In every organization the one constant is change. In service operation, all functions, processes and
related activities have been designed to deliver specific level services. These services deliver defined and agreed
levels of utility and warranty and doing so while delivering an overall value
to the business. The catch is this has
to be done in an ever changing environment where requirements, deliverables and
perceived value changes over time.
Sometimes this change can be evolutionary or can take place at a very
fast pace.
Early in a service lifecycle it is possible to achieve significant increases in the quality of a service with a relatively small amount of money. For example, increasing availability or creating some enhanced functionality maybe easily accomplished with a relatively small amount of additional resources. After a service has had time to mature it can become quite expensive and resource intensive to increase measures of quality to the customers and end users. For example, improving the same service as mentioned above from say 98% availability to 99.9% availability or delivering some additional capability to a more finite group of users can be cost prohibitive.
This forms a conflict between maintaining the status quo and
adapting to changes in the business and technological environments. One of the key roles of service operation is to deal with
the tension between these ever changing priorities.
This struggle can be broken down into four general
imbalances that provide the service
provider an opportunity to develop some guidelines to resolve
these conflicts:
·
Internal
IT view vs. External business view
·
Stability vs.
Responsiveness
·
Service
quality vs. Cost
·
Reactive vs. Proactive
We will focus today on one of the
more difficult elements to bring into balance: service quality versus service cost.Early in a service lifecycle it is possible to achieve significant increases in the quality of a service with a relatively small amount of money. For example, increasing availability or creating some enhanced functionality maybe easily accomplished with a relatively small amount of additional resources. After a service has had time to mature it can become quite expensive and resource intensive to increase measures of quality to the customers and end users. For example, improving the same service as mentioned above from say 98% availability to 99.9% availability or delivering some additional capability to a more finite group of users can be cost prohibitive.
Determining the optimal balance of cost and quality should
be determined during the service strategy and service design phases of the
lifecycle, however it is often left to service operation teams whom are
generally not equipped nor have the authority to make those levels of
decisions.
Having strong and well defined Service Level Requirements and
Service Level Agreements from Business Relationship Management (BRM)) and
Service Level Management (SLM) should create a clear understanding of the
business purpose and potential risks in meeting customer needs.
It is crucial that we achieve a balance between these two
views. Services must be designed and
delivered around customer needs and requirements. They must have the ability to create the
desired business outcomes for the users and deliver necessary value to the
customer. At the same time, however, it can be possible
to compromise those needs and requirements by not properly planning the cost of delivering those services.
Comments