All matters concerning ITSM and it’s use within business

Does Anyone Read or Act on Your ITSM Reports?


I’ve not blogged for a while I know – I write now just getting into the conference season (en route to the itSMF Finland conference, also heading to SMFusion, itSMF UK and itSMF Estonia).

It’s been a busy ITSM-consulting time recently, with many organisations starting to renew their service improvement initiatives – good to see and also challenging, as there is a real demand for new ideas and thinking.

Apart from several projects looking to procure new ITSM tools, I’ve also been working on a couple of projects that are looking to really develop the quality of metrics and reporting.  As a background to this I also produced a short BrightTALK Webinar last month with targeted, solid advice and guidance for practitioners.

This webinar got some great feedback – if you don’t have time to listen through in full, the gist is simply this:

[important]Is your reporting delivering any value? Does anyone actually read or act upon the information produced? If not, then please stop and use the time you spend producing this stuff to produce something useful. [/important]

What would be useful? Well of course, if you can produce customer-based ‘service’ reporting, based around service bundles (see previous posts on this blog and webinars on my new custom BRC BrightTALK channel), that’s great. Of course you might not be able to do that – or do it right away. So it is useful to consider how you can improve your internal IT reporting, particularly if you develop the ‘bundles’ concept into different areas of IT.

The basic concept here is to consider how you can provide a rounded view of service quality and operational reporting – as appropriate for different audiences and groups. The Service Desk reporting ‘bundle’ will include telephony, incident and request handling, customer sat and other metrics, weighted into an appropriate ‘bundle’. Resolver groups and IT Management will have different metrics, perhaps looking at incidents caused by changes, relative numbers of outstanding incidents and problems etc. (I offer full details and explanations in the webinar).

This approach is always well received within IT and ITSM groups, particularly as it doesn’t require significant alterations to current reporting, plus it also avoids the need to tackle some of the bigger and tougher SLM challenges  (dealing with customers..!?!). So it’s not the ideal end goal but a good stepping stone to get there…

CIO CEO Reporting 2Let me know what you think…

A big week for ITSM – SITS13, G2G3, ITIL, CAPITA

So that was the week that was – what a week in the ITSM world….! Here’s some summary thoughts

SITS13 – the (UK) Service Desk and IT Support show

London 23 – 24 April

As ever this was a busy and brilliant event for the industry – clearly the most focused and clearly defined of all the IT support exhibitions and a treasure trove for all concerned – networkers, vendors, buyers, practitioners, analysts and consultants.

As a presenter, exhibitor and industry watcher I found it fascinating, rewarding and exhausting – but most of all very enjoyable to meet up with so many industry people from all fronts to discuss Service Management. I was pleased that the key themes emerging were very similar to my own approach and position with ITSMGoodness – evolution not revolution, outcome focus, practical and pragmatic customer focus. In particular it was very rewarding to hear of several people using the content from this successfully and on their own initiative.

For the event as a whole I think it was seen as a success by all – particularly the involvement and sponsorship of Gartner, who brought a new level of focus to the proceedings. It was very positive to hear Jeff Brooks taking about buying in line with a culture match and not just a technology tick list – hopefully that message will have been actively heard by buyers at the show..

Anyway, great credence to Diversified Communications and of course Laura and her team for another great event…! Look out for some interviews on ITSMTV.

G2G3, ITIL and Capita

At the show it was announced that G2G3 had been acquired by Capita. This was a surprise although in the context of the week it set the agenda for the big announcement about Capita also winning the bid for a joint venture with the UK govt for ITIL and Prince2. Formal announcement.

So, in the course of a few days, The ‘crown jewels’ of the ITSM industry have gone to one large corporate firm, in partnership with the UK government. Also they have acquired one of the most creative and forward thinking companies in the industry.

For me personally and my clients, the ITIL announcement has little or no impact – I don’t ‘do’ any ‘formal’ ITIL work and haven’t been involved in the formal training or publishing programmes, really for some time, if ever at all… I know it will be a difficult time of uncertainty for many in the industry, although I believe there will be little immediate change. There may of course be longer term shakedowns for all of us in the industry but that can always happen so we shoudln’t panic or overreact negatively to this. I’ve also grown bored of the debate around the relevance and future of ITIL, when for many practitioners, the debate (and ITIL) has little to do with the requirements and practicalities of their day jobs…

There is of course already a lot of speculation and concern on social media around what this will all mean – here’s my initial thoughts:

  • As an industry, we have been complaining about the way ITIL is delivered and run for some time – now we’ve got it! This is potentially a radical opportunity (with resources) to re-shape what this is and how its delivered
  • It’s a big concern that one corporate entity now owns and can control this – obvious concern for other vendors and interested parties – we will need clarity quickly on how this can be properly, transparently and equably managed
  • The goal of all of this must be quality IT delivery to support businesses and customers – not just short term financial gain  – that has been a concern for some time however…
  • Using the ‘£500m boost for (UK) taxpayers’ as a leading message isn’t a great start as a driver for the global industry and misses the message about IT quality…
  • We should view the investment opportunity as a possible means to further professionalise the approach and delivery of ITIL – moving away from the cottage industry to a proper business model. So hopefully this will mean a more professional and co-ordinated writing and editing approach for consistency, plus I hope e.g. we can see more clear business metrics and data that support the value derived from ITIL
  • Capita has some detractors and in some quarters an image problem re its track record with government projects – taking on ITIL and Prince2 involves a responsibility to deliver in accordance with not just best but excellent practice
  • I’ve known G2G3, its owners and many of its key people for some time – (I gave them their first piece of paid work ..!). I have a lot of respect for their innovation and business acumen. Their inclusion here would not be done without much care and is to me a positive part of this process – ideally as they (1) might have some good influence on approach and (2) this could mean more focus on experiential learning as part of the ‘ITIL’ training programme (something I think is long overdue). Their inclusion is central and potentially pivotal from my perspective and I hope this can suggest a positive outlook.

So, overall I think it’s interesting, slightly unexpected, challenging and potentially game-changing, although this could all go several ways and possibly not always as the current ITSM industry sees or wants it. That in itself might not be a bad thing. However there are real concerns on quality and direction and it’s down to Capita and their partners to work on messages and communication with clarity and openness as much as possible.

There are many challenges to be met.

For me – and I suspect a great number of people – I’ll get on with doing what I do and react accordingly – particularly when there is more information made available. It would be nice to hear more and I hope to get some interviews for ITSMTV and the ITSMROW podcast when possible.

What do you think will happen? what are your concerns?

The real value of IT? Better get moving…!

Value value value value, business value, business outcomes, moments of truth, key metrics, IT value, commercial and operational value, business value, value….value.  In case you hadn’t noticed…?!

When we in the IT industry aren’t ranting about the death of IT, ITIL, ITSM, Email, Service Desk and all that, we are still banging on and on constantly about value – and the need to deliver and demonstrate it. I’m a major offender here, having started using the V word and the ‘demonstrating value’ line really since the mid 90s. (I recently found a whole pile of stuff in my loft from 1997 which I could practically use today…)

I have a friend and colleague who has been ribbing me about my use of those terms for some time now – I point him now to the explosion of content on this subject like someone who has followed a band through their wilderness days and now they’ve gone global and I don’t wan’t to know them… :-)

However to me it’s quite a simple concept – IT value is what is derived by customers and the business via the technology. So this will vary by organisation from the need to meet compliance or legal requirements, to getting products quickly to market, or to delivering commerical efficiency and profit.

In order to be able to achieve this and measure it in some way, we need to be able to separate out the commodity aspects of technology, from the business-specific aspects. (The commodity services should be delivered in the most cost effective way, whilst the value added services may need more focus on speed, business knowledge, risk reduction etc.)

[important]This is why in a service catalog we try to define (1) ‘Standard’ or ‘core’ IT Commodity Services – like PCs, mobile, comms, email etc  and (2) ‘Business’ Services which either support internal users with their key functions or external customers with organisational-specific technology and services.[/important]

Value isn’t just about the financial aspects but this should be identified wherever possible. However the real nature of IT value is what it is that makes (particularly an internally retained) IT organisation special and speciifc to its customers, in terms of what it delivers and how it delivers it. So an internal or external IT organisation should be able to focus and demonstrate the value that they deliver to their business/organisation via their business and service knowledge and understanding.

In other words – it’s what retained IT organisations should have been doing for years – i.e. working for the companies or organisations that pay their salaries – not just ‘working in IT’… and measuring their delivery in business terms.

If they can’t do that – ie differentiate themselves and demonstrate this – then they are not adding value and therefore open to serious competition – and the risk of extinction.

So it really is: identify value – or become irrelevant quickly. And if you don’t know what that value is… [Tweet This]

[warning]Better get moving[/warning]






What is your defintion of IT value? – how do you define this for your organisation and customers?





Service Desk Triangle – can you see it from my (SDM) angle?

One thing that strikes a chord with many of my clients is a simple concept that I’ve used for some time, although only recently defined more explicitly. This centres around the role of the Service Desk Manager (SDM), which for me is still the pivotal role in ITSM. I act as a mentor for this role with some clients and help them to put theory into practice for success in the job.

The idea is around the communications and stakeholder ‘juggling act’ that the SDM has to carry out daily – I call this the Service Desk Triangle. This refers to the 3-way pull on the SDM that can potentially result in them disappearing without a trace – i.e. like into the ‘Bermuda triangle’…

service desk triangle


Basically there are 3 very distinct stakeholder groups that they have to manage and keep happy and on-side, namely:

1 The Service Desk team – who need specific management and TLC, as they operate in a front-line service role with specific time demands and a daily dose of negative interactions. These people need a mixture of clear and structured management with supportive staff coaching and support, to keep motivated and maintain quality.

2 Customers – who obviously have a different set of expectations and requirements which need to be met and managed professionally and effectively, as the service desk is the ‘shop front’ for the whole of the IT organisation.

3 The rest of the IT organisation – i.e. part of the service desk’s team, but often its biggest problem area. Successful and integrated service delivery requires seamless teamwork across IT teams in support of the service desk and its customers, but this doesn’t always happen…!

The SDM needs to build effective relationships and get agreement from their colleagues across IT to make service an effective ‘supply chain’. So they have to be parent, coach, service provider, diplomat and negotiator, to name but a few roles, as well as of course marketer, salesperson, tough manager, mentor, analyst and master of ceremonies…!

I know from experience how tough it is when all three of these areas are out of sync and bearing down on the beleaguered SDM. On the other hand it’s very rewarding when the juggling is working and all three stakeholder groups are content.

It is a good practical approach if the SDM does some analysis and ‘stakeholder mapping’ to keep tabs on what each area’s requirements, issues, preferences and idiosyncrasies are – this can help by providing an ongoing pain and/or satisfaction barometer for the SDM to monitor and act on accordingly. The SDM also needs to have a deep portfolio of communications and influencing skills to be able to understand and satisfy each different agenda.


So, if you are engaged in some way with the Service Desk from the outside, it does no harm to consider the SDM’s daily challenge, keeping disparate sets of people and teams happy simultaneously – give it some thought, put yourself in their shoes for a while and ‘see it from their angle’… 

Maybe also if you do this you could see and act on ways to make the triangle a bit less of a challenge for the SDM? What do you think?

Processes don’t happen by themselves

How do you make processes work? so that you can achieve success and consistent quality of service?

2 recent client experiences brought home a simple and classic point to me recently – one organisation with good intentions to improve but no idea how to make it happen, and another who have made quality and consistency happen via positive culture.

Organisation #1 had a number of good people and a great sense of desire to improve service, however the people who were in positions to do something about this – bring people together, instill some clear direction and discipline into delivery and communicate the value and benefits of doing this – had no idea how to do this.

Step 1 for me was to make them aware of these requirements and then step 2 that they had to make them happen..!  Implicit in the thinking of these guys was simply that processes and best practise would deliver – IE by simply defining a process this would change everything – which of course is absolutely not the case.

Organisation #2 on the other hand had worked hard to develop a positive and open management culture – with strong leadership and clear direction. The culture in this company is tangible and leads staff to take a self critical view of themselves and their operation – for continual improvement yes, but also it makes processes happen simply because people buy into them.

There was no sub-culture of  ‘how we’ve always really done things and so we won’t change’, If there is a change of practice then people follow this positively and constructively because its probably been discussed with them and not forced upon them – and they also have faith in the approach and need to do things consistently and well as a   whole.

‘Culture eats Strategy for Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner…‘ – is one of my favourite quotes and it is  a simple reference to the fact that we can plan and document and do lots of stuff and try to push it out into our organisations. But it will not stand a snowball in hell’s chance of working unless we also tackle culture, people and governance.

People often say ‘ that meal’s not going to cook itself’ – we have the ingredients and the recipe, but we still need to actually carry out the task of cooking it…

Similarly we can say  ‘processes just don’t happen by themselves’. So you need to think about how to get people to follow them as much as what is in them.

Actually, unlike meals,  processes do happen by themselves of course – but unless you have taken care of the culture, they won’t happen the way you (and your organisation) need them to work for business success…


So what do you think..?

Lets make 2013 a year of ITSMGoodness…

So, another year and  the ITSM industry is alive with debate and discussion, opportunity, challenge and as ever some uncertainty. I’m not one for making resolutions or big predictions (both usually fail in mid January..!), but I do have some basic aspirations for the year ahead…

These can be summarized in 2 words: Practical Unity

  • Practical – as I feel we are still not providing enough real guidance and useful messages to practitioners on how to make ITSM successful – and meet the new challenges
  • Unity – so that we as an industry can forget some of the negative debate and move on to actually engage with the challenges and deliver real value from technology.

So what I would like to see is the industry coming togegher more, as well as providing more useable and practical advice and ‘stuff’ for our practitioners to use. We need to forget about whether or not we agree that our methodologies are perfect/imperfect and get on with simply using our experience and creativity to step up and deliver value from IT Services. Of course we need to ensure that what we use in terms of content and approach is usable – as a lot of the existing stuff is.

There are  a whole lot of great people practitioners, consultants, trainers and vendors out there with fantastic experience who know how to make ITSM work, and they should be celebrated and supported along with those who are coming up with great new ideas – both are required and required tow work in unison – not in polarised opposition.

So lets have a year where we really get together as an industry to support our industry !!!


New cover with arrow v2

My own contribution to this will be a development of the ITSMGoodness stuff that I’ve been putting out over the last few months – This is now a series of 7 simple steps to practical ITSM success and includes e.g. checklists, templates and practical guidance, all of which I’ll be espousing over the coming months, including presentations at PINK13, SITS13 and SDI13 amongst other shows and events..

The 7 ITSMGoodness steps are:

  1. Engage and Listen to Customers
  2. Build Services based on business outcomes
  3. Invest in the Service Desk
  4. Get Problem Management working
  5. Report on useful stuff
  6. Get the whole IT organisation involved
  7. Change the pitch – sell the value

So lets all have a year of ITSMGoodness – together…!

What’s your plan for ITSM Goodness + Practical Unity?

Service Catalog – real life secrets of success

 Last week I visited a client for a follow –up review. I’ve helped them to develop and implement SLM and a service catalog over the last 8 months or so.


It was a very positive discussion as they had moved from having nothing in this area to having a pretty sophisticated Catalog in place for all their services and with all their internal department customers. The customers liked the new simple ‘traffic light’ reporting format, based on their needs, the CIO was happy as he was now getting valuable service and cost based information to discuss at C-Level, plus the IT support and technical teams also liked it as they were now developing some really useful supporting documentation in one place.  On my way in I met the Development Manager who said that this had been a very positive initiative and given him and his team some valuable content and ideas…

I could go on… (it’s OK I won’t..!). However it was great to see the benefits and results of the project – particularly since this really was an advisory piece of work on my part, so the effort, input and creativity had come from the organisation and individuals themselves. They had built their catalog based on their business and their customer’s requirements.

So, job done – we are now talking about a case study and how this project’s success can be communicated out. For now I thought it would be a useful learning point to reflect on and share the key things that made it a success:

  • From day one this project was driven as a requirement by the CIO – he wanted to do this and had clear reasons for doing so – i.e.  to develop meaningful  service-based reporting, to build the service Catalog so that he could then look at how to sensibly present the business value of what IT does. However he had clear requirements from this and these were passed down to his staff to action as a key objective. This does make such a difference…
  • The IT team took a little time to really embrace (1) the mechanics of SLM and (2) the potential value. The mechanics were fairly easy to explain and work through in a 1 day workshop. It took a good few weeks and months longer for each team member to see what the value was for them. The Project Manager (also the Service Desk Manager) was initially unsure and said he understood the concept but couldn’t see the value. His epiphany came when we drew up a ‘traffic light’ report on 1 page for all services – he could then see how the information that he was compiling would go towards building this and also making it credible. He also did most of the customer meetings and said he’s learned a whole lot of new things about how the business works.
  • We defined the overall structure of services in the initial workshop. We then spent a good amount of time defining what each service was and how this would be reported on. So each service ‘metrics’ would be comprised of a number of different components, each weighted appropriately for the service. We took a view on the relative importance for each service of availability, incident/request turnaround, customer feedback and the key measure (moment of truth) by which that service would be viewed by the customer.
  • This was all started and ended with customer discussions so that they could review and verify what had been agreed. Most of the customer changes were tweaks, with a few larger alterations, but in general it was a good reflection and the customers are now happy to get a simple compound picture of their service.
  • Once the structure and services were defined and documented, the technical teams were then asked to define their configurations that supported the services. In fact this proved to be one of the most useful and to me positive parts of this project, as there are now a number of really well put together maps and simple documents that explain how each service is comprised, with relationships etc. It’s a great DR tool, but it’s also a great source of helpful information for problem determination and root cause analysis – all in one place…
  • It’s not a huge organisation (global investment managers), so that definitely helped in terms of gaining access to the right people and being able to make decisions.
  • Finally as I mentioned the organisation did this themselves – they used external services in a guiding and mentoring role, with some initial ‘kick start’ activity. As a result the level of ownership and commitment to this working has been excellent. I do see the value of consulting as helping people and organisations to make positive change happen, rather than forcing it from the outside. Certainly in this case the desire came from the right place in the organisation and this really made it a success. I’m delighted for all those who have contributed however.

So, I hope there are a few pointers that you can use if you are considering an SLM or Service Catalog project yourself? I’d love to hear your thoughts and feedback on this. I think it must be done from within the organisation, using a good amount of customer liaison and feedback – all with a clear sense of purpose and end objectives. Do you agree?

You can also download a Service Catalog Route Map – people tell me they have found it really useful.

I’m looking forward to going back and reviewing how the reporting and financial modelling has made a difference…

Problem Management Success – Start Using Causal Closing Codes


Many organisations struggle to make
Problem Management work effectively.

For me there are a number of reasons for this – many to do with getting the right people to do the right job.

One key area which is vital to develop for this is reporting, particularly to start to really identify underlying causes and trends – e.g. for incidents. If you close your incidents off against the initial (logging) categories that you’ve used to identify the incident, you may miss the reason why the incident actually happened. So closing against ‘software’ may be useless to you if the cause was actually a user or 3rd party error.

So it’s important and useful to use separate ‘closing’ categories or ‘causes’ for logging categories or impact etc. – these are different things.

Here is a suggested list of closing or ’cause’ codes to help you to identify trends and make some sense and provide MI around root cause etc.

Known/Standard Error

  • existing issue, fault or request known, with workaround to maintain service

Process Failure 

  • no relevant process
  • process not adequate
  • governance – process not followed

Resource Issue

  • Skill/knowledge issue
  • Availability issue

External Issue

  • 3rd party system issue
  • environment issue

User Issue

  • user error
  • training issue
  • Policy issue

Hardware Failure

  • xxx as required

Security issue

  • password reset
  • access issue

Systems Issue

  • networks
  • infrastructure
  • operating systems failure
  • xxx as required

Software Issue

  • design issue
  • build issue
  • test issue
  • service introduction issue

Contract/Commercial Issue

  • technical information given
  • ‘how to ‘ question answered

Request or Order Fulfilled

Cause Unidentified

  • service resumed, cause unknown

(Optional to be used by limited SD people only) usually should be passed to problem management, but in some cases the cause is unknown. To be used with care and to avoid having ‘other’ as an option.

How effective is the reporting in your area of influence right now?

Are you already using causal closing codes?

Do they work for you and if so, which ones in particular?

GARTNER ITSSM Magic Quadrant – Delivery is the Key

We’ve seen the recent (re-launch) of the Gartner ‘Magic Quadrant’, after a 3 year absence and now renamed ITSSM to incorporate a wider span of ITSM and support concepts. This has been made publicly available by BMC and is therefore widely available in a full format for the first time.

This sort of analysis will always divide opinion around who should or shouldn’t be included, plus how conclusions are reached. However, in general I’m pleased to see this return as a focal point around the vendor industry and how this is evaluated. Overall there are no clear winners, although ServiceNow and BMC are best placed, plus there are solid placements for Hornbill, EasyVista and FrontRange, plus a great performance from Cherwell. In general l think it looks like a fair reflection of the key players, established and challenging. Roy Atkinson of HDI has a good summary review which covers the main points.

We are at the point where – aside from new and ever-changing niche areas – we have a commodity market in terms of functionality. The real challenge for many of the main players is how to differentiate themselves. For me this should be easy, and it’s not just about ‘customer service’ as is often quoted.

The key issue for me in assessing vendors must be capability to deliver – this is often mentioned and translated into numbers of technical and (ITIL/ITSM) process consultants available, as well as track record of course. But in reality this is really about project management, engagement, risk management, ownership and taking responsibility.

To what extent will or can your prospective vendor actually run a project in a way that delivers what your organisation needs? I.e. not just what their process or methodology says. How can they convince you that they will work with you and take away a lot of your pain, rather than simply give you too many choices that you don’t need and which will get in the way of delivery and quality? How will they demonstrate that they understand your sort of organisation and culture, so that they will provide appropriate people to work with you?

For me it’s essential to really investigate and feel comfortable with the vendor and their people as much as what their product does, and the process is as much about a good ‘chemistry’ fit as a functional or technological one.

So, in reality the Magic Quadrant can give you a good start and guide to the major players in the industry, but it’s not the whole picture and you need to identtify clearly what you need and expect from your vendor – after all they will be become a key business partner…

What are your thoughts on this? What do you require for that ideal fit?


Tips for ITSM Goodness

I presented a big list of little tips at the recent OVUM conference on ITSM in London:

Here’s the slides  OVUM presentation 20 tips


Plus Some additional short tips

  1. If you are going to do an ITSM project, clarify what it will deliver for your organisation
  2. Somehow the myth that ITIL  is a panacea still prevails – dispel it
  3. No matter what anyone says, you can’t just buy ‘ITIL’ / ITSM off the shelf + do it in a few weeks
  4. You can achieve a lot of small targeted incremental service improvements in 30 days
  5. Getting a system running quickly isn’t a new cure-all, ITSM goodness takes time
  6. If you need funds for ITSM then define what this will deliver in simple business terms (1 slide?)
  7. Don’t be too ambitious for your ITSM project in terms of cost savings – it’s hard to quantify
  8. You can define benefits in terms of service quality + risk reduction, as well as cost benefit
  9. The way you set up your ITSM project is as important as how you deliver it – objectives, outcomes, project – people, skills, realistic planning
  10. If you don’t have a clear definition of what you do in IT, how can you know if you’re doing a good job?
  11. ITIL training will help staff to learn ITSM + use the same language, but won’t change the organisation
  12. There’s a whole group of people who just need an ITSM overview session rather than a 3 day foundation course
  13. The tech guys just need to be told what to do + what’s in it for them, don’t ask them to define strategy + processes
  14. For your Service Catalogue think (internal) IT services like email + support, + (external) business services that do what the organisation does
  15. SLM, SLAs + Service Catalogue – all must be done with customers – otherwise it’s old IT arrogance
  16. Let’s move our IT organisation from providing systems to delivering Services
  17. IT is + should be part of the business not a separate (necessary evil) function
  18. Let’s not think of running IT ‘as’ a business but ‘like’ a business – + part of it
  19. It’s the (project) process that counts with SLM – i.e. talking/listening to your customers
  20. ‘We did SLAs before + no-one was interested’ – no wonder if they were IT-only driven
  21. If your SLA document is more than a couple of pages then it’s an SLD – service level disagreement
  22. Don’t write SLAs as if you are writing a legal document – keep it simple + avoid IT jargon
  23. Don’t bother trying to do CMDB unless you are really sure why + for what result
  24. If you must do CMDB then don’t give the project to a tech person
  25. CMDB – be clear on your criteria for defining + storing CIs
  26. Too many well-meaning CMDB projects have failed by trying to do too much – ‘boiling the ocean’
  27. Actually, the whole concept of a single CMDB/CMS is flawed + in reality doesn’t exist
  28. Metrics in isolation are dangerously misleading – its an eco-system which needs balance
  29. We need services/SLAs to give our metrics + KPIs relevance, otherwise we get what suits us in IT
  30. KPIs without balance + business context simply drive compliant behaviour – maybe at cost to the business
  31. Don’t think that anyone cares about blanket 99.9% ‘availability’ – 100% when it matters is what matters
  32. If you are going to talk about 1st/2nd/3rd levels of support, you need to define what these mean
  33. Generally it’s faster, cheaper + better for the customer if incidents are fixed at the first contact
  34. Change + release management really are ‘no-brainers’, although doing them with common sense is still rare.
  35. Problem management is more about ownership than just process – give the right person the job
  36. The Problem Manager is part analyst, part investigator, but mostly project manager completer-finisher
  37. In IT we like to build models, tools + processes rather than just managing people + issues
  38. ITIL is documented common sense, which is stilll a rare commodity. It also needs good management to make it successful
  39. Culture eats strategy for breakfast, lunch and dinner’