Incident management tools are often built for engineers to solve technical issues. On the surface, thinking of incident management as an engineering problem makes sense, and it’s an approach that’s widely used by many organizations from small startups to large enterprises. When there's a problem like a checkout page failure or a server crash, it’s natural for engineers to spring into action, declaring and resolving these incidents.
Build or buy? An age-old decision that gets made dozens of times a year. It’s quite possibly one of the most important decisions you make as an company. It impacts roadmaps, productivity, team structure, and customer satisfaction (you know, just a few little things). There are a lot of factors to consider, one of the most prominent being cost. So, what exactly are the costs you need to consider when building your own incident management solution?
You've just made it through a particularly tough incident. It was a short outage affecting a subset of customers, so not exactly the end of the world, but bad enough that it involved multiple people across a number of teams to resolve. Either way, the incident was well managed, and the dust has settled. Now what? Most guidance would say that putting together a post-mortem document is a good idea, given the severity of the incident. You've also done this, so what's next?
No one wants to be on the receiving end of the blame game—especially in the wake of a major incident. Sure, you know you were the one who made the final change that caused the incident. And hopefully, it was a small one that didn’t cause any SEV-1s. Still, the weight of knowing you caused something bad should be enough, right? Unfortunately, sometimes fingers get pointed, your name gets called, and suddenly, everyone knows that you’re the person who created more work for everyone.
If you’re just starting out in the world of incident response, then you’ve probably come across the phrase “post-mortem” at least once or twice. And if you’re a seasoned incident responder, the phrase probably invokes mixed feelings. Just to clarify, here, we’re talking about post-mortem documents, not meetings. It’s a distinction we have to make since lots of teams use the phrase to refer to the meeting they have after an incident.
We recently moved our infrastructure fully into Google Cloud. Most things went very smoothly, but there was one issue we came across last week that just wouldn’t stop cropping up. What follows is a tale of rabbit holes, red herrings, table flips and (eventually) a very satisfying smoking gun. Grab a cuppa, and strap in. Our journey starts, fittingly, with an incident getting declared... 💥🚨
A few months ago we announced Status Pages – the most delightful way to keep customers up-to-date about ongoing incidents. We built them because we realized that there was a disconnect between what customers needed to know about incidents, and how easily accessible this information was. For example: As we built them, we focused on designing a solution that powered crystal-clear communication, without the overhead — all beautifully integrated into incident.io.
As consumers, we expect the products and software we buy to work 100% of the time. Unfortunately, that’s impossible. Even the most reliable products and services experience some disruption in service. Crashes, bugs, timeouts. There are a ton of contributing factors, so it's impossible to distill disruptions down to a single cause. That said, technology is becoming more and more sophisticated, and so is the infrastructure that supports it.
Sometimes, two concepts overlap so much that it’s hard to view them in isolation. Today, incident management and problem management fit this description to a tee. This wasn’t always the case. For a long time, these two ITIL concepts were seen as distinct—with specialized roles overseeing each. Incident management existed in one corner and problem management in the other. Then came the DevOps movement and the lines suddenly became blurred. So where do they stand today?
