PRIORITIZING PROBLEMS IN IT SERVICES
In an embodiment, the invention provides a method of prioritizing problems in IT services. The method comprises determining a plurality of N problems. An incident cost, a workaround cost, an expected resolution cost, and a total cost for each of the N problems is determined. A priority is assigned to each of the N problems such that each priority has an expected resolution time. The priorities are assigned such that the total cost for fixing all N problems is lower than any other selection of priorities.
1 . A method of prioritizing problems in IT services comprising:
determining a plurality of N problems;
determining an incident cost I n for each of the N problems;
determining a workaround cost W n for each of the N problems;
assigning a plurality of P priorities wherein each priority p has an expected resolution time d p ;
determining a number V n,p of occurrences of each N problem for each priority p;
determining an expected resolution cost, C n,p for fixing each of the N problems;
assigning a priority p from the plurality of P priorities for each of the N problems such that a cost for fixing all N problems is lower than any other selection of priorities from the plurality of P priorities for each of the N problems.
2 . The method of claim 1 wherein a total cost R n,p for each of the N problems is proportional to:
V n,p *( I n +W p )+ C n,p .
3 . The method of claim 1 wherein a first problem from the plurality of N problems is selected from a group consisting of a hardware fault, a configuration error, and a software conflict.
4 . The method of claim 1 wherein a first expected resolution time is selected from a group consisting of a service level agreement and historical data.
5 . The method of claim 1 wherein a first incident cost is selected from a group consisting of a penalty defined by a service agreement and a loss business.
6 . The method of claim 1 wherein the expected resolution cost C n,p for fixing a hardware fault comprises:
a first cost of a hardware engineer to replace faulty hardware with functional hardware;
a second cost of a test engineer to verify that the functional hardware does not create faults;
a third cost of a support engineer to release hardware changes into production.
7 . The method of claim 1 wherein the expected resolution cost C n,p for fixing a software conflict includes:
a first cost of a software engineer to write software changes;
a second cost of a test engineer to verify that quality assurance requirements are meet;
a third cost of a support engineer to release the software changes into production.
8 . An apparatus for prioritizing problems in IT services comprising:
at least one computer readable medium; and
a computer readable program code stored on said at least one computer readable medium, said computer readable program code comprising instructions for:
storing an incident cost I N for each of N problems;
storing a workaround cost W N for each of the N problems;
storing a plurality of P priorities wherein each priority p has an expected resolution time d p ;
storing a number V N,P of occurrences of each the N problems for each priority p;
storing an expected cost C n,p for fixing each of the N problems;
assigning a priority from the plurality of P priorities for each of the N problems such that a cost for fixing all N problems is lower than any other assignment of priorities from the plurality of P priorities for each of the N problems.
9 . The apparatus of claim 8 further comprising:
calculating a cost R n,p for each of the N problems wherein R n,p is proportional to:
V n,p *( I n +W n )+ C n,p
10 . A method of scheduling an order of resolution of problems in IT services comprising:
determining a plurality of N problems;
determining an incident cost I n for each of the N problems;
determining a workaround cost W n for each of the N problems;
determining an expected resolution cost, C n,p for fixing each of the N problems;
scheduling an order of resolution for each of the N problems based on the incident cost I n , the workaround cost W n , and the expected resolution cost C n,p .
11 . The method of claim 10 wherein the order of resolution for each of the N problems begins with a first problem with the highest total cost C t followed by the remaining problems in descending order of total cost C t .
12 . The method of claim 10 wherein the order of resolution for each of the N problems begins with a first problem with lowest total cost C t followed by the remaining problems in ascending order of total cost C t .
13 . The method of claim 10 further comprising:
determining constraints which exit between human resources that are required to solve the N problems;
wherein the order of resolution for each of the N problems is further based on the constraints which exit between human resources that are required to solve the N problems.
14 . The method of claim 10 further comprising:
determining constraints which exist due to dependencies of other resources between each of the N problems;
wherein the order of resolution for each of the N problems is further based on the constraints which exist due to dependencies of other resources between each of the N problems.
15 . The method of claim 14 wherein the other resources are selected from a group consisting of software and hardware.