The “How to avoid in the future” section of a Root Cause Analysis report – any use?

Target with repeated “WHY?” steps illustrating five whys root cause analysis for preventing future network outages

Notice: This blog post was originally published on Indeni before its acquisition by BlueCat.

The content reflects the expertise and perspectives of the Indeni team at the time of writing. While some references may be outdated, the insights remain valuable. For the latest updates and solutions, explore the rest of our blog

Key takeawaysKey takeaways are generated with AI assistance. Because automated summaries can occasionally contain errors or miss important context, always refer to the full blog post for complete information.

The article discusses improving post-outage Root Cause Analysis (RCA) effectiveness by automating the implementation of recommended fixes rather than relying on process changes and checklists that often fail in practice. It highlights the operational impact of recurring network incidents and presents Indeni as a solution that programmatically captures RCA recommendations to prevent repeat outages across devices like Cisco switches, Check Point firewalls, and F5 load balancers. A real-world outcome cited is a large customer reporting a 93% reduction in the number of RCAs per quarter after adopting Indeni’s automated approach.

What problem with traditional RCAs does the article identify as the main reason outages recur?

The article identifies that the final section of most RCAs—where organizations document ‘how to make sure this doesn’t happen again’—typically prescribes procedural changes such as new checklists, peer reviews, or altered processes. In practice, those human-driven process changes often fail to prevent recurrence because they rely on people consistently following new steps. The article argues that unless RCA recommendations are turned into automated, system-level controls, the same issues will continue to reappear.

How does Indeni claim to change the way RCA recommendations are implemented?

Indeni claims to automate the capture and implementation of RCA recommendations so they become enforceable system behaviors rather than depend on manual process adherence. By programmatically encoding known fixes and checks derived from RCAs, Indeni reduces the need for manual RCA write-ups and prevents configuration or operational drift that leads to repeat incidents. This approach aims to convert human-centric recommendations into continuous, automated verification and remediation across supported infrastructure.

What evidence does the article provide that Indeni’s approach is effective in practice?

The article provides a specific customer outcome: one of Indeni’s larger customers reported a 93% reduction in the number of RCAs they had to perform per quarter after adopting Indeni. This metric is presented as evidence that automating RCA recommendations and reducing manual RCA work can materially lower the frequency of repeat incidents and the operational burden associated with post-incident analysis.

You had a major network outage (like Time Warner just did). Panic, stress, sweat, people trying all kinds of crazy things. In the end, the issue is resolved and the outage is behind us. Then, comes the really fun part: doing a Root Cause Analysis (RCA).

There are a ton of templates for this, such as this one. In each one, at the very end, is a section that details “how to we make sure this doesn’t happen again”. Sadly, though, in most cases, this section describes how processes will be changed, checklists will be made and extra peer reviews will be conducted. Frankly, our experience shows this rarely actually works.

Image: antkevyv / 123RF Stock Photo

Our goal is to change the way this is done. If someone were to spend the time to read every RCA ever written about a network outage and build a system that implements the recommendations detailed in that last section of the document, then issues would indeed be avoided.

We, Indeni, are that someone. Of course reading RCAs manually is a bit difficult so we’ve devised more automatic ways of collecting this knowledge. With Indeni, users have less RCAs to write. One of our larger customers actually told us we’ve reduced the number of RCAs they have per quarter by 93%!

So, if you’ve recently run into an annoying issue with Cisco switches, Check Point firewalls, F5 load balancers, or anything else we support – give us a try. It only takes 45 minutes.

Related content

Network engineer reviewing LiveNX flow and telemetry data visualized across server racks in a hybrid multicloud environment

Get answers from the LiveNX data you already have with LiveAssist

Learn how LiveAssist, the AI-powered add-on for LiveNX, turns your network data into fast, guided answers, with value you can see in days.

Read more
LiveWire GEN3 device offerings overview with descriptions of deep packet visibility and deployment options

LiveWire GEN3 device offerings

BlueCat LiveWire is a packet capture and network forensics platform that provides deep packet-level visibility across hybrid enterprise environments to help…

Read more
Abstract network nodes and connections highlighting centralized control of distributed DDI infrastructure

Get total control of your DDI infrastructure with Micetro’s unified API

Stop juggling between network tools and use Micetro’s RESTful API for complete control over your DDI infrastructure and cloud environment.

Read more
Data center server racks with glowing AI brain icons, illustrating BlueCat MCP servers adding network intelligence to AI

BlueCat MCP servers bring network intelligence to your AI assistant

Our MCP servers provide a standard integration layer that makes it easy to connect the AI tools you already use to BlueCat products.

Read more