Loading
With three distinctions. Incident: restore service. Problem: find and remove the cause. Change: control what you alter deliberately.
Those three cost nothing to adopt and change how a team works. The rest of the framework is appropriate at scale and crushing below it.
Incidents restore service and may close with a workaround. Where one recurs, affects many people or was resolved with a workaround, a problem record holds the cause with its own owner.
Linked incidents make the cost of that cause visible — twelve incidents at two hours each is a number that gets a fix prioritised where a description never does.
It will not make you compliant with anything, and it is not a certification. It is a set of distinctions applied to your own work.
And a full change advisory board below a certain scale costs more than the outages it prevents.
The same fault stops recurring monthly, because there is somewhere to put the cause and somebody who owns it.
And change records answer "what changed" in a minute when something breaks, which on its own justifies the process more reliably than any approval workflow.
No. Adopt the distinctions rather than the programme.
When it recurs, affects many, or was closed with a workaround.
No. Standard changes need a record, not an approval.
We will run it end to end on your own numbers in half an hour, and tell you honestly which parts Treepie does not improve.