I also passed ITIL v3 Foundation last May 2012 and red the changes before taking exam, unforntunately not much difference in concept.. What i knew is they re-phrase some definition to make it mpre direct to the point and made corrections on spellings.
Gunther - the question would still be "Is that release a change that's under the control of CHM process or not?"
If so, RM is obviously of a different character than CHM, which is the point of this entire discussion: the difference between a process and a functions should be better understood, so people can create better managed organization. Currrently, with RM and CHM as two equal entities, we have two captains on one ship. And you know what happens then.
Perhaps I should better refer to the article that first described the difference between functions and processes. It's a free download at http://www.ismportal.nl/en/articles
The Folio Cloud App ITIL V3 manages this issue that way, that a a release package is automaigaclly generated, if the change get's released and is not providedan existing release-package. That's the only useful way I think. So it's kind of a marriage of two separate processes knowing each other quite well ;-)
The thread in the LinkedIn group still continues and a recent statement was this:
"The funny thing about this is that your theory assumes that every release of anything is initiated by something that comes from change management. That, of course, is not correct"
It then continues with: ".... -- a standard change will only go through change management once, and it's entirely possible it will never go through change management ever again."
Reading ITIL 2011 guidance seems to lead to a logic that I can't follow. In my simple world, if something is changed, it's a change. That is simple. That, I can teach anyone. But teaching IT staff that some changes ('releases') are not changes is beyond me. And teaching them that a standard change isn't a change is something I'm afraid I'll never understand.
I completely agree.
@Kiran, "especially for conglomerate", you say. But the percentage of 'conglomerates' is negligible if you look at the volume of organizations in this world. That would mean it is not 'best practice', wouldn't you agree?
A SW development project is a change. Some of the activities may indeed be allocated to teams like 'Development' and/or 'Testing'.
I had same kind of thoughts and felt Service Transition processes has lots of redundancy.
But made my self understand that, ITIL believes in demarcation of roles and responsibilities for impeccable delivery of services especially for conglomerates.
Eg: Software development project would need Development team and Testing Team as a best practice. Though development team performs unit testing after coding and at the time of coding. But still there is a necessity of explicit Testing team to perform various types of testing at different stages which would be granular and also covers integrated & holistic approach.
So made my self believe that other service transition processes help in efficient transition of services.
Many trainees did get benefited and surely would agree with the editors last line - "As long as all parties are lead by their fear of not complying with the hype, the customer actually will pay the bill."
>>the problem is not ITIL - its those who have yet to understand the real service management... and then apply references like ITIL...<<
Of course, that is the problem... not ITIL. I don't like the subject of the article.
I passed my COBIT5 Foundation at the end of November, It was the first exam in Germany. A lot of questions based on the Enablers and on the Process Capability Model.
I like this book. For the exam use the ISACA papers, too.
Well, Tatiana, I don't think Jan considers itSMF Russia as a person... And I know for sure that this column expresses my personal opinion, not Jan's. Moreover, since we discussed it with Jan I also know that he is not with me on many points of the text.
Regarding the chapter - I have experienced a nasty show of its purity guards after I publicly expressed similar opininon on service management this summer - so I found it necessary to warn the readers that all heresy I write here is mine, and no one should take it as the chapter's. Actually, now - when I know some of different individuals you've mentioned from a new side - I prefer to warn readers about me not speaking from the chapter as often as I can. Just to be sure.
I guess we just never made the organizations large and complex enough for ITIL to work! Can we have a mulligan and just start over?
Benjamin, thanks for your post. While reading I was recalling my IT management time, probably the best time in my life. That is exactly what I did when creating and managing my IT departments in different countries. I would also add some of my thoughts regarding this topic:
- include balanced leadership into your management styles you are using
- take into account the cultural differences in international departments
- demonstrate your constant learning and self development, lead by example.
Indeed, IT staff is quite specific: they should understand not only IT, but the business while business staff sometimes does not understand and respect this IT staff advantage. Sometimes they ARE the business now. And at the same time they sometimes work in a closed specific environment like data centre. So the comfort climate and the chance to see what is going on outside is very important.
Jon - whats the source for these terms...?
Larry - have you stumbled over my USMBOK yet - it has a rather simplistic explanation of service management as offered by those who started it all - the business side in the late 1970s... the problem is not ITIL - its those who have yet to understand the real service management... and then apply references like ITIL...
Its about managing 'service' not 'a service'.
At last - I've been banging on about this since the publication of the replacement ISO20K standard in April 2011! This is an important conceptual artifact. One I might add the USMBOK has long discussed and explained. This plan is effectively the governance for a service management approach - not an 'implementation plan' per se. More a business case and operational plan.
ITIL 2011 misses this entirely and as you explain - only comes as close as process focused 'plans'. We have been working with the registrars (auditors) and clients to gain ISO20K certification and have found the SM Plan framework we use works just fine...
BTW - you will have to reconcile a few other key documents when formulating your SM plan approach - the service management objectives, service management scope, and service management policy. Similarly, these are also absent from ITIL 2011.
BTW2 - the new standard reinforces the fact you can use ANY and all sources to describe how your organization defines service management, and you MUST establish and operate a continual improvement system that includes 'customer satisfaction'....
A really good masters degree that I was told about recently:
MSc Strategic ICT Leadership at Edinburgh Napier University, UK in the Institute for Informatics and Digital Innovation.
It has a workplace- learning approach that requires minimal attendance on campus.
Also note that the link in my column to the Open University Postgraduate Certificate in Advanced Professional Practice (It Service Management) has changed:
Always get some fun when hear «we are now going to implement ITIL”. Sorry, to implement ITIL means to put a bookshelf on the wall and put ITIL books on it. ITIL is just a means to start thinking about the management or start learning some principles.
More difficult situation appears when there is some framework is customizing for the customer needs. However we really need to start from something… The problem is – not so many people are able to lead such activities using some working comprehensive system.
Quite an old post, Jan, however just found it. Let me tell you that Russian chapter of itSMF is not a person with such a name; it is a number of different individuals and companies. By the way, Cleverics is also Russian itSMF member. As to me I agree with most of your statements while I am also itSMF member. We all express our private opinions, do we?
Hi Roman, thank you for your comment. I guess the points can be applied to most type of personnel, but I would say that they are especially relevant to the IT department as it is an ever-changing environment with a high staff turnover – understanding ‘role shelf life’, identifying skills set relevance and encouraging/offering personal development opportunities are essential for retaining staff in this area!
Also, the issue of in-house vs outsourced staff working side-by-side is more often found in an IT department rather than, say, an admin office or within a sales team.
Ron - if you are seriously interested in that, we can set up a Group for you, add a news item, and you'll be sure to see many participants in no time! Let us know if you want this....
Hi, I did not purchase a list, but developed one myself. Maybe we should take further. Thx Ron
Indeed Roman. I've posted many comments in many LinkedIn groups and other forums for the last five years, stating that many ITIL 'processes' are often largely covered by Risk management.
In the new Dutch standard for ITSM organizations, (the ISM Method0, there are only 6 processes, including Risk management (by the name of Quality management). All ITIL functions can be cross-referenced to these 6. In fact, tomorrow I'm doing a presentation for the European user conference of a large tool provider where I'm showing that statement as one of my core slides. I'm sure I'll get some 'big eyes'.
Totally agree. You can replace the continuity stuff with problem, or security, or availability management - with minimal corrections to this post. And it will stay correct.
Last week when I explained problem management to a group of students, one of them stopped me and exclaimed: "Hey, what you are talking about is risk management!" I asked "Exactly". Though it is not very usual reaction...