People don’t seem to take the ITIL PIR concept seriously. Reviewing changes and projects are like hated exam papers. When they are turned in, no one wants to look at them again, regardless of grade or outcome.

But the PIR is an opportunity to learn and to avoid repeat mistakes thereby freeing capacity. And isn?t the lack of capacity one of the chief complaints from your staff?

So if you agree, your next question will probably be how to institutionalize the PIR into a formal component and ensure that the feedback loop is not broken?

The PIR needs to be owned by the original authorizing agent, typically the CAB. The rational is that people or teams who authorize something are accountable for the results.

Individual performance should include PIR contributions bonus points for identifying good corrective action, penalties for repeat failures. Plus it?s a concrete and easy metric to track.

Changes can be 1) bundled for efficiency or 2) setting a risk threshold for when a PIR is required. So you can?t use the excuse there?s too many to review.

Enabling workflow technology is needed (please don?t build your own) so the process will be enforced.

Yes and I have to say it, IT leaders (i.e. not managers) must expect improvement and reward individuals who help avoid repeat mistakes. If you only reward staff by solving 911’s then when will you ever stop to sharpen the saw?

Download Evergreen’s free Change Management Policies and Procedures Guide