Period Comparison
Chaotic-1
Jun 28, 2026, 11:56 AM
Period Comparison
The incident management process has deteriorated, marked by a significant increase in average resolution time and process complexity, despite a minor reduction in the overall rework rate.
Overall, the incident process has deteriorated. Average resolution time increased by nearly 8% and the number of process variations grew. Although the rework rate saw a slight improvement, the time spent in key rework loops and administrative closure tasks increased significantly, indicating emerging bottlenecks.
📅 Baseline: 2025-06-28 – 2025-12-24 📅 Comparison: 2025-12-25 – 2026-06-22
▼
Overall verdict
Deteriorated
✓ Confidence: High
The verdict is driven by a statistically significant increase in the average duration (+7.7%) and a rise in process complexity via more variants (+8.9%). These negative signals outweigh the marginal improvement in the rework rate (-5.1%), as the time taken for key rework and closure transitions has increased substantially.
📊
Metric-by-Metric Comparison
Avg Duration
▼ Degraded High impact
21.95 hrs → 23.65 hrs
+1.7 hrs (+7.7%)
This is the cycle time for incidents. A significant increase means users are waiting longer for resolution, directly impacting satisfaction and productivity.
% Rework
▲ Improved Medium
60.56% → 57.49%
-3.07% (-5.1%)
This measures the percentage of tasks that loop back to a prior state. A decrease, even if small, is positive as it indicates slightly less wasted effort.
Variants
▼ Degraded Medium
45 → 49
+4 (+8.9%)
Variants represent the number of unique paths tickets take. An increase suggests the process is becoming less standardized and harder to manage or automate.
SLA Breached %
→ Unchanged Low
61.6% → 58.6%
-3.0% (-4.9%)
The percentage of incidents breaching at least one SLA. The change is marginal, suggesting quality of service against defined targets has not significantly shifted.
Avg Flow Efficiency
→ Unchanged Low
81.6% → 79.4%
-2.2% (-2.7%)
This measures the ratio of value-add 'touch' time to total duration. It has remained stable, indicating that the increase in overall duration is spread across both active work and wait times.
Work Items
→ Unchanged Low
180 → 167
-13 (-7.2%)
The total number of incidents processed provides context. The volume decreased slightly, meaning the degradation in duration is not due to higher workload.
▲
What Improved
Overall Rework Rate Decreased
% Rework 60.56% → 57.49% -3.07%
A reduction in rework suggests that, on the whole, fewer tickets require backward loops. This is a positive signal for first-time-right quality, even though the absolute rate remains high.
Faster Handling of User Responses
Awaiting User Info -> Resolved 3.74 hrs → 2.90 hrs -0.84 hrs (-22.5%)
This improvement shows that when users provide requested information, agents are acting on it more quickly to move the incident toward resolution.
▼
What Deteriorated
Cycle Time Increased Significantly
Avg Duration 21.95 hrs → 23.65 hrs +1.7 hrs (+7.7%)
This is the most critical deterioration signal. It represents a tangible slowdown in the end-to-end service delivery for incident resolution.
Re-triage Became Much Slower
Assigned -> Active (Rework) 3.91 hrs → 4.82 hrs +0.91 hrs (+23.3%)
When tickets are incorrectly assigned and sent back, the time to re-evaluate and re-assign them has increased dramatically. This points to a bottleneck in the triage or assignment group coordination process.
Administrative Closure Delays Worsened
Assigned -> Closed & Awaiting User Info -> Closed 4.04 hrs / 3.02 hrs → 5.34 hrs / 4.73 hrs +32.2% / +56.6%
The time spent on final closure steps has inflated across multiple paths. This 'administrative drag' adds to the total cycle time without contributing to the actual fix, suggesting process overhead has increased.
Process Became More Fragmented
Variants 45 → 49 +4 variants (+8.9%)
An increase in unique paths indicates less process standardization. This makes the process harder to manage, measure, and improve, and often correlates with higher support costs.
⇄
Transition Changes
⬆ Improved transitions
Awaiting User Info -> Resolved 3.74 → 2.90 hrs -0.84
⬇ Deteriorated transitions
Awaiting User Info -> Closed 3.02 → 4.73 hrs +1.71
Assigned -> Active 3.91 → 4.82 hrs +0.91
Assigned -> Closed 4.04 → 5.34 hrs +1.30
New in comparison period
Resolved - Closed
Absent in comparison period
Work in Progress - Assigned
Rework volume shift: The overall rework rate improved slightly. However, the volume of tickets going into the 'Pending User' state increased, while the volume of rework from 'Work in Progress' back to 'Active' decreased.
⋯
Workflow Path Changes
Variants — baseline
45
Rework share: 36.4%
Variants — comparison
49 ▼ +4
Rework share: 36.1%
Process structure remains stable, with the same dominant 'happy path'. However, the 8.9% increase in variant count indicates a growing number of exceptions and deviations, making the process less predictable and more fragmented.
💡
What Likely Drove the Changes
Increased Administrative Overhead for Closure
✓ Confidence: High
A new policy or quality check may have been introduced for closing incidents, leading to longer times in terminal steps. The appearance of the 'Resolved -> Closed' transition with a 3.77 hour duration strongly supports the idea of a formal, time-consuming administrative stage before final closure.
Increased duration of 'Assigned -> Closed' (+32.2%), 'Awaiting User Info -> Closed' (+56.6%), and the new 'Resolved -> Closed' transition.
Triage & Reassignment Inefficiency
✓ Confidence: Moderate
The process for handling incorrectly assigned tickets has become less efficient. This could be due to changes in team responsibilities, tooling, or knowledge gaps, causing delays when a ticket is sent back to the 'Active' queue for re-evaluation.
The 23.3% increase in the average duration of the 'Assigned -> Active' rework transition.
Growing Process Complexity from Edge Cases
✓ Confidence: Low
The increase in process variants may be caused by new or more complex types of incidents that do not follow the standard workflow, forcing agents to create ad-hoc paths. This fragmentation makes the process less efficient overall.
The number of variants increased from 45 to 49.
→
What Stayed the Same
→
Flow Efficiency ~80%
The ratio of active work time to total time remained consistent. This indicates that the increased duration is not solely due to longer wait times, but is also present in active work states.
→
Dominant Process Path New -> Active -> Assigned -> Work in Progress -> Closed
The primary 'happy path' for incidents has not changed in frequency or sequence, showing that the core intended workflow is stable.
→
Workload 180 vs 167 tasks
The volume of work was slightly lower in the comparison period, confirming that the performance degradation was not caused by an increase in demand.