Aren’t some processes really functions?!

Last time I wrote my blog on the ambiguity which is frankly still rife in ITIL. But if there is one thing ITIL is very clear about, than it is the definition of a PROCESS vs. that of a FUNCTION.

A Process is a set of coordinated activities combining and implementing resources and capabilities in order to produce an outcome, which, directly or indirectly, creates value for a customer or stakeholder.

That’s the definition, and this is the core of best practice service management, whereby everybody accepts and uses the same process, performs the same activities. This is also how ITIL ‘justifies’ the introduction of procedures & documentation (see an earlier blog). After all, you can’t manage what you can’t measure, which is one of the characteristics of a process (due to all the logging, recording and tracking).

A Function is a team or group of people, and the tools or other resources they use to carry out one or more processes or activities.

Again quite clear what we’re talking about here, the old ‘units of organisation’. ITIL doesn’t have a lot of functions (only 4) and to be honest they are hardly earth-shattering. When it comes to structuring your teams\units\organisation you'll have to dig deeper into ITIL. There is a section on Operational Organisation Structure in the Service Operations publication, but it is so generic that just about everybody will end up with a ‘hybrid organisation’ (I might tackle this in a future blog).

So, two clear definitions and there could be no mistaking one for the other: functions are hierarchical, vertical, organisational teams (silos) whereas process are horizontal, cross-functional activities. And for the most ITIL sticks very well to this definition, perhaps with two exceptions!

In Transition we're confronted with a PROCESS called Transition Planning & Support. Like other processes, it gets an objective (which focusses on resources) but unlike other processes the book doesn’t define the role of a process owner\manager, but instead that of a Service Transition Manager. I guess that could still be acceptable, but amongst the role of this manager is:

• Managing and coordinating the Service Transition functions
• Budgeting and accounting for Service Transition team activities and resources

Really: functions … team … this certainly sounds more like a functional manager. In fact I often describe the Transition Planning & Support process as ITIL’s version of the Project OFFICE, which is also a role\team in an organisation.

This got me thinking whether ITIL has more processes that would perhaps be better off as a function. And I think I can make a case of doing so with Design Coordination. A bit of a Johnny-come-lately (only in 2011, not really in the syllabi of any Intermediate course, …). After all, whilst it is focussed on the activities of coordinating the design, and creating the Service Design Package, wouldn’t it be better off as a team with that specific responsibility as a constant across the various other processes, technology & application teams. You could assign a Design or Development Manager to this team and thus complete the functional management team of the Operations, Transition, CSI & now the Design\Development Manager.

I think it can work the other way around too. I don’t think every organisation needs an Operations Management team. For larger organisations it makes sense (whereby Technical & Application Management represent 3^rd level support, and the Operations Team 2^nd level, performing routine activities in incident, event, request and access management). But for smaller organisations there won’t be a 2^nd AND 3^rd level support and thus do the Technical & Application Management teams needs to perform operational ACTIVTIES. In this case perhaps it would be better off as a process (in addition to Event, Problem and Incident Management).

And what about Facilities Management, why is that part of Operations Management, which is a function? I can see there are operational activities (monitoring, access management, …) but who designs the Facilities? I actually think Facilities Management is still a function, but in its own right (perhaps performing some of the Operation Management ACTIVITIES) or as part of Technical Management, rather than being restricted to Operations.

ITIL has always been intended as a guideline, so perhaps we should even take the definitions of processes and functions as such and where applicable swap a few of them around!

the ITIL Zealot

May 2012