CAB Role question

[Brian64]

Can someone help me clear up a question currently in debate at my office?

We have the typical elementary process with a CAB assessing RFC’s prior to promotion to production. We also have a significant portfolio of projects underway (out to EOY 2015). The projects are run under Prince2 and bundled as a program.

At this stage the pipeline of project proposals is not really co-ordinated and it’s really first in best dressed with projects assessed individually and mostly from an NPV/IRR perspective.

I am arguing that we need a formalised pipeline planning process which has a broader organisational perspective in which we build a roadmap and have a considered decision making process which assessed project pipeline proposals against, the relevant strategies, plans and available forward budgets.

The question is what is the role of the CAB in this environment?

Some argue that the CAB should be the planning/assessment mechanism for the pipeline roadmap however others argue that the membership is wrong as they are focused mostly on imediate change to production and the pipleline is so far removed from production cutover (years in some cases) that another body should fulfil this role.

Another case against is that much is unknown, ie some pipeline projects are just option investigation projects which may never get to a production environment.

The availaible documentation on the CAB is not entirely clear, and while it does incorporate planning it seems to be more focused on the immediate rather than the long term.

So I'm interested in both theory, but also what is the reality on the ground. how do others deal with this issue?

I’d really appreciate the forums views and cases for/against in helping me resolve this impass.

Thanks

Brian

[KenLuo]

I'm not sure if my understanding is correct.

But CAB is where you present your change to production and then gets the approval or rejection.

Based on the theory, you should have your management level and also technical SME as the CAB members, so they can evaluate from both business and technical perspective.

While when you say the pipeline, my understanding, this is more of initiation of projects, planning, designing and implementation.

So it depends, if they're using your infrastructure, environments or applications, they must join and get approval with no doubts.
_________________
Luo, Tian-Hong (Ken)
Regional Operation Lead

ITIL Expert Certified

[UKVIKING]

Brian

The issue is as follows

You are confusing Project mgmt - change mgmt - with Operations Change Mgmt

You are also cofusing programme management - ie the management of the projects with operations CM

The projects need to be managed
They have to managed into the data centres - production and otherwise...

depending on the level ./ scope of the Operation CM is how and where it is involved

if there are builds to non production first.. then these would be controlled less by CM and more by environment and release mgmt

etc etc
_________________
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

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

[Brian64]

Thanks for your prompt replies.

I sense your comments reinforce my personal view that the CAB role is contained around pending (read immediate) change to production rather than a longer term horizon. Specifically John's comment around programme management resinates with this.

So to restate, the role of the CAB is purely "Operations Change Management"

correct?

Thanks again.

Brian

[UKVIKING]

Brian64

It depends.

If the scope of the change Board is Production, then yes, it is an operations Change board concerned with change implemented into Production

If the scope of the CAB is infrastructure - both prod and non prod - then it is an operations CAB for infrastructure

If the Scope is the specific items with a project, then it is a PROJECT CAB

Scope is important
_________________
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

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