Archive for the ‘ITIL Best Practice’ Category

ITIL 2011: Continual Service Improvement or just the result of V3 being rushed?

August 2, 2011

The more pessimistic of us would say that the development of ITIL V3 must have been rushed to have missed some of its more beneficial “Best Practice” rules in the transition. After 4 years the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) are updating it to ‘resolve errors and inconsistencies in the text and diagrams and review processes to make training and understanding easier’. It is not out of order to ask ourselves a few questions such as: did they not peer review or audit the publications before going to print, then? Has it really taken them that long to read it all?

In any case, since the 29th July 2011 new ITIL 2011 edition books have been available to purchase. They will:

  • Resolve any errors or inconsistencies in the text and diagrams, both in content and presentation.
  • Improve the publications by addressing issues raised in the Change Control Log, as analysed and recommended by the change advisory board (CAB) and approved by the Cabinet Office, part of HM Government. These are largely to do with clarity, consistency, correctness and completeness.
  • Address suggestions for change made by the training community to make ITIL easier to teach.

Ok, so maybe they are genuinely following the Continual Service Improvement model and feedback from training, peers and business leaders has been managed through a formal Change Advisory Board (CAB) to improve content, make ITIL easier to understand and stay tuned to the market – it has been 4 years after all! But we still can’t help but ask if ITIL has lost its original meaning and aim or has it just turned into a mere money machine, cashing in on every update which may not have been necessary if the previous version had not been flawed.

The good news on the back of all of this is that we are assured by the OGC that a free downloadable “Summary of Updates” will be made available and, although new examinations and a training syllabus will be available from 8th August 2011, we will not need to re-qualify as ITIL 2011 is not a new version, just a new edition. ITIL V3 as we know and love it will simply become the ITIL 2007 edition!

Helen Steggall, Senior Service Management Consultant

Advertisements

Where is that ‘cultural change’ which makes ITSM Best Practice effective?

April 20, 2011

Most organisations nowadays have heard about the benefits of implementing an IT Service Management Best Practice framework, such as Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology (CobiT) or the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL). More than half have implemented some of the core processes, mainly Incident, Service Desk and Change Management. A good number of them believe the discipline has brought them some benefits, but many are also disappointed that they haven’t achieved the results they were aiming for.

There are two main reasons for this. First of all, as any Service Management professional knows, having all the processes, policies and tools in place is not enough if people fail to adopt them. Achieving cultural change across the organisation, so that staff at all levels understand the need to change, how the processes work and what type of benefits each process can bring to their own individual work and to the business as a whole is the most difficult task in a Service Management Best Practice implementation.

Second, even if an organisation invests in training and awareness sessions, the improvements still need to be assessed over time. The effects of the processes and cultural change cannot be seen immediately or after a few months. Real results may come after 2 or 3 years. However, investing in another traditional maturity assessment is an investment many financially-challenged organisations wouldn’t want to make.

The criteria of maturity assessments carried out by SOCITM or with the ITIL toolkit is limited and not all-encompassing – they focus more on processes adopted ‘on paper’ rather than on the actual efficiency reached. But a number (2/5, 4/5) does not tell them whether they are actually working efficiently or not. And that is what organisations want to know: how efficient are we and what can we do to improve?

To evaluate the results of an IT Service Management Best Practice implementation and its alignment with the organisation’s goals and needs, it is more helpful to carry out a Service Efficiency Review, and to adopt monitoring aids such as Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and Customer Satisfaction Surveys in order to keep a clear view of the situation. But many organisations seem to see Best Practice as a one-off, without truly understanding that its value only exists if the efforts are consistent and if the processes are continuously adapted to the changing times and needs. They take it as if it was self-serving – once implemented it should do all the work by itself, without the need of any human effort.

Cultural change should strongly address these misconceptions, and not just convince people to adopt the processes. But it is not an easy task. Many organisations are reluctant to spend money on what they believe are unnecessary expenses, and it is not simple for Service Management professionals to justify a second efficiency review. Perhaps if consultants offered a follow-up review which provided ‘real-world recommendations’ and which was not just a standard tick-the-boxes assessment of out-of-the-box processes, public sector organisations would be keener to consider doing it. And if the second review was offered at a special price so that it is less of a commitment, more results may be achieved: more organisations would want to do it, and the consultants could benefit from the case studies. But they, too, don’t seem to want to bother – most consultants would rather make the same effort for a new client and get much more money and follow-up work.

From the lack of data on IT Service Management implementations which have remained successful in time, of case studies which can show that a form of cultural change has really taken place and lasted, and from the small number of organisations who have an efficiency review at the end of an implementation or more than once, it is evident that there is little interest on both sides in changing this scenario.

But if efforts are needed on both sides, it is Service Management professionals who should make the first move in order to change things. It is important that consultants manage to reach the higher management, and not only involve those who work within IT, and change first of all their attitude towards Service Management Best Practice. It is ultimately up the C-executives and senior managers to encourage cultural change across the organisation, acting from the top with policies and agreed ethos to make change possible. That is why awareness sessions, training and software-lead experiential learning should be extended to higher management as well. Through these tools it is possible to deliver a true understanding of Best Practice and its benefits to the organisation, and hence justify all the efforts needed to reach the final aims of the discipline.

A lot of work needs to be done in order to allow for IT Service Management Best Practice effectiveness to be measured and demonstrated. Fortunately, more and more organisations understand the potential benefits of Best Practice to their business – their concern is the realistic delivery of its promise and how to maintain the results over time. To change the way both organisations and consultants think, both sides need to modify their attitude. Only this way, it may be possible for Best Practice to really deliver and, ultimately, for cultural change to take place.

 

 

Martin Hill, Head of Support Operations

ITIL V3 – should you bother?

November 24, 2010

With the retirement of version 2 of ITIL, the Information Technology Infrastructure Library, organisations across all sectors are considering the implications of this change and whether they should think about a possible move to version 3. A reoccurring question is about not just the value of moving towards a V3 aligned approach, but also querying the overall value of the ITIL discipline itself.

There are many doubts regarding the Good Practice framework which is one of the most widely adopted worldwide, and it is not only the CEOs and financial directors who question its effectiveness, ROI and ability to deliver – even many CIOs, IT directors and unfortunately, in some instances, service management professionals themselves have started to look at ITIL with scepticism.

In this current climate of austerity, organisations are being extra cautious regarding their spending. This is leading both those who are considering the step up from V2 and those considering whether to start on the service management journey to wonder: what can V3 possibly add, and isn’t ITIL overrated anyway?

Let’s take the last question first. Like a lot of challenges within business, rather than deciding on a solution and then trying to relate everything back to it, look at what overall objective is and which issues need to be resolved. ITIL, which ever version you choose, is not a panacea. It won’t fix everything, but it may be able to help if you take a pragmatic and realistic approach to activities.

ITIL’s approach to implementation in the early days was described as “adopt and adapt” – an approach that still rings true even with V3. However, this appears to have fallen out of the vocabulary recently. Adopting all processes regardless of their relevance to the business and following them religiously will not add any value. Nor will implementing them without ensuring that there is awareness and buy-in across the organisation; treating implementation as a one-off project rather than a continuously evolving process or expecting the discipline to work on its without positioning it alongside the existing behaviours, culture, processes and structure in the organisation.

ITIL’s contribution to an organisation is akin to raising children, where one asks oneself: is it nature or nurture that creates the well rounded individuals, and what parenting skills work best? You need to find the most compatible match, one that will in part depend on what that particular business wants from a Best Practice framework and if they really understand how it works. Do they want to be told what to do or find out what works and what doesn’t and why, so they can learn from it?

All activities in a Best Practice framework have to be carefully selected and tailored in order to create some value. Moreover, adoption of tools and processes must be supported by an appropriate amount of education and awareness sessions, so that any involved staff, including senior management, will fully understand their purpose, usefulness and benefits and will therefore collaborate in producing successful results.

The other question raised by many organisations is: why should I move to V3 – isn’t V2 perfectly fine? It is hard to come up with a perfect answer as there are a number of considerations to take into consideration, but in part it can come back to what the overall objective was for the business. Looking at the move from V2 to V3 as an evolution, a number of the key principles expanded on in V3 exist with V2, so there will be some organisations for whom the expanded areas relating to IT strategy and service transition are not core to their IT operation. However, the separation of request fulfilment from incident management and the focus on event management may lead an organisation to alter the way they deal with the day-to-day activity triggers into the IT department.

My personal view is that anything that helps organisations to communicate more effectively is a benefit. V3 provides more suggestions that can help with these objectives, as well as helping the IT department to operate with more of a service oriented approach, again something that can help cross the language gap between technology and business. V3 provides a lifecycle approach to IT service, recommending continual review and improvement at organisation level.

So, is V3 essential if you have already successfully adopted and adapted V2? For organisations that do not require maximum IT efficiency because IT is not strategic, V2 is probably enough to keep them doing well. For those that, instead, gain real competitive advantage from efficient IT, any improvement that can make their business outperform others in the market is one worth embracing.

As for all the organisations in the middle, a move to V3 is probably not essential in the immediate future – however, as publications and examinations are substituted to match the latest version, and the way in which their suppliers are providing service changes, it will soon become a necessary thing to do in order to keep up-to-date and in turn competitive within the market.

Samantha-Jane Scales, Senior Service Management consultant and ITSM Portal columnist

Find the column on ITSM Portal:  http://www.itsmportal.com/columns/itil-v3-%E2%80%93-should-you-bother

Seeing life through ITIL’s lens

November 8, 2010

Does a Service Management professional’s brain never stop seeing ‘incidents’ and ‘problems’ around them?

On my way to the itSMF conference in rainy London, I saw a woman trip on wet marble as she entered the tube station. As she fell to the floor on her backside I automatically thought: ‘This could have been easily avoided with Proactive Problem Management!’

In fact, tripping-on-wet-marble can be seen as a ‘known error’ since it has happened before and continues to happen over and over every time it rains, and would be easily resolved by placing a sufficient number of anti-slip rubber mats right at the entrance, where the floor is wet and slippery.

Is it just me who sees life applications for ITIL principles?

 

Samantha-Jane Scales, Senior Service Management consultant


Saving ITIL – how to protect the reputation of Best Practice frameworks

October 12, 2010

Since the news came out that the Office of Government Commerce stated in a report by the Office of Public Sector Information they had ‘no policy remit’ to produce and develop the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) methodology, various articles and blogs have been written declaring the ‘death of ITIL’, or at least of the discipline as we know it.

This has been interpreted by some as an intention to drop official support due to lack of interest, since ITIL is admittedly not one of the OGC’s core responsibilities. Critics believe the move will make ITIL an even more lucrative money machine for vendors and service providers which may end in self-sabotage. Most opponents have focused their editorials on the consequences of this move on the Best Practice framework’s quality and credibility, or have taken this as an occasion to declare that ITIL is already overrated and over-praised.

Those who welcome the change, instead, believe it would be a good thing for ITIL to be free, open and available to all. However, there seems to be little analysis of what the choice made by the OGC might mean, the pros and cons of a liberated Best Practice framework and, ultimately, hardly any propositions on how to save the framework’s reputation.

Taking into account such pros and cons, it is difficult to have a clear opinion on thesituation. There can definitely be some benefits in liberating a framework – for instance, it creates an opportunity for professionals to provide recommendations and contribute with ideas and innovations which derive from their personal experience. They are able to interact more comprehensively with the discipline, allowing it to grow, improve and change with the market and the various business environments it operates in.

But labels like ‘ITIL’ – which have become brand names – are often used as a sales tool to sell books, memos and software, and by making it even more commercial the risk is that the discipline will lose its authority. Let’s take Neuro-Linguistic Programming as an example. As there is no regulation, people are free to say that they are NLP practitioners although they are only recognised within their own training company, and their methodology may be different from practitioners who come from another company. There is no official recognition of what is good and bad practice in NLP, therefore it may not be felt as a discipline one can rely on alone.

So if any consultancy, training company, book author and software vendor was able to say that their product or service is ‘ITIL aligned’, although it complies with their version of ITIL which might be different from another one, then it would be impossible to have some measurable quality standards that can be used to evaluate and choose. If you take away standardisation and consistency, if there isn’t a strong and consistent identity or an independent body that can set standards, the framework will practically cease to exist.

To reassure readers, the ambiguous OPSI report does not state that the OGC has no interest in ITIL and, in fact, it still owns copyright on the product. The information on the report might mean that the body will outsource development but will still have the last word on content and the power to approve a product or service. If this is the case, then the situation might prove ideal for the reasons stated above, balancing the pros and cons in a safer scenario.

But this is not the main problem with Best Practice frameworks, it seems. An example of one that is not supported by an official body but is still popular and widely used is the Microsoft Operations Framework (MOF). Although it is free and available to everybody, it doesn’t appear to be very different from ITIL in its recognition, methodology and principles. Nevertheless, it appears to have the same issues that consultants see in ITIL as it is – there is a lot of emphasis on gap-fill documents and selling books rather than in delivering a thorough understanding of the processes and aims. Unless the professional who downloads the templates and fills the gaps understands the content and context of what they are doing, it has little value and probably little effectiveness. It is apparent, then, that freeing the discipline doesn’t solve the issues behind Best Practice frameworks, nor does keeping control over it.

Perhaps the problem is not about ITIL being endorsed by an official body or not, but rather how to enhance the reputation and effectiveness of Best Practice frameworks. Disciplines such as ITIL and MOF need to find a way to overcome their credibility issues, cease to be mere money machines and become what they are supposed to be – guidelines for carrying out operations in the best possible way to reach efficiencies and cost savings. Only if Service Management professionals start believing in the ‘wider aims’ and practicing the discipline with a thorough understanding of what is being done, will it be possible for such frameworks to regain trust and, ultimately, to really deliver results.

Samantha-Jane Scales, Service Management consultant

Find this column on ITSM Portal: http://www.itsmportal.com/columns/saving-itil-%E2%80%93-how-protect-reputation-best-practice-frameworks

Life after ITIL – creating a culture of Continual Service Improvement

August 3, 2010

Picture the scene: your organisation has decided to improve its IT department through the introduction of ITIL Best Practice. Some external consultants from an IT service provider came in to do a review and mapped out the project. They then implemented the agreed Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) processes while delivering awareness sessions to various members of staff. Perhaps you even got a few of your people v3 qualified. At last, your Best Practice project has been delivered and has finally gone live. But what now?

The Service Management experts are long gone and you find yourself alone in managing the improved environment. Things somehow seem to be slowly regressing to their previous state – as if the project never happened. But how can such a promising project prove so ineffective?

Unfortunately, many organisations don’t seem to truly realize that Best Practice is not a one-off implementation, nor is it self-sustaining. As Version 3 of ITIL underlines, there should be an iterative and interactive lifecycle approach to the various processes. Best Practice is an ongoing commitment, and not a time-restricted project.  It’s essential to continually revise, reassess, and improve the people, processes and technology in order to produce real benefits, especially in the long term. To do this, several elements must be taken into consideration – post-implementation support from service providers, ownership within the organisation and understanding and commitment of staff at all levels.

Post-implementation support

It is undeniably important that the consultants who have implemented the processes make themselves available for further support, to embed the discipline in the organisation. The service provider should come back regularly after the project has gone live to see if the new ways of working have been adopted across people, process and technology, and to help the organisation find ways of measuring the effects, evaluating the benefits and identifying the areas for improvement. But it’s not only up to the consultants to drive through improvements and focus the internal efforts. Ultimately, they will have to hand over ownership and responsibility to the client.

Commitment of staff

It is essential then that the people, processes, and technology in the environment are subject to Continual Service Improvement: the discipline must be understood, accepted, structured and well supported by senior management as well as staff at all levels. CSI is the wrap that allows all other processes to maintain their effectiveness, through ongoing reviews aimed at identifying inefficiencies followed by improvement actions. Actually, the CSI process itself must be continually evaluated and adapted to remain relevant, up-to-date and constantly aligned to the IT and the business objectives.

Senior management buy-in

Senior management, on the other hand, has to really understand the value of ITIL and be able to deal with any resistance to change found across the organisation. They have to ensure that the various members of staff at the tactical and operational levels understand how the new processes, technologies, and roles will affect the way they work. They have to clarify what efficiencies can be achieved not only by the organisation, but in the individuals’ everyday work as well.

For many people, change means stepping out of their comfort zone. Many are wary of, or simply not interested, in doing that. Communication is therefore essential: employees need to be shown the changes and benefits concretely and clearly, perhaps through awareness or experiential learning sessions. Management has to be able to justify the importance and usefulness of changes and how ITIL can support and deliver efficiencies. If this isn’t possible, then the project alone cannot produce the desired effects. If people don’t understand the need to change and don’t adopt the new processes and tools, the organisation will not reach what it aims to achieve and in some cases, may even go back to the previous state.

It’s the people across the organisation that will ultimately determine whether the ethos of CSI will be embedded. The key to making ITIL a framework that adds value and not just a nice-to-have is not solely in the technology or the processes, but the cultural change produced across the organisation.

It’s through regular assessment and review that the benefits of ITIL can be realized. To ultimately create a shared culture of Continual Service Improvement, management has to take ownership and highlight the benefits of change.


Steve Connelly, Head of Service Management

This article is featured on Tech Republic: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-manager/?p=4106