Connect. Secure. Manage.
Network Incident Root Cause Analysis
Reconstruct a Cisco or Meraki network incident from logs, changes and traffic evidence, separating the trigger from contributing design and process weaknesses.
Devices supported
across the UK
Client locations
supported
Traffic handled
at peak time
Average
response time
Average response is not a resolution time or a contractual guarantee. Support scope and response commitments are agreed for each engagement.
Network incident root cause analysis explains why a significant failure occurred and what would reduce the chance or impact of a repeat. MCI reviews Cisco and Meraki incidents using the evidence available from the event, the recovery actions and the operating environment. The result should be a defensible account and a practical improvement plan, not a confident story assembled around the last change made.
Service restoration and causal analysis are different tasks. A workaround may restore connectivity without proving the cause. Equally, several contributing conditions may matter more than a single component that happened to fail first.
A clear requirement
Turn the business need into a practical network scope with visible dependencies.
A controlled delivery
Plan implementation, testing and rollback before production changes begin.
A supportable result
Leave useful records, ownership and escalation routes behind.
Preserve the incident record
We begin with the timeline, business impact and records of what people observed and changed. Relevant logs, monitoring, configurations and supplier updates should be retained through an approved process before ordinary retention or later activity removes them.
The source and timing of each item matter. Different systems may record events differently, and recollections made after a difficult incident should be distinguished from contemporaneous evidence.
Interviews with the teams involved can fill gaps and explain decisions. The purpose is to understand the conditions under which those decisions were made, not to turn the investigation into an exercise in assigning blame.
Standards & partnerships
Confidence in the team behind your network.
Cisco Partner
Cisco Meraki
Cyber Essentials
Cyber Essentials PlusMCI Network Services is operated by Proxar Ltd. Certifications apply to the certified legal entity and the scope of its certificates. View accreditation information
Reconstruct the sequence without inventing certainty
We identify the initiating event where the evidence permits, then examine how the effect spread through the service. Routing, shared dependencies, recovery behaviour and operational actions may all contribute to the outcome.
A correlation in time is a useful lead, not conclusive proof. If an action was followed by recovery, we examine whether other conditions changed at the same time and whether the proposed explanation fits the available observations.
Where evidence is missing, the report should say so. It can identify the most plausible explanation and the tests needed to strengthen it without presenting an unverified theory as a confirmed root cause.
A useful starting point
Tell us what is happening.
A short description of the problem is enough for an initial discussion.
Look beyond the immediate technical trigger
The failed component or incorrect setting may explain the trigger while leaving important questions unanswered. Why did the incident affect that many users? Why was detection delayed? Why did recovery take the route it did?
We consider documentation, change preparation, monitoring, access and supplier boundaries alongside the technical configuration. These are not automatically failures, but they can explain why an otherwise manageable event became disruptive.
For resilience concerns, a resilience assessment can examine the wider design. For an unresolved technical symptom, a further investigation may be needed before a complete causal conclusion is justified.
Different environments. The same care.
Built around the work
your network supports.
Finance, banking and the wider private sector. We start with the systems and people that depend on your connections.
Finance & banking
Market-data paths, routing and provider coordination on clients’ behalf.
Financial-market services ↗Offices & multi-site teams
Reliable access between people, workplaces and business applications.
Office network design ↗Data centres & cloud
Network boundaries, workload connections and operational ownership.
Data centre networks ↗Turn findings into prioritised actions
Each recommendation should address a finding and have a clear owner. Urgent corrective work is separated from longer-term design improvement so the report remains useful after the immediate incident has faded from attention.
Actions may include removing a workaround, changing monitoring, improving a test, correcting documentation or revising a dependency. Buying replacement equipment is not the default answer to every operational weakness.
We also identify how an action will be verified. A completed ticket is not necessarily evidence that the risk has been reduced; the relevant service behaviour or control needs to be checked where practical.
Produce a report that different audiences can use
Management needs a clear account of impact, confidence and the most important decisions. Engineers need the supporting timeline, evidence and technical reasoning. Both should be able to distinguish established facts from assumptions.
The report can include a concise incident summary and a more detailed technical record, with sensitive material restricted appropriately. Supplier statements are attributed rather than silently treated as independently verified facts.
Share the incident outline through our enquiry page. We can then agree the investigation boundary, evidence access and intended audience before requesting detailed records through a suitable secure route.
Root cause analysis questions
Can you investigate after the service has recovered?
Yes. That is often when a structured review becomes practical. The strength of the conclusion depends on the evidence retained. We first assess what records remain and explain any important limits before promising a definitive answer.
Will the report identify one person or device responsible?
Not necessarily, and that is not the objective. Incidents can involve several technical and organisational conditions. The useful outcome is an accurate explanation and a prevention plan, rather than an oversimplified assignment of blame.
Can you review another supplier’s explanation?
We can provide an independent engineering assessment within the agreed scope. Access to supporting evidence is important. A report based only on a supplier’s summary must state that limitation and should not claim to have reproduced or verified the incident.
Is root cause analysis included in ordinary support?
That depends on the agreement. A ticket summary is not automatically a detailed causal investigation. Significant analysis, testing and reporting should be explicitly scoped so both sides understand the expected depth and deliverables.
Talk to a specialist
Need a specialist view?
Tell us what is affected, what changed and what your team has already checked. A short outline is enough to start.
+44 203 196 6566Choose option 1
sales@proxar.co.ukUK-wide service.
Most of our engineers are based in Kent, with a focus on London, Sussex, Essex and Berkshire.
Existing customers should use their agreed support and escalation channels. This form is for service enquiries, not a monitored emergency ticket.
Tell us what you need.
A short outline is enough. Please do not include passwords or sensitive network details.
Thank you. Your enquiry has been submitted.
Please check your name, email and message, then try again.
Your form session expired. Please try again.
Please wait a minute before sending another enquiry.
We could not submit your enquiry. Please call or email us instead.