Comment by thethethethe
5 years ago
Why does someone need to take responsibility when you can have a culture of blameless postmortems where everyone focuses on making sure what ever happened never happens again instead? In blameless postmortem culture, everyone is responsible by default
"Everyone focuses" = nothing gets done. I've been at places like that, where a post-mortem happens, a course of action is decided on...and then no one owns actually carrying out that course of action.
You could argue that "It should be assigned" - yeah, it should. But assigning it implies either "here is the team that is responsible for it", i.e., this is the team responsible and they need to be told to fix their shit (which very much sounds like blame), OR it implies "here is the team that I am entrusting to fix it DESPITE their obviously not being responsible for it", which is just as bad, since it implies that the team that 'is' responsible for it is incompetent.
The only healthy option is that the 'responsible' team stands up to say "hey, that's ours; we'll fix it", and the only way they'll do that is if you have a culture of safety and ownership.
Also, one thing to make clear - ownership = responsible = blame. They're all words for the same thing, just different implications. You can't have someone 'own' something without making them responsible, and apt to be blamed if you don't ensure the culture is one that does not attach blame. That's really what I was getting at; of course you shouldn't blame. But, you can't also avoid ownership. But ownership implies you know WHO to blame, and so blame comes very easily. And it's very easy to mistake pointing out responsibility/ownership for something as blame; I have had multiple managers tell me "it's not us vs them" when I've raised up the fact that I'm unable to deliver to deadlines because I have been unable to get anything from product.
But ownership of a fix is not blame for an incident. Those aren't the same.
You don't say "this incident was your teams fault". You say "your team is responsible for ensuring that this incident can't happen again".
The people most capable of taking the action items are assigned it. This could be expertise, resourcing, proximity, etc..
In an open discussion of the root cause, many times the issue is across multiple services / organizations within a company. You’d assign tasks appropriately across teams as needed. The key is to find and create actionables to address the root cause, not to punish / blame individuals.
"The people most capable of taking the action items are assigned it. This could be expertise, resourcing, proximity, etc."
Expertise and proximity are facets of responsibility (well, technically they are facets of knowledge, but ideally knowledge, empowerment, and responsibility are aligned, else things ALSO won't get done). Resourcing is a red herring; I've seen things get assigned to teams based on "they have the capacity", without it being an area whose domain they're familiar with (i.e., they don't work in that area, and ergo are not responsible for the outcome) - those things rarely get done, and never get done well.
The blameless postmortem an "legal fiction" that don't really mean that blame cannot be assigned just that blame cannot result in punishment or loss of face/standing.
At the end of they day you are going to have someone stand up and say: yep we should have planned for this, and we will correct this in x, y, z, ways.