Incident Analysis: The failure in the finance system was caused by an unauthorized change implemented by a NETSCO engineer. This indicates a gap in the emergency change management process.
Service Improvement: Creating a service improvement initiative focused on the treatment of emergency changes addresses the root cause of the issue and prevents future occurrences.
Process Enhancement: This initiative should involve reviewing and strengthening the emergency change management process, including clear guidelines, authorization procedures, and training for engineers.
Alternative Actions:
Imposing service credits (Option B) addresses the symptom (service level failure) but not the underlying process issue.
Informing NETSCO management (Option C) alone is insufficient to drive systemic change.
Introducing a service level target on unauthorized changes (Option D) adds a monitoring mechanism but does not directly improve the change management process.
Conclusion: The most appropriate course of action is to create a service improvement initiative for emergency changes. This proactive approach enhances the overall change management process and reduces the risk of similar issues in the future.
Reference:
SIAM Foundation Body of Knowledge (BoK), Chapter on Change Management
SIAM Professional Body of Knowledge (BoK), Service Improvement and Emergency Change Management Sections