verified by stakeholders. This includes confirming that the root cause is identified, incidents are unlikely to reoccur, and all relevant information is updated in our records. Following closure, we communicate the resolution, root cause, and lessons learned to all stakeholders. This systematic approach enhances transparency and maintains trust, while also improving our problem management practices.

A clear well defined criteria, may be a measurable metrics, like deployment of the fix in production, or for latency issues, maintaining the constant speed of XX-YY for a week, should be thought out in the problem records. This helps to eliminate the early closure or the late closure risks of problems. The problem management Team also to ensure they are on top the root cause fixes and conduct the follow up meetings to understand problems in the mitigation efforts.

To address these challenges and risks, it's crucial to implement effective problem management processes, conduct thorough root cause analyses, prioritize problems based on impact and urgency, and ensure timely and transparent communication with users and stakeholders. Regular review and improvement of problem management practices can help strike the right balance between closing problems promptly and ensuring lasting resolutions.

While deciding on problem closure, an important thing to keep in mind is the probability of reoccurrence and risk associated. This can be attained by understanding the relationship between the criticality of the product feature/service impacted, and the current controls that are in place. We can also use FMEA tool to determine this - severity x occurrence x detection before and after having the controls put in place. If the risk is low, the problem is good to close. If it's medium and high, we need a deeper analysis of detection/quick remediation/root cause identification at occurrence and evaluation of the preventive controls suggested.

Closing problems prematurely can lead to unresolved issues resurfacing later, risking safety and efficiency. For instance, in offshore wind projects, premature closure on cable insulation quality may lead to corrosion, causing failures. Conversely, delaying closure increases costs and project timelines. In battery storage, overlooking safety protocols could lead to hazardous incidents. In grid code compliance studies, early closure might miss critical data, impacting long-term performance. Timing is crucial to ensure optimal outcomes and mitigate risks in renewable energy ventures.