Skip to content

Crisis

Every engineering team will face crises. Systems fail. Outages happen. Security incidents occur. The question is not whether you'll face a crisis, but whether you'll be ready when it arrives.

This section is about building that readiness—not through heroics or adrenaline, but through clear processes, defined roles, and practiced responses. The goal is to make crisis response boring: predictable, structured, and effective.

Why This Section Exists

Most teams handle their first few incidents through improvisation. Someone notices a problem, alerts go off, people scramble, Slack threads multiply, and eventually someone fixes something. It works, sort of. But improvisation doesn't scale, and it burns people out.

The cost of unstructured crisis response compounds over time. Engineers develop PTSD from chaotic on-call rotations. Stakeholders lose trust because communication is inconsistent. The same problems recur because nobody captures the learning. And when a truly severe incident hits, the team is already exhausted from fighting small fires inefficiently.

This section provides the operating system to prevent that decay.

What Good Crisis Management Looks Like

When crisis management is working, you observe these patterns:

Incidents feel contained, not chaotic. There's a clear commander, defined roles, and structured communication. People know what to do without being told.

Communication flows predictably. Stakeholders know when to expect updates. Customers know where to look for status. Internal teams know who to contact.

Recovery is the goal, not blame. The focus during an incident is on restoring service, not on who caused the problem. Accountability comes later, through blameless postmortems.

Learning actually happens. Postmortems produce action items that get completed. Patterns are recognized. Systems improve over time.

The team is sustainable. On-call rotations are humane. Incident response doesn't depend on heroes. People can take vacations without the system falling apart.

What This Section Covers

Page Focus
Crisis Management The full framework for incident response: severity levels, roles, escalation paths, and the incident lifecycle
Outage Communication Playbook How to communicate during and after incidents—internally and externally

Common Failure Modes

Before diving into the specifics, it helps to name the patterns that break crisis response:

The hero dependency. One or two people always lead incidents because they know the systems best. When they're unavailable, the team is paralyzed. Knowledge is concentrated instead of distributed.

The communication vacuum. Engineers are heads-down fixing the problem. Nobody is updating stakeholders. Customers, support, and leadership are in the dark, which creates anxiety and interference.

The severity lottery. There's no clear definition of severity levels. Every incident becomes a debate about how serious it is, wasting time and creating inconsistent responses.

The blame spiral. Postmortems become witch hunts. People learn to hide mistakes instead of surfacing them. Psychological safety erodes. Future incidents are harder to investigate because people are defensive.

The action item graveyard. Postmortems generate lists of improvements that never get prioritized. The team keeps hitting the same problems because learning doesn't translate to change.

This section provides playbooks to prevent each of these failures.

How to Use This Section

If you're building an incident response process from scratch, start with Crisis Management. It covers the full lifecycle: preparation, detection, response, and recovery.

If you already have an incident process but struggle with communication, read Outage Communication Playbook. It provides templates and scripts for stakeholder communication that you can adapt immediately.

Both pages include copy-paste artifacts—templates, checklists, and scripts—designed for remote-first teams.