ITIL
has a long history of being less than concise, sometimes downright ambiguous.
ITIL ‘dinosaurs’ like myself my fondly remember the sleep inducing ITIL v1
books mainly due to its sometimes incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo and its apparent
lack of structure, especially across the books. Or how about the v2 books where
the chapter definition of a Release, did not reflect the one in the glossary of
terms in the back?
Although
v3 and 2011 are a lot better there is still some ambiguity and\or unclarity the
use of terms and definitions, especially across the books. Personally for
instance I find it a shame that the terms ‘utility’ and ‘warranty’ aren’t used
outside the Strategy book (for impact\urgency classification, testing &
evaluation, KPIs …).
I
often say that certain sections in the book (and Service Strategy would be the
main example of this) require you to read those two or three or more times. Every
time you read it you’ll get a better understanding and develop a better ‘view’
of how it fits with the rest of ITIL. Thus eventually you build your own
understanding or model of ITIL and its processes. Another good explanation is
the old analogy of the ITIL processes as tectonic plates: they move, shift,
bump and overlap each other. It is up to you to define the boundary between
them (for instance between Demand Management and Business Capacity Management,
Business Relationship Management and Service Level Management, Service
Improvement Programs and CSI, Change Management and Transition Planning &
Support, …).
One
of the enduring ‘misunderstandings’ is that of Customer vs. User. The
definition is simple enough though. A Customer is someone (i.e. an individual)
who represents the business (i.e. a group, team, function, unit). On behalf of
the business they will make decisions (in Service Level Management, in Change
Management, …), but they will need to pay for those decisions. In other word a
Customer is a decision-making, budget-holder.
The
User by contrast is someone who uses the IT (Service). As such they only
represent themselves and do not specifically make decisions or pay for those.
Hence the difference between Request Fulfilment and Change Management. Request
Fulfilment deals with predetermined, pre-costed, standard requests from the
User, whereas anything new, different or unknown has to go through Change
Management (and the CAB and most likely the Customer).
Roughly
speaking Operations deals with Users (as it is business-as-usual and only
limited decision-making is required, within specific parameter), whereas
Strategy\Design\Transition involves the Customer for definition and
decision-making (although the User will need to be involved, if only for
someone to represent their interests and points-of-view).
Note
though that most Customers will also be Users, as they normally will have a
desktop\laptop\mobile phone or other IT device that they use. Even IT
staff can be considered Users as they are also using IT devices and
services.
So,
the Customer will decide (through Service Level Requirements) that they want an
e-mail service with specific utility, for 5 days-a-week, at 99.9% availability,
with a capacity for 1,500 users, storage for 7 years (i.e. warranty) etc. etc.
Through the service level negotiations this will be agreed, with the IT Service
Provider in an SLA, including costs and charges. Once Design and Transition are
completed, the IT Service Provider will now deliver this service to the Users
and they can use it (as defined by the Customer).
Now,
if there is something wrong with the service (i.e. unavailable, no
storage-space …) the user should notify the IT provider, through the Service
Desk (incident management or request fulfilment, …). But if the Users want
something which is outside the current agreed service, they should not notify
(or rather as it is in most cases: complain) to IT, but instead bring this to
the attention of the Customer, who can then negotiate the service change with
the IT provider.
And
here is where the Bermuda Triangle analogy comes from, as this line of
communication is often missing. If Users do not directly communicate with the
Customer (or vice versa) that IT gets stuck between a rock and a hard place. On
the one had they have to deliver the agreed (with the Customer) service (often
cut down on cost) but have to live up to the expectation of the Users (based on
phenomenal quality).
Therefore
it is in the IT provider’s interest to establish the lines of communication
between Customer and Users. This can be done by performing User Satisfaction
Surveys (and reporting this to the Customer), creating User Focal Groups (as
part of Design), routinely performing User Acceptance Testing (in Transition)
and involving the User in CAB, Post-Implementation-Reviews and CSI.
Ultimately
we all want the same thing (service that deliver value to the business), but
sometimes we not only approach it from different angle, but from different
planets.
the ITIL Zealot
Thanks for reminding analogy of the ITIL processes as tectonic plates - they really move, shift, bump and overlap each other :)
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely agree on the Bermuda triangle of User, Customer and IT! When I was implementing Service Desk in a large telecom environment it took a hell lot of energy to ensure we do not mess-up, because there are even more parties that are sometimes called Customers.
Vladimir_ITSM at twitter (@vivanovs)