Search
Topics
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Modules
· Home
· Content
· FAQ
· Feedback
· Forums
· Search
· Statistics
· Surveys
· Top
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your_Account

Current Membership

Latest: GHDXO
New Today: 26
New Yesterday: 67
Overall: 148328

People Online:
Visitors: 68
Members: 2
Total: 70 .

Languages
Select Interface Language:


Major ITIL Portals
For general information and resources, ITIL and ITSM World is the most well known for both ITIL and ITIL Books. A shorter snapshot approach can be found at ITIL Zone

Related Resources
Service related resources
Service Level Agreement
Outsourcing

Note: ® ITIL is a registered trademark of OGC. This portal is totally independent and is in no way related to them. See our Feedback Page for more information.


The Itil Community Forum: Forums

ITIL :: View topic - Acceptable Level of Exceptions, Rollbacks, etc.
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Acceptable Level of Exceptions, Rollbacks, etc.

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ITIL Forum Index -> Change Management
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ejdulcimer
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:20 am    Post subject: Acceptable Level of Exceptions, Rollbacks, etc. Reply with quote

Good day everyone! We have a somewhat mature Change Management process in place and our CAB looks weekly at RFC's reporting exceptions. In the last 3 months, we've implemented ~500 RFC's and 15 have reported exceptions. Exceptions are RFC's requiring rollbacks, successfully implemented with issues, etc.

What I would like to find out is what other organizations feel about an acceptable level of exceptions. I don't believe there's anything in the ITIL literature about that....I could be wrong.....but I can't recall any specific numbers. The only figure I ever saw was a goal of 5% or less for emergency RFC's.

And while we're at it, what do you find is your percentage of Emergency RFC's? We see on average about 20% of submitted RFC's classed as Emergency. This is probably way up there by comparison to other organizations......but I'd like to get a feel for what your organization is finding out in this area.

Thanks in advance for all your responses!
Back to top
View user's profile
Ed
Senior Itiler


Joined: Feb 28, 2006
Posts: 411
Location: Coventry, England

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi EJ

our 'problem' changes tend to run at 2.4 - 4% so very similar to you, and our 'Emergency Changes run at about 10%.

Our process skews this stat on the high side because we reclassify 'Late Changes' as Emergency - This is due to the stress they place on the CM system - We encourage our techies to resist rushing in changes at the last minute because the PM group have poor planning - In reality the changes go in, but we give them a hard time!!! Twisted Evil

When we were ignoring Standard Changes in our stats, the ratio of Basic to Emergency was about 4 - 1

Regards

Ed
Back to top
View user's profile
Skinnera
Senior Itiler


Joined: May 07, 2005
Posts: 121
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Acceptable Level of Exceptions, Rollbacks, etc. Reply with quote

ejdulcimer wrote:
Exceptions are RFC's requiring rollbacks, successfully implemented with issues, etc.
First of all I'd say that "implemented with issues" is Failed, but I am a harsh man!! Twisted Evil

Based on many client conversations, Forrester believe that;
The average percentage of Emergency change is in the range of 12% - 18%.
The average percentage of Failed change is in the range of 5% - 9%.

However, for ‘World Class’ they advocate;

Keep the percentage of emergency change requests to less than 10%.
If the percentage of emergency changes is more than 10%, the operations/application development staff is making a mockery of the change control process. Require higher-level sign-off for emergency changes, and/or make the review process more painful.

Keep the percentage of failed change requests to less than 3%.
If more than 5% of changes are unsuccessful, your testing, quality assurance, and change control processes are ineffective and need to be revisited.


My organsiation is achieving <3% Failed, <1% Emergency, <12% Fault, and <5% Short Notice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Mark-OLoughlin
Senior Itiler


Joined: Oct 12, 2007
Posts: 306
Location: Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

from experience I would side with the figures quoted by "Skinnera" and look to be "Best in Calss / World Class" with sub 10% Emergency Changes. You should fid this may have a positive effect on decreasing problem records too as a result of rushed / emergency changes.
_________________
Mark O'Loughlin
ITSM / ITIL Consultant
Back to top
View user's profile
Skinnera
Senior Itiler


Joined: May 07, 2005
Posts: 121
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:00 am    Post subject: Re: Acceptable Level of Exceptions, Rollbacks, etc. Reply with quote

Skinnera wrote:
Keep the percentage of emergency change requests to less than 10%.
If the percentage of emergency changes is more than 10%, the operations/application development staff is making a mockery of the change control process. Require higher-level sign-off for emergency changes, and/or make the review process more painful.

My organsiation is achieving <3% Failed, <1% Emergency, <12% Fault, and <5% Short Notice.

18 months ago we were running at >15% Emergency Changes, which upon investigation was all about a misunderstanding in the field about what our definition of Emergency was (it's to prevent an imminent service impact or faliure).
In effect, the support teams thought that if it was 'urgent' to them, it was an emergency, and my team weren't challenging back when they were raised.

At the same time, we had >15% Short Notice Changes (normal, planned work that ddn't give our required lead time), and we addressed that by doing exactly what Forrester say in the last line above - we made it painful to get them authorised.
Every time a Short Notice Change was raised we referred the requestor to one of the 3 Technology Directors to gain their approval for it breaching the notice period (as opposed to technical sign off).
You'd be amazed (or not!) how many 'urgent, must do it NOW!' changes can actually wait if you have to go to a director and explain your bad planning... Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ITIL Forum Index -> Change Management All times are GMT + 10 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001 phpBB Group
phpBB port v2.1 based on Tom Nitzschner's phpbb2.0.6 upgraded to phpBB 2.0.4 standalone was developed and tested by:
ArtificialIntel, ChatServ, mikem,
sixonetonoffun and Paul Laudanski (aka Zhen-Xjell).

Version 2.1 by Nuke Cops © 2003 http://www.nukecops.com

Forums ©

 

Logos/trademarks property of respective owner. Comments property of poster. Rest © 2004 Itil Community for Service Management & Foundation Certification. SV
Site source copyright (c)2003, and is Free Software under the GNU / GPL licence. All Rights Are Reserved.