Skip to main content

The Best of Service Transition, Part 1

We continue our "Best of" blog services by moving into Service Transition

Who is the Change Initiator?
Originally Published on July 21, 2010

The “change initiator” is the individual or group that is requesting the change. Change initiators could be users, suppliers or IT staff – depending on the nature of the proposed change. It is the change initiator’s responsibility to justify the reasons for making the change. 

However, since the change initiator may not understand all of the risks associated with a seemingly innocuous change, some type of impact assessment should occur.  The assessment could be very simple and quick - or extensive- based on the scope of the change and business processes that are potentially affected.

The change authority (CAB, Steering Committee, local CABs, etc.) assesses the impact of the propose change and determines if the change is necessary or beneficial.  Impact could be negative or positive and should consider cost/benefit, resources required or risk. While ITIL does not assign a specific role to the “change assessor”, the role is an extension of the CAB.   You can also authorize experts to assess and approve technical changes  – however be wary of relying too heavily on a single person to make the call.   They may develop "tunnel vision" and only consider risk from within their own domain.  Potential residual risks may be overlooked.

One individual can serve multiple roles.  Change assessors may also be responsible for ultimately performing or implementing the change.  ITIL calls that role a “release analyst”. 

Change models are particularly helpful to change initiators, change authorities and release analyst. You can create models for common types of changes (from low risk to high risk).  The model will pre-define the steps and procedures needed to request, assess and implement that type of change.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I have a very specific question that is causing a stupid amount of debate within our organisation.

Our SAP team send's our Database team a request to grow there database in size.

As the request would span over multiple teams (Database team to grow the database, storage team to allocate more storage) and would require an outage to SAP and impact the business the database team requests the SAP team to raise a change and be the change initiator.

There logic is that the SAP team own the relationship with the business and know the details of when the business can accept an outage.

I think there logic is sound; but the SAP team believe as it related to Database's the Database team should be the change initiator.

Any thoughts on this?
Anonymous said…
I have a very specific question that is causing a stupid amount of debate within our organisation.

Our SAP team send's our Database team a request to grow there database in size.

As the request would span over multiple teams (Database team to grow the database, storage team to allocate more storage) and would require an outage to SAP and impact the business the database team requests the SAP team to raise a change and be the change initiator.

There logic is that the SAP team own the relationship with the business and know the details of when the business can accept an outage.

I think there logic is sound; but the SAP team believe as it related to Database's the Database team should be the change initiator.

Any thoughts on this?
Given the circumstances that you described, I believe the SAP Team is the change initiator. Here’s my logic:

- The SAP team is requesting the increase in database size, therefore “initiating the change”
- The SAP team is delivering the end service to the customer and therefore owns the business relationship
- The SAP team “owns” the end to end service and therefore are the recipient of the results.

If any other team requests a change that has an impact on SAP services, then the SAP team should be alerted.

Hope this helps,

ITSM Professor

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…