Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
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.
Search
Languages
Select Interface Language:
Advertising
Please contact us via the feedback page to discuss advertising rates.
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: Problem Management CAB
Hi all, new to the forum.
We are going down the ITIL PM road and want to govern changes made to our internal processes/documentation.
Should we do this via an internal PM CAB or is it better to have the docs as CI's and create a normal RFC to have the process and associated documentation discussed, agreed and changed?
Joined: Sep 16, 2006 Posts: 3590 Location: London, UK
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject:
What about the other processes ?
There should be some method / process where the documentation is reviewed and approved
it depends on whether the CAB members are the right people to sign off on the PM process _________________ John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)
Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: Problem Management CAB
nzmoko wrote:
Hi all, new to the forum.
We are going down the ITIL PM road and want to govern changes made to our internal processes/documentation.
Should we do this via an internal PM CAB or is it better to have the docs as CI's and create a normal RFC to have the process and associated documentation discussed, agreed and changed?
Appreciate your views.
I don't think there's a right or wrong way to do this.
The way we handle these changes is by having a core group of people for each ITIL process. The core group consists of a small group of the process stakeholders that represent all stakeholders. For new processes the core group meets once a fortnight (or as needed) and anyone can bring new ideas or proposed changes to the table for discussion. Over time the core group gains a firm knowledge of the process and starts to act as a CAB. Works well for us.
Joined: Mar 04, 2008 Posts: 1894 Location: Helensburgh
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject:
Changes to processes are no different to any other changes.
They have a reason (mostly resolving problems, improving service or reacting to changed circumstances).
They have a specification.
They have an implementation plan (including back-out)
They have cost and risk associated with them.
Approval, evaluation, scheduling, implementing and reviewing all have to be done by the people best placed (by competence, interest and authority).
It makes sense to manage these changes under the same umbrella because there is the same conflict resolution and information management to control and one universal process has obvious benefits. But other approaches should work as long as communication is good and everyone has good understanding of what they are doing in the big picture.
By the same reasoning, and irrespective of how you manage process change, there is much to be said for holding processes and their documents in the CMDB. After all services have dependencies on processes. _________________ "Method goes far to prevent trouble in business: for it makes the task easy, hinders confusion, saves abundance of time, and instructs those that have business depending, both what to do and what to hope."
William Penn 1644-1718
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