Change Status : Waiting for Information

[TintinHerge]

Hi

I am looking to introduce a new Change Status in our Change Management Process called "Waiting for Information" as many of our changes have incomplete information.

So simply, this will be the flow:

New => Accepted => Approved/Rejected/Waiting for Information =>.....

If there is incomplete info in the New RFC, the Change Analyst will set the status to Waiting for Information and assign it back to the Change Requestor. My Question is this : Do you think I need a corresponding Change Status like "Information Provided" once the Change Requestor has provided the information asked for ? Or how else do others handle this scenario once the Change Requestor has provided the information (Send Email Notification through the tool , etc) ?

Thanks in Advance
Tintin

[Ed]

Hi Tintin

I would be more inclined to use 'Rejected - awaiting information' this will make your stats a whole lot clearer.

After all you are actually rejecting the change until the info becomes available.

The real question is why won't 'Rejected' suffice?

Is it an attempt to provide more detailed stats, or is there a reluctance to use this status?

Regards

Ed

[TintinHerge]

Thanks for the quick reply,Ed.

We currently use Rejected - But I am not happy with the nomenclature. I would like to use Rejected only if the Change has been rejected by the Change Manager/CAB becuase of a proper CM reason, not because it has insufficient information. Also calling it Rejected creates a negative feeling in the Change Requestor community which we are desperately trying to win over by taking serveral measures

Tintin

[dboylan]

We had a state called Pending with a sub-drop down list that would become available when Pending was selected. It gave a list of why the the Change was Pending. It included: Vendor information, User information, IT Department information, Parts/Equipment, Application Change, etc, etc.

[Mark-OLoughlin]

Hi,

Status of Pending is a good one to use as it can be used as suggested for numeruos situations and fits well into a workflow.
_________________
Mark O'Loughlin
ITSM / ITIL Consultant

[TintinHerge]

Unfotunately we dont have a sub drop-down list with the Status and we dont want to tweak too much with the Tool.

Pending or Waiting seems like a logical step - And then not to over-complicate it by having a corresponding state like ""Information Provided" - The Change Management team should be able to progress the change once the required information is provided (by using the tool Notification)

[pac666]

We defer changes in this case until requested information is provided. Status of such RFCs is set to 'Deferred'

[Timo]

I would say it would in part depend on your reporting. If you want to report specifically on changes that are awaiting additional information before they can proceed, then something like Rejected - Awaiting Info or Pending - Awaiting Info is what you will need to add to you status values.

However, if you need to report simply on incomplete, pending or deferred changes, then you don;'t necessarily need to have Awaiting Info indicator there.

Michael

[Skinnera]