Skip to main content

The Agile Process Owner

Let’s face it, IT service management (ITSM) processes get a bad rap. Sometimes deservedly so. Bureaucratic and overly risk-adverse processes can be a real constraint in the IT value stream; particularly in organizations that are adopting agile, lean and DevOps practices. To keep pace, today’s IT organizations must be built on ITSM policies and processes that facilitate speed and change. So who ensures that ITSM processes are designed with ‘just enough’ control to meet an organization’s needs? Here’s where the role of Certified Agile Process Owner comes into play.
A Certified Agile Process Owner (CAPO)SM adapts agile and Scrum values and practices to ITSM processes and process design and improvement activities. Much like a Scrum Product Owner, a Certified Agile Process Owner manages stakeholder requirements and strives to translate those requirements into process activities and features that deliver value.
What’s different is that CAPOs and Process Improvement Teams use Sprints to deliver those activities and features in usable increments, in much the same way that Product Owners and developers deliver software increments. A CAPO plays a critical role before, during and after Sprint events by:
  • Managing and prioritizing a Process Backlog
  • Capturing and mapping user stories
  • Facilitating backlog grooming activities
  • Collaborating with stakeholders, Process Improvement Team members and the Agile Service Manager
  • Deciding when and how process increments are released
Traditional process design and improvement projects are sometimes prolonged efforts with little opportunity for experimentation, learning, and stakeholder feedback. To more quickly deliver value, a CAPO learns to focus on critical process activities and to deploy those activities in small, frequent releases. Fast feedback and a focus on measuring outcomes that matter to the business enable continuous process improvement and processes that are fit for purpose.
While it’s often perceived that processes stand in the way of progress, the reality is that the highest performing organizations don’t get there without efficient and effective ITSM processes. Nor do these organizations become high-performing with overly-rigorous processes. They get there by having agile processes and by using agile methods and techniques to continuously improve those processes.
Realizing the value of a process is dependent on the steps taken to ensure the process is agile, sustainable and constantly evolving. Selecting Process Owners with the right level of authority, the right mindset and the right skillset is critical to ensuring the value is fully realized. A CAPO brings an agile mindset and the ability to adapt agile practices to process design and improvement activities.
What our alumni are saying about Certified Agile Process Owner (CAPO)SM:
 Excellent course. Our entire ITSM Center of Excellence needs this sort of class.

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…