Calculate escalations

The following examples illustrate how different escalations are calculated for the User and Group Performance Reports. Each figure shows a Group Performance Report for the same group and its members, with a description of how to interpret the information.

The terms "Peer" and "Management" do not apply to specific roles or have any direct bearing on how users function within xMatters; they are provided merely as a way to identify different levels of escalation, and can assume any definition your organization chooses.

If an escalation involves inactive members, the performance report reflects the highest level of escalation defined before or after the inactive member. For example, if a "Management" escalation occurs before an inactive member, and the escalation after the inactive member is "Peer", the performance report treats the escalation as a "Management" type.

The following figures illustrate the teams configured within two sample groups, g1 and g2:



The following example of the Performance Report provides an overview of the Group g1:

By examining the report, you can determine the following:

  • The Alerts column indicates that the group was targeted to receive notifications for four alerts.
  • The Total Responses column indicates how many times at least one recipient in the group responded to each alert counted in the alerts column. In this case, at least one member within the group hierarchy responded to each of the four alerts.
  • The Responses columns indicate that 100% of the alerts were responded to: three of the four alerts had positive responses, there was one negative response.
  • The Avg TTR and Max TTR columns indicate that the average time it took the group members to respond to each alert was four minutes, with the longest response taking 30 minutes. Both of these columns include the delays set within the team.
  • The Escalations columns indicate that three of the alerts had at least one escalation to peer somewhere within the group hierarchy, and two alerts had at least one escalation to management.

Clicking the g1 link displays the following breakdown of the group's members:

By examining this report, you can determine the following information:

  • The Recipients column indicates that four members of the group were targeted with notifications; group members that were not targeted do not appear in the report. Of those four members, one was a group, and three were users.
  • The first user listed, u1, received four notifications, but responded to only two, resulting in three escalations to peer and a 50% response rate, as indicated in the Percentage column.
  • The Alerts column indicates that the first group listed, g2, was targeted by two alerts, one of which was escalated somewhere within the group's hierarchy to peer. The other alert was escalated to management.

Clicking the g2 link displays the following breakdown of the g2 group's members:

By examining this report, and comparing it to the team members illustrated in the examples at the beginning of this section, you can determine the following:

  • Two of the four alerts that targeted g1 escalated past the first three users in the team, and targeted the members of g2 for notification.
  • The first user listed, u4, was targeted by two alerts, and responded to one of them.
  • The remaining alert was escalated through both peer and management levels, and was eventually responded to by the final user listed, u6.