Untitled Document
The incremental approach to ITIL
Many organizations want to improve the cost, quality and agility of their IT
service provision by implementing ITIL best practices, but this often seems
like a daunting prospect. As is often the case, the burning question is: how
do we start?
Tackling 10 processes simultaneously is prohibitively complex and almost certainly
doomed to fail. So the default roadmap to ITIL nirvana is to slice it up process
by process, selecting the most urgent process (or couple of processes) first
and finding a tool that supports it.
This strategy makes good sense in principle and outputs a rather smart roadmap
chopped up into manageable, bite-size chunks. However, there are two major pitfalls
with this process-based approach:
- It draws organizations into a web of integrations and upgrade problems as
an incremental approach to procurement is assumed by default.
- It ignores the fact that it isn't 100 percent of a single process that would
bring the most immediate value, but selected elements of multiple processes
to create a "thread" of value across ITIL.
Turn to page one of your ITIL roadmap and the focus may be on applying service
desk automation or a solid change management process. But are you giving consideration
to the last item in the roadmap?
Vendor evaluation tends to work on a very narrow "what we need now"
basis. If you need a service desk tool, you need a service desk tool, so go
out and buy one that fits your needs. Makes sense so far.
But turn to page two of the roadmap and change management is the next priority.
Does your service desk vendor supply a change management tool? No? Then you're
looking at another vendor evaluation cycle.
Integrating two incident and change management tools may not involve a great
deal of effort, but each time an additional module is added in line with the
roadmap, the cost of integration is multiplied and the pitfalls of integration
become all too apparent. Each stage in the roadmap will be affected by delays,
costs and risks. Implementation is delayed by vendor evaluation. Integration
is often complex and requires expensive consultant time. Risk of failure is
high.
-1-