Automation, when used the right way, has the capability to streamline every aspect of IT operations, including the way organizations handle major incident management. However, automation alone is not enough when it comes to managing complex and high-risk incidents, because effective incident management demands the synergy of people, processes, and intelligent automation. This article will cover both the benefits of automated major incident management and the challenges that remain for organizations when it comes to resolving major incidents, plus how to bridge the gap between automation and human expertise to reduce mean time to resolution (MTTR).
What is automated major incident management?
Automated major incident management software uses predefined workflows, AI, and integrations to automate key processes during a critical incident to speed up resolution, improve collaboration, and provide transparency. It reduces manual effort for tasks such as alert triage, task assignment, and communication. This approach enhances consistency, reduces errors, and provides a clear, auditable record for post-incident review and continuous improvement, ultimately reducing the MTTR for significant service disruptions.
Why automation alone isn’t enough
While automation is a powerful asset, there are several factors that continue to make major incident management challenging, and problems that automation alone cannot solve.
Human judgment in high-stakes decisions
While automation can flag an issue and even execute a pre-defined fix, it lacks the human judgment required for nuanced decision making. In a complex outage, an experienced major incident manager is essential for making informed decisions under pressure and understanding the broader business impact of a problem. Bringing together automation, human expertise, and AI capabilities such as AI agents, provides the balance between speeding up resolution and ensuring control and visibility.
Complex infrastructure and hybrid environments
Today’s enterprise tech stacks are incredibly intricate, often comprising on-premises systems, multiple public clouds, and legacy applications. As a result, major incident management processes need to constantly evolve to keep pace with the increasing complexity of the environments that may be impacted.
Cross-team communication and collaboration
Major incidents require a coordinated effort from multiple teams. Without a clear, established communication framework, a lack of communication can cause significant delays and mistakes. The right automation tools can facilitate faster mobilization and clearer communications but only with the right strategies and procedures in place to make them effective.
Inconsistent documentation
Even the most advanced automation tools rely on accurate and up-to-date information. In a fast-paced environment, keeping technical documentation and recovery procedures current can be a huge challenge. Inconsistent or outdated information can derail an automated major incident management response, forcing teams to fall back on manual processes.
Common gaps in the major incident management process
Understanding the broader context of why automation isn’t enough highlights some of the common gaps that organizations face with their current incident management process. For more information on these issues, you can learn about common major incident management challenges.
Slow mobilization
Many organizations struggle with slow mobilization due to fragmented communication channels and outdated notification systems. Key responders may not be alerted in a timely manner or might be difficult to reach, leading to serious delays in forming the incident response team. What's more, the lack of a centralized command center or predefined roles can cause confusion and hesitation, as team members waste valuable time figuring out who is in charge and what their responsibilities are. This sluggish start to the response effort can significantly extend the duration of an incident and escalate its impact.
Poor visibility and tracking
A lack of real-time visibility is a common and significant challenge in major incident management. When relying on disjointed tools and chats, there is no single, unified view of the incident, leading to missed steps, delays, and difficulty understanding progress.
Interruptions from stakeholders mid-response
When the response team is frequently interrupted by a constant stream of inquiries from stakeholders who are anxious for updates, it takes their focus away from the key process of resolving the incident.
Manual, repetitive processes
Many organizations still rely on manual, repetitive processes for incident management. From manually sending out notifications and creating conference bridges to documenting actions and updating status pages, these tasks are time consuming and prone to human error. The cognitive load of juggling these administrative duties while also trying to solve a complex problem can overwhelm responders.
Slow and inaccurate post-incident review
The post-incident review (PIR) is a valuable opportunity to learn and improve, but it is often hampered by slow and inaccurate data collection. Without automated logging of actions, decisions, and timelines, responders must rely on their memory and fragmented notes to piece together what happened. This manual process is time-consuming and can lead to a distorted or incomplete understanding of the incident's root cause and the effectiveness of the response. As a result, valuable lessons are lost, and regulatory reporting becomes a laborious process.
The role of people and processes in successful incident response
Despite the necessity for automation and AI, human oversight and expertise remain essential for effective incident response.
- Experienced incident responders and engineers are still essential for identifying root causes and making informed decisions. Automation can get you a long way, but it's the human in the loop who can think creatively and solve problems that fall outside of a predefined script.
- Clearly-defined roles and escalation paths are foundational. Everyone on the team needs to know who is in charge, what their specific responsibilities are, and who to escalate to if a problem is beyond their scope.
- Collaboration tools and communication standards are key complements to automation. They ensure that all teams are aligned and working together seamlessly.
Aligning automation with business impact
To be truly effective, automation must be aligned with business impact. Instead of simply automating a task, organizations should focus on automating outcomes. This means understanding which systems are mission-critical and prioritizing the automated response to guarantee that business-critical services are restored first. By connecting technical automation to business context, organizations can move from simply reacting to an issue to intelligently managing a crisis.
A new layer in the automation stack with Cutover automated runbooks
This is where a new approach to automation is needed. Automated runbooks provide a new layer in the automation stack, bridging the gap between disparate tools and human-in-the-loop decisions. These runbooks are not just scripts; they are intelligent, dynamic guides that can orchestrate complex, cross-functional processes.
Unlike traditional scripts that are rigid and linear, runbook automation software can adapt to real-time events, incorporating both automated actions and human-led steps. They provide a single pane of glass for all recovery efforts, from the automated restoration of services to the execution of a communication plan. This unique capability is key to tackling the complexity that traditional automation struggles with.
By combining the speed of automation with the flexibility and oversight of a human-led workflow, automated major incident management becomes more robust and resilient, ensuring that teams can effectively respond to any challenge, no matter how complex.
Find out more about Cutover for major incident management.