Change Approvals

[Benson112]

Hi All,

Apologies if this has alraedy been asked but i searched and couldnt find anything.

Quick question: Who should chase change approvals?

We currently have it set up so that if it is a priority 1 (emergency) change then the assignee is responsible for chasing the approval. If the priority is anything else, change management chase the approval.

[Mark-OLoughlin]

Change management is responsible.

However in the case of emergencies shouldn't chnage managemement be involved to ensure the correct approvals are obtained. However in out fo hours situations you may delegate control to say a duty manager who is then responsible. If someone other than the chane manager is going to get the approvals have this documented and understod what is being delegated and to who.
_________________
Mark O'Loughlin
ITSM / ITIL Consultant

[Ed]

Hmmm Interesting point here!

Benson 112, I am interested as to why you have a different approval path dependent on Priority.

Also, I do not agree, Mark, that Change Management should do the chasing.

As someone who is 'controlling the changes', we are the last people who should chase signatories.

Change Management is responsible for giving the final approval that allows Release to do it's job. This is given under advice, as CM cannot possibly know all the technologies.

Regards

Ed

[UKVIKING]

Ed,

I agree with Mark. The reasons are as follows

Change Management needs to be able to manage the change request through its life cycle - that includes the Approval process

A smart Change mgr would have OLAs with all of the approval groups

Change mgmt should also include change admin processes such as reminders etc

admin function would include chasing the approval.

The way I did this a my last role is send an email to approvers who have not approved the change notice fo requirement via an automatic process
_________________
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter

[Benson112]

Im am interested as to why we do it this way too haha.

I have been given the joyfull task of improving the process, i wasnt the one who created it originally.

The problem i get is that when a change is assigned to somebody, they think they can sit back and do nothing and hope that the change gets approved. They will spend time hassling change managment to chase approvers but will not chase them themselves....which i see as pointless.

As far as i can tell, it was set up this way to deter people from poor planning, i.e. if you dont give us 7 days plus notice then you have to chase it youself (bare in mind that we currently categorse and prioritse changes completely wong! with priority, standard = more than 7 days notice, emergency = less than 7 days, and priority 2 = less than 7 days but not critical)

What i wanted to know was the ITIL stance on who should be chasing them and i seem to have my answer. I was hoping you would say anybody but change management but hey ho.

Thanks guys

[Skinnera]

We encourage requestors to chase approvals, so they have some skin in the game...

Mostly this is for short notice, fault or emergency Changes, as all the others are done via CAB.

[Mark-OLoughlin]

ok I will expand a bit more as the last post included some very relevant info which I should have included

In the past I have put in the process that no change can be implemented - released unless approved. The change requestor and or the assignee of the change can help to ensure that the approvals are gained by the relevant CAB members as it in in there interest to do so.

However if approaching the time of the change, say 1 day before hand, approvals are still not done the Change Manager should step in to assist with getting the approvals and also use this to identify the issues in getting the approvals in the first place.
This could mean pushing the requestor to get the approvals. It is a form of control that you want to have the change manager in there chasing them - but only at certain times nearing the date of the change.

Generally I went back to the requestor and told them to get it sorted. Sometimes I found issues with the CAB members and the process that needed the CM to intervine etc.
_________________
Mark O'Loughlin
ITSM / ITIL Consultant

[Ed]

[Benson112]

Thanks very much all. I have now come to the conclusion that i will include in the process the following:

It remains the responsibility (regardless of category / priority) of the requestor to ensure that approvals are gained prior to implimentation as non-approval = no change.

I will also add that CM will step in to aid the approval where deemed necessary by CM.

Thanks again all