Skip to main content

Institutionalizing Continual Service Improvement

In this age of the global economy we repeatedly hear about how organizations must continually innovate and change to meet the challenges of global competition.  Does your organization have a plan of continual service improvement (CSI)?  Has the executive level defined how CSI will be part of the overall business strategy?  Is there alignment, from IT management?  How much time, resources and budget is being allocated towards improvement?  Is it a structured corporate program or an ad-hoc initiative with little direction and no defined benefit? 

Institutionalizing CSI is one of the critical success factors for the 21st century.

A well-defined and managed strategy is necessary when confirming that all resources and capabilities of the organization are aligned to achieving business outcomes and that those investments are lined up with the organization's intended development and growth.  It also safeguards that all stakeholders are represented in deciding the appropriate direction for the organization and the means whereby resources, capabilities and investments are prioritized.
Do the CSI plans span the entire lifecycle?   Are there mechanisms in place that allow for the capture of data and information that can then be synthesized into knowledge?  Is this knowledge being utilized by all stakeholders to develop the appropriate perspective? Finally are our processes, procedures and communication links streamlined, robust and agile enough so that we can create a position of competitiveness in our particular fields?  
Answering these questions is the first step towards an institutionalized CSI program in that the questions can be used to initiate and facilitate dialogue between key business and IT stakeholders.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between Process Owner, Process Manager and Process Practitioner?

I was recently asked to clarify the roles of the Process Owner, Process Manager and Process Practitioner and wanted to share this with you.

Roles and Responsibilities:
Process Owner – this individual is “Accountable” for the process. They are the goto person and represent this process across the entire organization. They will ensure that the process is clearly defined, designed and documented. They will ensure that the process has a set of Policies for governance.Example: The process owner for Incident management will ensure that all of the activities to Identify, Record, Categorize, Investigate, … all the way to closing the incident are defined and documented with clearly defined roles, responsibilities, handoffs, and deliverables. An example of a policy in could be… “All Incidents must be logged”. Policies are rules that govern the process. Process Owner ensures that all Process activities, (what to do), Procedures (details on how to perform the activity) and the policies (r…

How Does ITIL Help in the Management of the SDLC?

I was recently asked how ITIL helps in the management of the SDLC (Software Development Lifecycle).  Simply put... SDLC is a Lifecycle approach to produce the software or the "product".  ITIL is a Lifecycle approach that focuses on the "service".
I’ll start by reviewing both SDLC and ITIL Lifecycles and then summarize:
SDLC  -  The intent of an SDLC process is to help produce a product that is cost-efficient, effective and of high quality. Once an application is created, the SDLC maps the proper deployment of the software into the live environment. The SDLC methodology usually contains the following stages: Analysis (requirements and design), construction, testing, release and maintenance.  The focus here is on the Software.  Most organizations will use an Agile or Waterfall approach to implement the software through the Software Development Lifecycle.
ITIL  -  is a best practice for IT service management (ITSM) that focuses on aligning IT services with the needs …

Incidents when a Defect is Involved

Question: We currently track defects in a separate system than our ticket management system. With that said, my question is does anyone have suggestions and/or best practices on how to handle incidents when a defect is involved? Should the incident be closed since the defect is being worked on in another defect tracking system if it is noted in the incident ticket? I am considering creating an incident statuses of 'closed-unresolved' so the incident can still be reported on in our ticket management system but know it is being worked on/tracked in the defect system. With defects, it is possible that we may never work on them because they are very low priority and the impact is low to the user. However, in some cases a defect is being worked on. Should we create a problem ticket instead?
Thanks, René W.

Answer: RenĂ©. In ITIL, the activity you are describing is handled by the Problem Management process. ITIL does not use the term “defect” but it does use the term “known error” to…