Oracle Alert Incident Closure Analysis – W25 to W28

Hi Ranjit,

Please find below the Oracle alert incident closure analysis for W25 to W28.

The data has been grouped based on the week in which the incident was either resolved or cancelled, rather than the week in which the ticket was originally opened.

Week	Total Incidents	Human Intervention	Automation Resolved	Human Intervention %	Automation Resolution %
W25	181	112	69	61.88%	38.12%
W26	296	203	93	68.58%	31.42%
W27	235	144	91	61.28%	38.72%
W28	359	209	150	58.22%	41.78%
Total	1,071	668	403	62.37%	37.63%

Human intervention includes incidents cancelled or marked as resolved by a human, including cases assigned to automation but ultimately handled manually.

Posted By Nikhil02:56

0

Continue Reading

 

To create Power BI versus Validated Result, first prepare a summary table for each week.

Week	Power BI – Human	Validated – Human	Power BI – Automation	Validated – Automation
W25	12	15	38	35
W26	10	8	40	42
W27	14	16	36	34
W28	9	11	41	39

Recommended visual: Clustered column chart

For a clean management view, create two separate charts.

Chart 1: Automation closures

Use:

• X-axis: Week
• Values: Power BI – Automation and Validated – Automation
• Chart type: Clustered column chart

For every week, two bars will appear side by side:

• Power BI reported automation count
• Your manually validated automation count

This makes differences immediately visible.

Chart 2: Human closures

Use:

• X-axis: Week
• Values: Power BI – Human and Validated – Human
• Chart type: Clustered column chart

In Excel

1. Select the columns:
   • Week
   • Power BI – Automation
   • Validated – Automation
2. Go to Insert → Column or Bar Chart.
3. Select Clustered Column.
4. Set the title as:

Power BI vs Validated Automation Closures – Weekly

5. Enable Data Labels so the count appears above each bar.

Repeat the same process for human closures.

Also add a variance column

This shows how much the Power BI report differs from your validation.

Week	Power BI Automation	Validated Automation	Variance
W25	38	35	3
W26	40	42	-2

Excel formula:

=B2-C2

Interpretation:

• 0: Power BI matches your validation.
• Positive value: Power BI reported more automation closures.
• Negative value: Your validation identified more automation closures.

You can also calculate the absolute mismatch:

=ABS(B2-C2)

Best final presentation

Show:

1. Automation comparison chart
2. Human comparison chart
3. A small variance table underneath

Add one observation below the charts, such as:

Power BI broadly aligns with the validated results; however, differences were identified where service accounts were used after manual intervention or where automatically resolved incidents were manually closed by engineers.

Posted By Nikhil18:25

0

Continue Reading

 

Hi Vikram and Ranjit,

I wanted to share some context regarding a production support discussion that took place earlier.

Sunil added me to the group based on Prashant’s suggestion, as I was the DM and had CS access. After reviewing the issue and discussing it with the user, it appeared to be related to application/configuration rather than the database.

I explained this to the user and also included the EMEA DBA team for assistance, but there was no acknowledgement at the time. As the user continued reaching out for support, I added Prashant back to help with coordination. However, he subsequently left the group again, so I included both of you for visibility before leaving the chat.

The situation was difficult to manage due to access dependencies, limited documentation on the support process, and uncertainty around the correct ownership and escalation path. This resulted in the issue continuing to be directed to available individuals, even though it was outside their area of responsibility.

I am sharing this for awareness and to request clearer guidance on the appropriate ownership and escalation process for similar production issues going forward.

Regards,
Nikhil

Posted By Nikhil10:34

0

Continue Reading

CS Support Model – Ownership, Access and Process Gaps

 

Hi Vikram and Ranjit,

I wanted to make you aware of a production support discussion that took place earlier.

Sunil added me to the group based on Prashant’s suggestion, mainly because I was the DM and had CS access. After reviewing the issue and speaking with the user, it was clear that this was related to application/configuration and not the database.

I explained this to the user and also added the EMEA DBA team for support, but there was no acknowledgement from them. The user continued reaching out and calling for assistance.

Prashant had already left the group earlier. I added him back twice to help with coordination, but he left the chat again both times. Since there was no clear owner available, I added both of you for visibility and later left the group.

The main concern here is that access limitations, missing documentation, lack of process awareness, unclear responsibilities, and the unavailability of the actual owners are causing issues to be passed to whoever is available at that time. This is taking people away from their own responsibilities and is also delaying proper resolution of production issues.

I am sharing this so that we can have clearer ownership and escalation guidance for similar cases going forward.

Regards,
Nikhil

Posted By Nikhil10:27

0

Continue Reading

 

You can add this comment:

As requested, set -x was enabled and the issue was reproduced. The relevant execution details, command output, and supporting evidence have been added to the ticket.

Please review and advise on the next steps or let us know if any further information is required.

Since the engineer specifically requested copy-pastable text rather than screenshots, paste the command and relevant output directly into the ticket comment as well, wherever possible.

Posted By Nikhil09:14

0

Continue Reading

 

Hi [Name],

As discussed earlier, since you were having difficulty getting hold of Norbert, I raised the ticket with the Pisa team to help initiate the discussion.

There have now been two responses on the ticket:

1. The first response was shared with you earlier, and I have now attached the requested evidence to the ticket.
2. Another engineer has provided details on the script changes that may be required.

The information requested by Norbert has also been added to the ticket based on his comments.

Could you please take over the follow-up with the Pisa team and proceed with the required actions?

Regards,
Nikhil

Posted By Nikhil09:09

0

Continue Reading

 

Subject: Follow-up on BigID Confluence/SharePoint Data Source Issue – [Ticket Number]

Hi Team,

I am following up on the ticket regarding the BigID credential-scanning findings for the Confluence and SharePoint data sources, which was subsequently routed to your team.

Could you please review the ticket and advise on the current status? The relevant report was attached to the ticket, and some entries appear as re-opened, although the report does not display the Object Name and Attributes required to determine the remediation action.

Please let us know whether any further action or information is required from our side.

Thank you for your support.

Regards,
Nikhil

Posted By Nikhil02:13

0

Continue Reading