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