When no one is responsible in the event of an incident

The systems are up and running. The contracts have been signed, and there is a point of contact for every service. Do you recognize these situations? The system is down. Internally, they say the problem lies with the external system. Externally, they say the cause lies with you. And in the middle, production is on hold. But the real problem lies in the interface between them, and no one seems to feel truly responsible for it. Because everyone knows their own area, but no one has the big picture.

On this page, you’ll learn:

• why operational disruptions escalate even though all partners are responding
• What types of dependencies really matter in operations
• what an SLA does and what it doesn’t
• how to make dependencies visible and clarify responsibilities
• how your operations should feel

Everything runs smoothly in day-to-day operations. Until the moment a process suddenly comes to a halt and no one can immediately pinpoint the cause.

Typical situations in the workplace:

• A production system stops delivering data and manufacturing comes to a standstill
• An ERP interface fails, and orders get stuck
• Employees can no longer log in, and work comes to a halt
• A third-party system isn’t responding, and your system can’t continue operating
• A change in the infrastructure triggers errors in multiple applications

Then the familiar chain of phone calls begins. Internal checks are conducted. External partners are contacted. Manufacturer support is called in. Everyone is working, but there’s no clear overview of how everything fits together. That’s exactly what makes disruptions so costly.

When responsibilities and lines of authority are unclear, a disruption can quickly turn into a “company-wide problem.” The risk arises not only from the outage itself, but also from the delay in determining who is responsible for resolving the issue.

This problem does not arise from a single issue. It is the result of many individual decisions that, over the years, were never evaluated within the broader context of the business.

Isolated decisions made without considering the overall impact

Connecting an API without checking dependencies, integrating a third-party system without clear accountability, outsourcing hosting without clarifying SLA implications, or expanding a system without updating documentation and operational procedures: This creates a system landscape that functions in day-to-day operations but is difficult to manage in an emergency because responsibilities, dependencies, and processes have not evolved alongside it.

Responsibility arises randomly rather than in a structured manner

As long as things are running, no one feels compelled to clearly resolve these questions:

• Who bears overall responsibility for the operation of the chain?
• Who escalates to which partner, and when?
• Who makes decisions when multiple parties are involved?
• Who has a comprehensive understanding of the dependencies from trigger to effect?

Knowledge and documentation are not keeping pace

Complexity grows with every expansion. Documentation is not consistently updated. Knowledge remains with individual people. New employees understand only parts of it. External partners know only their own segment. In the event of a failure, the overall understanding that would be crucial for a quick resolution is then missing.

There are two levels within operations that are rarely considered together. Dependenciesare all the connections that ensure your system functions properly. These include technical connections such as interfaces and infrastructure, as well as organizational and contractual connections such as vendor support, partners, responsibilities, and escalation procedures.

Responsibility in operations means that it is clear who is responsible for which part of the chain in the event of a failure, who is authorized to make decisions, and who manages the restoration of operations. Only when both levels are considered together can true operational reliability be achieved.

Many companies know that their systems are interdependent. And many have SLAs with partners and vendors. But when an emergency arises, it becomes clear whether these SLAs cover the entire chain of dependencies or just individual parts. It is precisely at this point that it is determined whether an incident will be resolved smoothly or escalate.

What Does SLA Really Mean in IT Operations?

SLA stands for Service Level Agreement. It is a contractual agreement between you and a service provider that defines which operational performance is guaranteed.

Typical provisions include availability, response times, recovery times, support hours, escalation levels, and communication channels. An SLA thus describes how quickly someone must respond and what level of service is guaranteed. However, it does not automatically specify who is responsible along the entire system chain if the root cause lies across multiple systems.

Why SLAs Often Don’t Help in an Emergency

Many companies have SLAs, yet outages still take a long time to resolve. The reason is that responsibilities along the chain are not clearly defined.

A typical scenario:

• The hosting SLA applies, but the root cause lies in an interface
• The manufacturer’s support responds, but the infrastructure is the bottleneck
• Multiple partners are involved, and each focuses only on their own part
• No one manages the entire chain end-to-end.

This isn’t about more documentation. It’s about operational transparency and clear control in an emergency.

Technical Solutions
A comprehensive dependency map shows which systems, interfaces, and components are linked to a process. Critical points such as “single points of failure” become visible. Upstream and downstream connections become clear, allowing you to immediately assess the impact of a disruption or change. Each dependency is rated based on its criticality and how well it is safeguarded.

Organizational Solutions
Responsibilities are defined along the chain, both internally and externally. Escalation paths are clear and well-rehearsed. SLAs are adjusted to cover real dependencies rather than isolated contractual provisions. Operations become manageable, even when personnel change or partners are replaced.

Target state: How should your operations feel?

In an emergency, there is no longer a chain of phone calls to determine responsibilities. Instead of uncertainty, there is clarity:

• You know which dependency affects which process
• You know immediately who is responsible for which issue
• Escalation proceeds in a structured and rapid manner
• SLAs work because they fit the system chain
• Operations remain stable, even when key personnel are absent

Operational reliability is achieved when the system landscape, responsibilities, and SLAs are considered together.