Personal Blogs

Author

Article

Year

Read

Iden & Langeland

Setting the stage for a successful ITIL adoption: a Delphi study of IT experts in the Norwegian armed forces

2010

18-Aug-12

Key words

ITIL, armed forces, Delphi method, ITSM, success factor

Summarizing comments

This article (Iden & Langeland, 2010) I recently read seems useful to distribute within the NCIA to a wider audience.

The article reports on a recent study to determine the success factors for adopting ITIL within the IT services in the Norwegian armed forces. The authors have used the Delphi method to analysis these factors and sought consensus between 15 experts on their relative relevance to succeed in creating value from adopting ITIL. ITIL (v.3) is the most widely accepted ITSM framework and outlines an extensive set of best practices captured in nearly 30 process areas.

The authors contrast IT service management, as process based, with more technical approaches to IT operations. The article uses a quote from Van Bon 2002 as the principle behind ITSM “Providers of IT services can no longer afford to focus on technology and their internal organization, they now have to consider the quality of the services they provide and focus on the relationship with customers”.

The expectations for the benefits of ITSM are high. Literature asserts improved customer satisfaction; increased quality of services; lower production costs; clearer organizational structure; increased management control; a service oriented culture; as well as uniform terminology for internal and external communications. The relative benefits that an organization will experience will obviously be dependent to the initial state of the organization and the ambitions it has.  

As NCIA NPC Glons has a mature quality management system, I do not expect that introducing ITIL within NCIA NPC Glons will bring many benefits with regard to organizational clarity or management control. The claim of cost reduction is questioned by, for instance, Marquis (2006). The most substantial benefits from ITIL I expect to see in its value for merging the various sub-groups within the NCIA, as it provides us a framework to refer to and terminology to use in our communication as enablers to grow towards a shared identity.

Earlier case studies recognized that ITIL is becoming essential in IT operation and that many organizations experience problems during implementation. These case studies identified 3 focus areas for successful adoption: management engagement, training and competence, and information and communication. The objective of this Delphi study is to develop an authoritative list of factors that need special attention when an organization is adopting ITIL, by bringing together expert opinions with respect to the variety of stakes

The article identifies 65 success factors in 9 categories: Management; Tools; Training; Information & Communication; Project Management; Measurement; ITIL Processes; Organization and Organizational Culture; Customer relations. The full list is attached to the article as an appendix.

From these the most important 12 factors (50% of the experts indicating that the factor is in the top 10) were selected and then next ranked in consensus by the experts in order of importance.

1. Managers at all levels must have an ownership to the introduction of ITIL

2. Senior Management must formally decide the introduction of ITIL

3. Identify and involve key personnel, and let them participate in the design and improvement of processes

4. Senior Management must have knowledge about and understanding of what process orientation means

5. Start with and prioritize a few ITIL processes where there are greatest opportunities for success

6. Information, characterized by openness, must be given up front to personnel and customers about what ITIL means, why ITIL is being introduced and what it will entail

7. General competence in process thinking, ITSM and ITIL must be provided for all concerned

8. A modular ITSM system is needed and must be applied for all processes

9. Plan for and communicate positive project results early and along the way

10. A specific training programme for the ITIL introduction of the various processes must be provided

11. Implement a standard system for measuring, analyzing, and reporting on service level

12. Be conscious about the fact that introducing ITIL means changing organizational culture

From ‘top 4’ 3 factors relate to management. An interesting observation is that factors related to technology and methods are considered to have less importance.

In their conclusion, the authors specifically mention that prior studies never revealed such big emphasis on the role of the management, compare to the general knowledge and commitment of staff. I wonder to which extent this can be attributed to the military culture and has less to do with the introduction of ITIL and the character of IT services. The article does pick on this aspect and suggest continuing this study in other organizations and in different countries.

The article provides a number of anchors for further readings, for instance from Pallard & Cater-Steel (2009) and Van Bon (2002)

Interesting quotes

“Providers of IT services can no longer afford to focus on technology and their internal organization, they now have to consider the quality of the services they provide and focus on the relationship with customers.”

“An IT service is based on the use of information technology and supports the customer’s business processes. An IT service is made up from a combination of people, processes and technology, and should be defined in a service level agreement.”(Evans & Macfarlane, 2001).

“A reference model may be defined as “an abstracted depiction of reality that serves as a standardized or suggestive conceptual basis for the design of enterprise specific models, usually within a like domain” (Taylor & Sedera, 2003).

Too many to mention

Actions

Due date

Status

1. Read and summarize

19-Aug-12

Done

2. Distribute to C-MAO, QSAC

20-Aug-12

Done

3. Re-read

Author

Article

Year

Read

Heston & Phifer

The multiple quality models paradox: how much ‘best practice’ is just enough?

2011

12-Aug-12

Key words

Quality management, Standards, Quality models,

Summarizing comments

The title of this article (Heston & Phifer, 2011) left me with the expectations of an academic paper into a struggle between standardization and formality vs. flexibility and speed to best meet current and future business objectives. The article does not meet these expectations and is predominantly an outline of characteristics of typical standards / models / best practices used within the software industry (ISO 9001, CMMI, ITIL, ISO 27001, eSCM-SP, Six Sigma, Lean).

Heston and Phifer argue that implementing one or more of these should not be a goal on its own and claims that many organizations are putting effort in implementation of these without taking full advantage of such implementation. They encourage the purposeful application of parts of these models/standards to best meet the organization’s needs.

They are using the terms ‘Process DNA’ and ‘Quality Genes’ as building blocks of each standard/model and compare how each standard/model focusses on each of these.  I don’t know how they came to the selection of the Reference model capabilities to map the ‘Q-genes’ of each standard/model.  The explanation provided is that it represents an’ initial, high-level view of many elements that currently are incorporated into the reference models and standards in scope for this paper’. The paper suggests that this list could be easily expanded with other comparison criteria, attuned to the specific needs from the organization.

The article provides 4 different scenario’s where different type of organizations are selecting different best practices from different model/standards based upon their culture, their needs (I skipped these scenarios; I can see the point).

The message of the article is a little lost in the amount of tables delivering the comparisons. The tables are poorly positioned and also poorly introduced. At a number of occasions, I had to go backward and forward to understand why the table was there.  Their content, however, the comparisons of the different models/standards is useful for my project and for my normal work too.

Paragraph 6 provides a nice overview of common challenges and risks when pursuing process improvements and suggests mitigations.

· Lack of focus on people change management

· Lack of skills in process improvements

· Belief in silver bullet

· Belief, compromises and conflicts on what is enough (actually what triggered me reading this article; the authors introduce the 80/20 rule and suggest that you move to maintenance mode once you have reached your business objective)

· Being model centric

This article feels as a rush-rush job, insufficiently filtering the information required for the reader to take in the case; it just uses everything available. Valid points, but not really contributing to the case (for instance this list of common challenges and risks with their mitigations). The conclusion is not really following the line set out in the article. The conclusion suddenly mentions the costs of implementation of standards as a major issue. I do not disagree; I just don’t think it should be an important part of the conclusion if it hasn’t been a major part of the article.

Actions

Due date

Status

1. Skim read and summarize

12-Aug-12

Closed

2.