ITIL Analysis by
Robert Perrine, PMP, ITIL-SM, MBB, CISA
Initial preview Fall 2004
Work in progress 2005
Reformatted November 2007
Introduction
I created this material to aid in the study and implementation of ITIL Service Delivery and Service Support. The content
are my interpretation and may be flawed. Thus, no warranty is offered or implied as to the suitable of this material for use.
If you find errors or discrepancies, please send an email and I will do my best to correct the situation. Please understand,
however, that this is a voluntary work in progress.
Also, please remember that this is a supplement, not a replacement for the ITIL Service Delivery and Service Support
guides. While this material may aid your study and implementation, I strongly emphasize the importance of reading the
actual OGC materials.
Robert Perrine, PMP, ITIL-SM, MBB, CISA
robert@RobertPerrine.biz
Fall 2004 - 2007
Irvine, California, United States of America
Copyright
Fall 2004 - 2007, Irvine, California, USA, copyright by Robert E. Perrine, PMP, ITIL-SM, MBB, CISA.
Offered as is, with no warranty regarding the accuracy or suitability of this material. Copyright reserved. Please, however
free to copy and share these documents with the following restrictions.
- You may not charge for use or distribution of this material.
- Your usage of this material is conditioned upon your compliance with the PMI Code of Ethics.
- All distributions must be made with the intent to further the collected wisdom of humanity.
- You may not remove my name or my copyright notices from these documents.
Key Process Diagrams
There are specific interconnections between the ITIL processes that are key to the understanding of ITIL. As time permits,
these flows will be identified and documented.
The Service Level Agreement Process

The Incident Escalation Process

The Problem Management Process

The Configuration Life Cycle

The Change Authorization Model

In the future I plan to work on diagrams for the remaining processes, including:
- IT Financial
- Capacity
- IT Service Continuity
- Availability
- Service Desk
- Release
- Service Management
Analysis
The purpose for the Analysis sections is to expose the processes within the disciplines. The ITIL Service Delivery and
Service Support guides provide a mixed set of process flows, descriptions and allusions. The goal for this part of this study
material is to provide a consistent description for each of the process flows.
Service Level Management
Agree, Monitor, Report and Instigate
| Service Level Requirements (SLRs) and customer and support perceptions of service levels currently delivered
|
|
|   |
| | Evaluate monitoring tools and upgrade if required also send customer a satisfaction survey or interview customer and support
|
| | List of services from configuration data or interviews with Service Desk and customers
|
|
|  | Service Catalog (SC) updates
|
 |
| | Update the Service Catalog as required
|
| | Service Level Agreement (SLA) template, draft SLA, Service Level Requirements (SLR), monitoring capabilities and SC
|
|
|   |
| | Manage expectations, update the draft SLA and update the SLR until they align
|
| |
|   |
| | All parties must have clear and consistent expectations on the finalized SLA and SLR
|
| | Preliminary agreement on SLA and SLR along with monitoring capabilities (manual & automated)
|
|
|   |
| | Verify the thresholds are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timed correctly
|
| | Current Operational Level Agreements (OLAs) and Underpinning Contracts (UCs)
|
|
|   |
| | Updated OLAs and UCs with monitoring for each threshold
|
| | Preliminary SLA, SLR and monitoring results along with updated OLAs and UCs
|
|
|   |
| | Agreed SLA signed by both the customer and support
|
| |
|   |
| | Awareness campaign to ensure all parties are aware of the details
|
| | SLA, SC and implemented monitoring
|
|
|   |
| | Action plan to address exceptions
|
| |
|   |
| | Distribute results to confirm compliance and highlight exception
|
| | Published reports compared to the SLAs
|
|
|   |
| | Identification of weak areas can trigger a Service Improvement Program (SIP), corrective actions or additional training
|
| | Established schedule and scope defined in the Service Quality Plan
|
|
|   |
| | Review and maintain the Service Level Management policies and procedures Note exceptions with recommendations
|
| | Existing SLAs, OLAs and UCs with a defined review schedule
|
|
|  | Review SLAs, OLAs and UCs
|
 |
| | Review and maintain the SLAs, OLAs and UCs. Note exceptions with recommendations
|
| | Results from review of the procedures, SLAs, OLAs and UCs
|
|
|  | Instigate corrective actions
|
 |
| | Requests for Change to agreed documents
|
|
Managing the Service Level Management Process
| Identify the benefits delivered through Service Level Management
|
|
| |
| | Publicize the benefits from Service Level Management
|
| | When initiating Service Level Management or launching a new service
|
|
| | Planning Service Level Management
|
|
| | Build a Mission Statement and Service Quality Plan to define roles and responsibilities, escalations and notifications
|
| | Establish a schedule for periodic contact with customers
|
|
| | Proactive customer communication
|
|
| | Venting and identification of their satisfaction. Note: Satisfaction = Expectations - Perception
|
| | Detection of weaknesses that justify corrective actions
|
|
| | Service Improvement Program (SIP)
|
|
| | A focused project to address the weaknesses
|
|
Service Desk
Call Distribution Process
| Event details, configuration details and relevant Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
|
|
|  | Determine which process is appropriate
|
 |
| | Gather details about this event
|
| | When the event is a predefined service
|
|
|  | Actioned Infrastructure Incidents
|
 |
| | Restart services, execute scripts, etc as defined in the workflow (MAP) assigned to this event
|
| | When the event is an Incident
|
|
|  | Implement Incident Management
|
 |
| | Branch to the Incident Management process
|
| | When the event is a Request for Change (RFC)
|
|
|  | Facilitate Change Management
|
 |
| | Create or update an RFC or implement change as authorized by the Change Management process
|
| | When the event is a request for status
|
|
|  | Interface for the Service Management processes
|
 |
| | Gather status and communicate the status to the caller
|
| | Service Request Process
|
|
| | When the event is a Service Request (SR)
|
|
|   |
| | Create a Service Request (SR) Record with the contact info, detailed description and configuration details
|
| | SR, relevant processes and workload assessments
|
|
|   |
| | Assign the Category, Impact, Urgency and Priority, then assign to appropriate resource
|
| | Periodic reminders to update the customer, or action by the customer requesting status
|
|
|   |
| | Get updates and give status
|
| | Formal sign off by the customer that the results are satisfactory
|
|
|   |
| | Update the SR with status and then close the SR
|
|
Proactive Service Desk Tasks
|
| |
| | Create a Service Request to document customer training needs and escalate for action
|
| | Information distribution request
|
|
| |
| | Disseminate advisories such as the Forward Schedule of Changes, Release Schedule, etc.
|
| | Periodic reminders to update the customer, or action by the customer requesting status
|
|
| |
| | Status updates, informal customer satisfaction surveys and marketing opportunities
|
| | Periodic surveys as described in the SLA
|
|
| |
| | Customer Satisfaction rating and exceptions that require action
|
| | When the Impact is significant or an SLA timer indicates that the SLA might be breached
|
|
| |
| | Status and optional recommendations
|
| | When there is an error in the Configuration Management Database (CMDB)
|
|
| | Improved accuracy in the CMDB
|
|
| | Make the updates, where authorized, otherwise notify Configuration Management that there is an apparent error in the CMDB
|
| | Begin with a baseline User Handbook and then observe how the services are actually used
|
|
| | Maintain the User Handbook
|
|
| | Either update the User Handbook or document the revisions and forward them to the Handbook administrator
|
| | When opportunities arise and the customer is receptive or take opportunities to publish updates in newsletters and emails
|
|
| |
| | Market (sell) the benefits of the Service Desk, of this company and explain additional service offerings that could benefit this customer
|
| |
| |
| | Match on existing Problem Record (PR) or create a new one
|
|
Managing the Service Desk Function
| Classification and closure codes and criteria
|
|
| | Classification Process Review
|
|
| | Revised processes and revised lists of classification and closure codes
|
| | Reporting schedule and reporting requirements defined in SLAs, OLAs and UCs
|
|
| | Incident Reporting and Review
|
|
| | Reports with insight and recommendations
|
| | Established schedule and scope defined in the Service Desk policies and documentation
|
|
| |
| | Staff trained with people skills, knowledge of processes, procedures, tools and user applications & services
|
| | Established schedule and scope defined in the Service Desk policies and documentation
|
|
| |
| | Review and maintain the Service Desk policies, procedures and tools. Note exceptions with recommendations
|
| | Pre-release products in a clean staging environment with assistance from Release Management and Development
|
|
| |
| | Evaluation and recommendations regarding maintainability and usability
|
| | Pre-release products in a clean staging environment with assistance from Release Management and Development
|
|
| |
| | Knowledge of functionality, known errors, problems and diagnostic tools
|
| | Establish a regular schedule to review active and exceptional Incidents against the relevant SLAs
|
|
| |
| | Clear communication and expectations with follow up on noted exceptions
|
| | Established schedule and scope defined in the Service Desk policies and documentation
|
|
| |
| | Reports with insight and recommendations
|
|
Incident Management
Incident Response Process
| Event details, configuration details and relevant Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
|
|
|   |
| | Correlate event with configuration and verify service entitlement
|
| | When the event is actually a Service Request (SR)
|
|
|  | Optional Functional Escalation to the Service Request Process
|
 |
| | Create a new Service Request and then refer to the Service Desk function for the Service Request process
|
| | When the event is actually a Request for Change (RFC)
|
|
|  | Optional Functional Escalation to Change Management
|
 |
| | Link to an existing RFC or create a new RFC and then refer to the Change Management process flows
|
| | Event details and configuration details and SLAs
|
|
|   |
| | Create an Incident Record (IR) to record the contact info, symptoms, initial diagnostics and configuration details
|
| | IR, prior Problem Records (PR), Known Errors (KE) and Requests for Change (RFC), configuration details and relevant SLAs
|
|
|   |
| | Update the IR with Category, Impact, Urgency, Priority and links to matched IRs, PRs, KEs or RFCs then assign to a resource and update the IR
|
| | IR and script (MAP) for initial support
|
|
|   |
| | Update the IR with additional details and if restoration is done jump to Recovery
|
| | Transfer IR within IM or create new record to track external resources
|
|
|   |
| | Update the IR with additional details and if restoration is done jump to Recovery
|
| | IR with appropriate linkages and history
|
|
|   |
| | Document the work-around or solution with an action plan then transfer back to IM
|
| |
|  | Restore normal operations
|
 |
| | Update the IR with restoration details
|
| | Means for recovering “lost data”
|
|
|   |
| | Successful recovery of appropriate “lost data”
|
| | Formal sign off by the customer that the results are satisfactory
|
|
|   |
| | Update the IR with status and close the IR
|
|
Incident Ownership Tasks
| When the Impact is significant or an SLA timer indicates that the SLA might be breached
|
|
| |
| | Status and recommendations
|
| | When there is an error in the Configuration Management Database (CMDB)
|
|
| | Improved accuracy in the CMDB
|
|
| | Make updates where authorized, otherwise notify Configuration Management that there is an apparent error in the CMDB
|
| | Impact, SLA and established policies
|
|
| |
| | Proactively inform users about an Incident that is impacting their service
|
| | Periodic reminders to update the customer, or action by the customer requesting status
|
|
| |
| | Get updates and give status on the Incident, Problem, Known Error or Request for Change
|
| | Periodic reminders linked to the SLA or to Incident Management policies
|
|
| |
| | Get updates from the resources (internal or external) working on the Incident, Problem, Known Error or Request for Change
|
| | When the Incident cannot be matched to an existing Problem Record or Known Error or when the Incident has a Major Impact
|
|
| | Invoke the Problem Management process
|
|
| | Link this IR to an existing Problem Record (PR) or create a new PR and then refer to the Problem Management process flows
|
|
Management Tasks for Incident Management
| Reporting schedule and reporting requirements defined in SLAs, OLAs and UCs
|
|
| | Management information and reports
|
|
| | Reports with insight and recommendations
|
| | Established schedule and scope defined in the Incident Management Process documentation
|
|
| |
| | Review and maintain the Incident Management Process documents and relevant policies and procedures Note exceptions with recommendations
|
|
Classification Process Expanded from Annex 5D
|
|   |
| | Assign to a resource and update the IR
|
| | Configuration details and relevant SLAs
|
|
|   |
| | Update the IR with Category, Impact, Urgency, Priority
|
| | Prior Problem Records (PR), Known Errors (KE) and Requests for Change (RFC)
|
|
|  | Inquiries on historical data
|
 |
| | Update the IR with links to matched IRs, PRs, KEs or RFCs
|
| | IR and script (MAP) for initial support
|
|
|   |
| | Update the IR with additional details
|
| | IR with appropriate linkages and history
|
|
|   |
| | If restoration is done jump to Recovery
|
| | When the Impact is significant or an SLA timer indicates that the SLA might be breached
|
|
|   |
| | Status and recommendations, then allocate additional resources
|
| | When the Problem is not resolved in a timely manner
|
|
|  | Functional Escalation to Problem Management
|
 |
| | Link this IR to an existing Problem Record (PR) or create a new PR and then refer to the Problem Management process flows
|
|
Problem Management
| Incident details, configuration details and SLA
|
|
|  | Problem identification and recording
|
 |
| | Create a new Problem Record, document possible workarounds or solutions and initiate the Problem Control sequence
|
| | Problem Control Process
|
|
| | Problem Record with details and a resource work-load evaluation
|
|
|   |
| | Set the Category, Impact, Urgency and Priority, assign resources and update the Problem Record
|
| | Possible tentative work-around or solution and history of recent changes
|
|
|   |
| | Document the approved work-around or proposed solution
|
| | Techniques including Kepner & Tregoe, Ishikawa, Brainstorming and Flowcharting
|
|
|  | Problem diagnosis and / or Error Identification
|
 |
| | Document the Root Cause Create a Known Error and either initiate the Error Control sequence or branch to training or procedural updates
|
| | Error Control Process
|
|
| | Known Error, Problem and Incident details, configuration details and SLA
|
|
|   |
| | Create a Request for Change Set the Category, Impact, Urgency and Priority then update the Known Error Record
|
| | Execution through the Change and Release Management processes or by managing the vendor
|
|
|  Error resolution
Error Closure
Error Review
|
 |
| | Structural Change with resolution to the satisfaction of the user Update (close) the Known Error, Problem and Incident Records
|
| | Proactive Problem Management
| | Fragile components, recurring problems, training needs, documentation gaps, vendor updates and user meetings
|
|
| |
| | Opportunities for cost justifiable improvements. Create a new Problem Record and initiate the Problem Control sequence
|
| | Volume of incidents, Impact, duration, costs to resolve, costs to the business
|
|
| | Proactive problem prevention
|
|
| | Opportunities for cost justifiable improvements. Create a new Problem Record and initiate the Problem Control sequence.
|
|
Management Tasks for Problem Management
| Problem with a major impact and the Problem resolution steps
|
|
| |
| What was done right
What was done wrong
What could be done better
Actions to prevent recurrence
|
| | Reporting schedule and reporting requirements defined in SLAs, OLAs and UCs
|
|
| | Management information and reports
|
|
| | Reports with insight and recommendations regarding Problem Records, Known Errors and Requests for Change
|
| | Established schedule and scope defined in the Problem Management Process documentation
|
|
| | Review and maintain the Knowledge Base
|
|
| | Updated Knowledge Base with Problem Records, Known Errors, workarounds and solutions Also delivery training on the tools
|
| | Established schedule and scope defined in the Problem Management Process documentation
|
|
| |
| | Review and maintain the Problem Management Process documents and relevant policies and procedures. Note exceptions with recommendations
|
|
Kepner and Tregoe Analysis Process
| Incidents, Impact, configuration details and SLAs
|
|
|   |
| | Problem statement with “occurrence” and “results”, but avoid jumping to a conclusion
|
| | Problem statement with history including a history of recent changes
|
|
|   |
| Identity -- what is the problem
Location -- where does it occur
Time -- when does it occur
Size -- what is affected
|
| | Problem details, diagnostic data where possible along with expertise and further investigation
|
|
|  | Establish possible causes
|
 |
| | Prioritized list of possible causes
|
| | Prioritized list of possible causes along with testing criteria and methodologies
|
|
|  | Test the most probable cause
|
 |
| | Test results and analysis data narrowing the list of probable causes
|
| | Identified probably cause and a resolution technique
|
|
|   |
| | User confirmation that the problem is resolved
|
|
Configuration Management
Core Configuration Management Process
| At the start of the project and when starting on new aspects of the environment
|
|
|   |
| | Define and publish the scope, policies and procedures with special attention on the ”level” to be tracked
|
| | Inventory with all available records on ownership, licensing and usage
|
|
|  | Identification and Registration
|
 |
| | Create and update the Configuration Items (Cis) and document the relationships between them
|
| | Enforce policy that no physical change is made without going through Change Management
|
|
|   |
| | Assurance the inventory is licensed, authorized, secured and accurately recorded in the Configuration Management Database (CMDB)
|
| | Status updates during the life cycle of a CI
|
|
|   |
| | Maintained history with status on each CI to ensure traceability
|
| | Physical check of assets matched against the CMDB baseline
|
|
|   |
| | Detect errors and identify appropriate corrective actions
|
| | Periodically as defined in the Configuration Management policy or when an exception is detected
|
|
|   |
| | Report on the inventory with emphasis on exceptions and recommended corrective actions
|
|
Supporting the Change Management Process
| Proposed Request for Change (RFC)
|
|
|   |
| | RFC entered into CMDB and linked to relevant details
|
| | RFC linked to appropriate configuration details
|
|
|   |
| | Risk assessment passed to Change Management
|
| | RFC with risk, impact and resource assessments
|
|
|   |
| | RFC updates as requested by Change Management and the other parties to this RFC
|
| | Build documentation linked to the RFC
|
|
|   |
| | Load the build documentation into the Configuration Management Database (CMDB)
|
| | Documentation on hardware, software, processes and training
|
|
|   |
| | Check documentation into the Definitive Software Library (DSL)
|
| | RFC, FSC, RS and user acceptance testing sign off
|
|
|   |
| | Notification to all that will be impacted by this change
|
| | Release Unit with proper licensing and documentation
|
|
|   |
| | Release Unit into DSL/DHS and distributed as required
|
| | Notification from the Change Manager that the Change was attempted
|
|
|   |
| | Configuration details updated and RFC closed with status. If the Change was backed-out, then create a new RFC and start over
|
|
Management Tasks for Configuration Management
| Periodically as defined in the Configuration Management policy or on request
|
|
|  |
| | Record the configuration at a point in time to support the Change, Release Verification and Audit processes
|
| | All personnel should report discrepancies
|
|
| |
| | Verify, audit, correct and recommend appropriate corrective action
|
| | Incidents, Problems, Known Errors, Request for Change, etc
|
|
| |
| | Ensure all relevant artifacts (physical and logical) can be entered, tracked and related
|
| | Automation tools to discover details about the environment for Identification or Verification
|
|
| |
| | Review the results and update the CMDB reporting on exceptions and plans for correction actions
|
| | Software, licensing, documentation and all supporting materials
|
|
| |
| | Update the CMDB and physically archive the master copies in the software/documentation libraries
|
| | Accurate inventory of licensing on-hand compared to licensing in use
|
|
| |
| | Report on exceptions and take responsibility for corrective actions
|
| | Established schedule and scope defined in the Configuration Management Process documentation
|
|
| | Management information and reports
|
|
| | Report on exceptions with recommendations for action
|
| | Established schedule and scope defined in the Configuration Management Process documentation
|
|
| |
| | Review and maintain the Configuration Management Process documents and relevant policies and procedures. Note exceptions with recommendations
|
| | Software releases and hardware spares
|
|
| |
| | Support Release Management by tracking the inventory in the DSL and Definitive Hardware Store (DHS)
|
| | Requests from the business and other ITIL disciplines
|
|
| |
| | Support the business and the ITIL disciplines through updates, reports and investigations
|
| | Evaluate alternatives when starting and manage the tool once it is in use
|
|
| |
| | Cost effective tool, properly configured and administered including tuning and backups
|
| | When starting and periodically thereafter
|
|
| |
| | All staff trained on policies especially license management
|
|
Change Management
Normal Change Authorization Process
| Proposed Request for Change (RFC)
|
|
|   |
| | Accept or reject the proposed RFC
|
| |
|   |
| | RFC passed to Configuration Management for registration and assessment
|
| | RFC linked to appropriate configuration details
|
|
|   |
| | Risk assessment with Impact from Configuration and resources from Release Management
|
| | RFC with risk, impact and resource assessments
|
|
|   |
| | RFC updated with Category, Impact, Urgency and Priority and assigned to Change Authorization Model
|
| | RFC with assessment and business justification
|
|
|  | Approval through appropriate Change Authorization Model
|
 |
| | RFC added to Forward Schedule of Changes (FSC) and Projected Service Availability (PSA)
|
| |
|  | Change Authorization Model for Emergency Changes
|
 |
| | (Refer to the Urgent Change Authorization Model described below)
|
| |
|  | Change Authorization Model for Minor Changes
|
 |
| | Change Manager can authorize or reject
|
| | RFC with documentation to define a Standard Process taken to the Change Advisory Board (CAB)
|
|
|  | Change Authorization Model for “Standard” Changes
|
 |
| | Well documented Standard Process released for implementation as needed
|
| | Establish schedule, publish agenda and provide RFC details and Change history
|
|
|  | Change Authorization Model for Major Changes
|
 |
| | Change Advisory Board (CAB) meets to authorize or reject
|
| |
|  | Change Authorization Model for Massive Changes
|
 |
| | Change Manager takes RFC to Executive Committee to authorize or reject
|
| | RFC with FSC and user acceptance testing sign off
|
|
|   |
| | Configuration Management distributes Notification to relevant parties
|
| | At the appropriate time, the Change Implementer distributes the “release” and prepares for the implementation
|
|
|   |
| | Release Unit installed and ready for User testing
|
| | Release Unit installed and ready for User testing
|
|
|   |
| | User sign off or agreement to back-out
|
| | Either change is in effect or it is cleanly backed-out
|
|
|   |
| | Stable production environment along with list of change induced incidents
|
| | Stable production environment along with list of change induced incidents
|
|
|   |
| | Configuration Management then closes the RFC
|
| | Periodically as defined in the Change Management policies
|
|
|  | Post Implementation Review
|
 |
| | Review all changes in the recent period and initiate appropriate corrective actions
|
|
Urgent Change Authorization Process
| Identification of urgent need
|
|
|  | Change Advisory Board / Emergency Committee
|
 |
| | Authorize or reject based on Impact, Priority and Risk
|
| | Authorization of the preliminary RFC with detailed scope
|
|
|   |
| | Change Manager is responsible for supervision of build, test, implementation and optional back out
|
| | At the appropriate time, the Change Implementer distributes the “release” and prepares for the implementation
|
|
|   |
| | Patch installed and ready for User testing
|
| | Release Unit installed and ready for User testing
|
|
|   |
| | User sign off or agreement to back-out
|
| | Either change is in effect or it is cleanly backed-out
|
|
|   |
| | Stable production environment along with list of change induced incidents
|
| | Stable production environment along with list of change induced incidents
|
|
|   |
| | Change Manager works with Configuration Management to document and close the RFC
|
| | Periodically as defined in the Change Management policies
|
|
|  | Post ImplementationReview
|
 |
| | Review all changes in the recent period and initiate appropriate corrective actions
|
|
Urgent Change Authorization Process
|
| |
| | Emphasize benefits of the process and strive for complete compliance
|
| | Established schedule and scope defined in the Change Management Process documentation
|
|
| | Management information and reports
|
|
| | Report on exceptions with recommendations for action
|
| | Annually, or more frequently if needed
|
|
| |
| | Review all documentation, minutes, and logs and validate processes are followed
|
| | Established schedule and scope defined in the Change Management Process documentation
|
|
| |
| | Review and maintain the Change Management Process documents and relevant policies and procedures. Note exceptions with recommendations
|
| |
| |
| | Create Mission Statement, start awareness campaign, define change windows (slots), pick tool, document the process and train participants
|
|
Release Management
Standard Release Process
| Request for Change (RFC) linked to appropriate configuration details
|
|
|   |
|
| | RFC with assessment and business justification
|
|
|   |
| | Forward Schedule of Changes (FSC), Projected Service Availability (PSA) and Release Schedule (RS)
|
| |
|   |
| | Issue purchase orders or do in-house design
|
| |
|   |
| | Monitor build progress and verify conformance with requirements
|
| | Release Unit into clean test area
|
|
|   |
| | Coordinate user acceptance testing
|
| |
|   |
| | Sign off on the suitability of the backout plan
|
| | Release Unit into clean test area
|
|
|   |
| | Ensure release is licensed, secure, traceable and as per authorization
|
| |
|   |
| | Coordinate user and support training
|
| | Fit-for-purpose test results
|
|
|   |
| | User acceptance testing sign off
|
| | RFC, FSC, RS and user acceptance testing sign off
|
|
|  | Verify notification is distributed by the Configuration Manager through the Service Desk
|
 |
| | Notification to all who will be impacted by this change
|
| | Release Unit with proper licensing and documentation
|
|
|   |
| | Release Unit into DSL/DHS and distributed as required
|
| |
|   |
| | Release Unit installed and ready for User evaluation
|
| | Release Unit installed and ready for User evaluation
|
|
|  | Audit integrity as installed
|
 |
| | User sign off or agreement to back-out
|
| | Either change is in effect or it is cleanly backed-out
|
|
|  | Activate release or execute the back-out process
|
 |
| | Stable production environment along with list of change induced incidents
|
| | Stable production environment along with list of change induced incidents
|
|
|  | Ensure configuration details are properly updated
|
 |
| | Configuration details updated and RFC closed
|
|
Management Tasks for Release Management
|
| |
| | Emphasize benefits of the process and strive for complete compliance
|
| | Established schedule and scope defined in the Release Management Process documentation
|
|
| | Management information and reports
|
|
| | Report on exceptions with recommendations for action
|
| | Established schedule and scope defined in the Release Management Process documentation
|
|
| |
| | Review and maintain the Release Management Process documents and relevant policies and procedures Note exceptions with recommendation
|
| |
| |
| | Create Mission Statement, start awareness campaign, document the process and train participants
|
|
Service Management
The ITIL Process Improvement Model
|
|   |
| | Vision Statement and documentation describing the business objectives to be achieved in suffi cient detail to be effective
|
| | Interviews and review of current documentation
|
|
|   |
| | Assessment of the “as-is” organizational model, processes and policies
|
| | “Gap analysis” comparing the “as-is” with the “to-be”
|
|
|  | How do we get where we want to be?
|
 |
| | Documented and agreed action plan describing the “to-be” proposal
|
| | Defi ned metrics and methods for measuring and assessing those metrics
|
|
|  | How do we know when we have arrived?
|
 |
| | Reporting focused on exceptions with action plans for correcting weaknesses
|
|
The Demming Cycle
|
|   |
| | Vision Statement and documentation describing the business objectives to be achieved in suffi cient detail to be effective
|
| | Documented and agreed action plan describing the “to-be” proposal
|
|
|   |
|
| | “Gap analysis” comparing the “asis” with the “to-be”
|
|
|   |
| | Reporting focused on exceptions with action plans for correcting weaknesses
|
| | Documented and agreed action plan describing the required corrective actions
|
|
|   |
| | Take action to bring the current state closer to the planned state
|
|
In the future I plan to work on diagrams for the remaining processes, including:
- IT Financial
- Capacity
- IT Service Continuity
- Availability
Revision History
| Date
| Version
| Author
| Description
| | 1 Oct 2004~ | 0.1 | Robert Perrine | Initial work on the Dependencies.
| | 26 Oct 2004 | 0.2 | Robert Perrine | Released version of the Dependencies.
| | 26 Oct 2004 | 0.3 | Robert Perrine | Initial version of the Synopsis pages.
| | 30 Oct 2004 | 0.4 | Robert Perrine | Released version of the Synopsis pages.
| | 07 Nov 2004 | 0.5 | Robert Perrine | Initial version of the Memory pages.
| | 21 Nov 2004 | 0.6 | Robert Perrine | Released version of the Memory pages.
| | 27 Nov 2004 | 0.7 | Robert Perrine | Consolidated Memory and Synopsis into this ITIL Analysis guide.
| | 29 Nov 2004 | 0.8 | Robert Perrine | Consolidated Dependencies into this ITIL Analysis guide.
| | 30 Nov 2004 | 0.9 | Robert Perrine | Initial work on Analysis sections
| | 2 Dec 2004 | 1.0 | Robert Perrine | Initial work on Key Flow Diagrams
| | 5 Dec 2004 | 1.1 | Robert Perrine | Initial work on Collaborative sections
| | 6 Dec 2004 | 1.2 | Robert Perrine | Continued work on Key Flows, Analysis and Collaborative
| | 12 May 2005 | 1.3 | Robert Perrine | Minor tweaks before publishing via my web site.
| | 26 Nov 2005 | 1.4 | Robert Perrine | Removed content now duplicated in the Quick Reference
| | 11 Nov 2007 | 1.5 | Robert Perrine | Moved some content to ITIL Dependencies and reformatted the remainder.
|
|