In Part 1 we discussed homeostasis in animals and compared it to negative feedback loops required to stabilize and sustain performance via Continual Service Improvement systems for optimized service management.   Negative feedback loops allow for real-time self-correction in systems and therefore contrary to the name have a very positive effect for the delivery of services throughout the value stream.   Ok!   If negative feedback loops are positive then what about positive feedback loops and how might those be used for ITSM? What is so positive about positive feedback loops? In a positive feedback loop we see the target set point as a challenge to move away from. We strive to move beyond the set point or perhaps from one stage to another. Positive feedback loops are used when we want something to happen very quickly.   We can optimize and exploit with positive feedback loops. Vivid childhood memories make real the lessons of patience as we waited for the fruit to ripen befo

Feedback Loops Negative and Positive    IT professionals agree that vital information is required in order for a service provider to adapt to the ever changing dynamic needs of the business.   Best practice tells us we should create a culture of ongoing continual service improvement (CSI).   In order to propose strategies for service improvement plans that will allow us to meet the ever changing demands of our customer we need to get a pulse on what is really happening in our internal and external environment.   Taking a SWAG at it is not good enough. Data, information and knowledge are not enough.   A service provider needs to provision the measurement systems that will enable success.   In comes “Feedback Loops”. Negative Feedback loops are positive for ITSM A Negative feedback loop brings you toward your target set point to optimize and sustain an internal stable environment.   An animal maintains homeostasis or a stable body temperature through negative feedback loops.   H

In a recent class I heard learners intone that ITIL and ITSM is just an argument over semantics. For those not familiar with the term, "semantics" is the study of the use of specific words in a given context. And yes, ITIL and ITSM are really all about semantics. That is because semantics are important. How and when we use specific words can change the complete meaning and intention of our communication. This is important because the words we use in conversation or written communication reveal our thoughts, beliefs, assumptions, behavioral patterns and wisdom. ITIL in particular is like a language. Different languages approach the idea of semantics differently. A language like English or the Latin- based languages have relatively few words that have multiple meanings and can be used in many different contexts or usages. A language like Greek or some Inuit languages have a lot of words that have very specific meanings and can and should only be used in specific contexts

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. 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

One of my followers recently asked about approaches to performing an organizational ITSM assessment.   I’ve summarized some of his questions: 1.       While surveys, interviews and workshops are assessment methods, would focused interviews with individuals pertinent to the process being assessed be a good approach?   2.       Should my final assessment score for a process be an average of several people’s maturity level ratings on that process? 3.       Should my assessment only include participants who are directly involved with that process? Assessments should take a well-rounded approach to gathering information, input and feedback.   It’s not a one-size-fits-all.   If you have the ability to conduct one-on-one interviews with key stakeholders, that’s a great way to encourage dialogue through open-ended questions.   While the results may not be as measurable as some other assessment techniques, interviews provide the unique opportunity for deeper probing and fo

I was recently asked about the ROI and VOI of Release and Deployment Management.   Let me start by acknowledging that there is a lot of confusion about the difference between Release and Deployment Management and Change Management.     Change Management is a risk management, governance process.     Release Management is more actionable – it is about bringing one or more changes to life through defined pre and post production activities.    You could almost call it the DevOps process. The growing requirement   for rapid (some would say continuous) deployment does not undermine the need for quality releases.     In fact, a structured approach to rapid deployment is more critical than ever since there is less time to flush out errors.   You can make the process more agile by building release models for different types of releases.   The models can match the rigor associated with building, testing, implementation testing and deployment with the complexity, risk, business n

In 1911, Frederick Winslow Taylor initiated the modern practice of business management. In his work Principles of Scientific Management , Taylor put forth the idea that running and managing a business is a science based on data and proven methods, rather than a series of ad hoc, unguided and uncontrolled actions. Unfortunately, Taylor was a victim of his day and age. He had good intentions in putting forth “scientific management”, but based his ideas on some flawed principles. Taylor stated one these principles in this way: “Now one of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type. The man who is mentally alert and intelligent is for this very reason entirely unsuited to what would, for him, be the grinding monotony of work of this character. Therefore the workman who is best suited to handling pig iron is un