Service
Artificial Intelligence
Building a Smarter, Connected Tomorrow with AI-first and Agentic AI
Highlights
- This white paper argues that persistent inefficiencies in Application Maintenance Services (AMS) are driven less by tooling or detection gaps and more by unstructured decision-making during incident resolution, particularly under time pressure and operational uncertainty.
- It demonstrates how applying choice architecture reframes incident resolution as a structured decision system, making resolution options, trade-offs, and context explicit while preserving human judgment and flexibility.
- It shows that by improving decision quality rather than just execution speed, AMS organisations can achieve faster resolution, greater consistency, reduced dependency on individual expertise, and stronger governance outcomes.
On this page
On this pageinpage
THE HIDDEN BOTTLENECK IN AMS: DECISIONS, NOT TOOLS
Application Maintenance Services play a critical role in ensuring business continuity, yet incident resolution remains one of the least evolved aspects of enterprise IT operations. While detection, monitoring, and ticketing have matured significantly, the act of deciding how to resolve incidents has not kept pace. Most improvements in AMS over the past decade have focused on tools, automation, and execution speed. These efforts deliver diminishing returns when resolution decisions themselves remain unstructured and experience dependent.
This paper proposes a shift in perspective. Incident resolution should be treated as a decision system, where the quality of choices directly impacts speed, risk, and stability. By applying principles of choice architecture, organisations can redesign how resolution decisions are framed, evaluated, and learned from, without replacing existing platforms or removing human judgment.
WHY INCIDENTS KEEP SLOWING US DOWN (EVEN WITH BETTER TOOLS)
Despite widespread adoption of Information Technology Service Management (ITSM) platforms and observability tools, AMS teams continue to face high Mean Time to Resolve (MTTR) and inconsistent resolution quality. Industry data indicates that detection is no longer the dominant bottleneck. Instead, delays occur after incidents are identified during triage and resolution selection.
A large share of incidents are recurring, yet they are often resolved differently depending on the engineer on call. This leads to unpredictable outcomes, rework, and increased operational risk. Escalations frequently occur not because issues are complex, but because the correct resolution path is not immediately clear. These patterns suggest that the problem is not a lack of information, but a lack of structure in how decisions are made under pressure.
THE EFFICIENCY TRAP: FASTER EXECUTION WITHOUT BETTER CHOICES
Runbooks and standard operating procedures work well for stable, repeatable issues, but struggle to keep up with modern application landscapes. Continuous releases, dynamic dependencies, and cloud-native architectures quickly render static instructions outdated. Automation and scripts reduce manual effort, but they assume the right action is already known. When context changes, automation can amplify risk rather than reduce it.
AI-based knowledge retrieval and copilots surface relevant information, but they stop short of helping engineers evaluate trade-offs between competing resolution options. All these approaches optimise execution. They do not address the core challenge of selecting the right course of action at the right time.
REFRAMING THE PROBLEM: RESOLUTION AS A SYSTEM OF CHOICES
Every incident introduces a set of choices. Engineers must balance speed, risk, business impact, and long-term stability, often with incomplete information. In most AMS environments, these choices are implicit. They live in individual experience, intuition, or informal team norms. As a result, decisions are hard to explain, hard to repeat, and hard to improve. Viewing incident resolution as a decision system makes these choices explicit. It allows organisations to design how options are presented, how context is evaluated, and how outcomes feed back into future decisions. This shift does not remove human judgment. It strengthens it by providing structure where there is mostly instinct today. Choice architecture focuses on designing how decisions are framed and influenced, especially in complex environments.
Applied to AMS, it reshapes incident resolution without prescribing fixed answers. Instead of asking engineers to find the correct fix, the process presents a structured set of feasible resolution options. Relevant context, constraints, and likely consequences accompany each option. This reduces cognitive load and helps engineers converge faster on effective actions. Importantly, it preserves flexibility. The engineer remains the decision owner, but the system improves the quality of the decision environment. Over time, patterns emerge not just about which fixes exist, but about which choices work best under specific conditions.
FROM FIREFIGHTING TO FORESIGHT: A CHOICE FIRST RESOLUTION MODEL
In a choice-driven model, resolution flows differently from traditional linear triage. After incident identification, the focus shifts to evaluating resolution options rather than immediately executing a fix. Context, such as recent changes, dependency health, business criticality, and historical outcomes, is brought forward early. Engineers assess trade-offs before acting, reducing false starts and rollback cycles. Automation becomes a deliberate choice, not a default reaction. This approach aligns the resolution process with how experienced practitioners naturally reason, while making that reasoning accessible to the broader team.
THE IMPACT IN NUMBERS: HOW SMART CHOICES TRANSFORM OUTCOMES
Organisations that adopt a choice-oriented resolution approach consistently observe tangible improvements. Mean Time to Resolve decreases as teams spend less time debating next steps or undoing ineffective actions. First-time resolution rates improve because decisions are better aligned with context. Operational risk is reduced through clearer visibility into trade-offs and consequences. Knowledge becomes embedded in decision structures rather than concentrated in a few individuals.
Governance also improves. Decisions are easier to explain, audit, and refine, which is increasingly important in regulated environments.
- Time-saving and efficiency metrics (Indicative)
- 20–30% reduction in Mean Time to Resolve when decision pathways are structured, and engineers no longer spend time debating next steps.
- 15–25% fewer escalations due to reduced ambiguity in choosing the right resolution path.
- 25–40% reduction in false starts, rollback cycles, and reopened tickets by enabling better decision framing at the beginning of incidents.
- 10–15% improvement in first time-right resolution, especially for high-frequency and moderately complex incidents.
- Quality and governance Metrics (Indicative)
- 40–60% better adherence to approved resolution patterns, improving compliance in regulated industries.
- 30–50% faster onboarding of new engineers, as decision scaffolding reduces knowledge dependency.
- 20% improvement in customer satisfaction (CSAT) driven by fewer repeat incidents.
A PRACTICAL PATH: HOW TO INTRODUCE CHOICE ARCHITECTURE SAFELY
Adopting choice architecture does not require wholesale transformation. It can be introduced incrementally. Organisations should start with high-frequency incident categories where decision variability is highest. Mapping common resolution choices and their outcomes provides immediate insight. Early focus should be on visibility and learning, not automation. As decision patterns stabilise, automation can be safely introduced as one of several resolution options. The key is to treat incident resolution as an evolving decision system, not a static process.
BEYOND THE FINISH LINE: WHERE BETTER DECISIONS BECOME THE NEW AMS ADVANTAGE
The persistent challenges in AMS incident resolution are not rooted in technology gaps. They stem from unstructured decision-making in complex environments. By applying choice architecture, organisations can redesign how resolution decisions are made, leading to faster, safer, and more consistent outcomes. This approach complements existing tools, respects human judgment, and scales with system complexity. The future of effective AMS lies not in faster actions, but in better choices.