Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:16 am Post subject: Change implementation and post implementation testing?
Iím still struggling Ö
Last year I submitted a question via the ITIL Community Forum it read:
Struggling with the scope of change management.
Operations is actually responsible for implementing IT changes, but change management is accountable to ensure changes are made with minimum disruption to IT Services.
So is it the responsibility of change management to ensure that operations has taken all the necessary precautions to head off any unplanned disruption as a result of a change or does that responsibility sit squarely with operations?
If the former is true, change management will require a signigicantly broader skill set, e.g., have the ability to scrutinize test plans.
What say you/
I got some answers that helped, but I need more.
My concern is really what responsibility Change Management has in relation to implementation testing. I know I canít oversee the testing or even decide if the testing is appropriate. But do I need to ensure that there is an implementation and test plan in the change record (which would of course have to be provided by operations)?
Or, are change implementation and post implementation testing simply outside the scope of the change management process? If so, what ITIL process is responsible?
Joined: Mar 04, 2008 Posts: 1884 Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:43 am Post subject:
Before trying to answer this question I need some clarification.
Do you mean pre-implementation testing? There is no such thing as post-implementation testing. _________________ "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
Joined: Sep 16, 2006 Posts: 3292 Location: London, UK
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:43 am Post subject:
I let Diarmid reply first because when I saw this post
Are you the Change Manager - makign policy and establishing it when there is no policy
merely the Change Clerk who just blindly processes any change request no matter how crap the request is
End of sarcasm / irony
Here is how I establish CM.
If there is no RM, I write as the CM the CM and the RM Policy process etc.
If there is a RM, I work with to ensure CM and RM policy follow the same concept.
Same goes for Config Mgmt
CM is governance. You want to ensure that what is deployed to production is well thought out, tested, and actually works and does not cause any issues in production once deployed.
RM is action. You manage how things are deployed to prod, controlled non production and non controlled non prod. You expect all testing to be done in the controlled nonprod. You expect all deployments to controlled non prod have been tested prior to going to controlled non prod.
As part of the prod deployment,you ensure that there is some sort of validation that the deployment was successful - similar to the way they checked in controlled non prod. This is the post implementation testing. Basically you find out whether the fault that originated this all has been fixed or what was dpeloyed actually is installed and production is no worse for the deployment.
It is UP to the CM Policy and process and the supporting RM how anal and pendantic you wish to be. It is usually in the best interests of the business users impacted to validate the fix works or the implemetnation team validates.
That way the loop is closed on the change....
Here is the thing.
If change 100 gets done in Jan and in mar change 200 has to be done because change 100 broke other stuff.. this says several things - 1 the testing scope was not broad enough as required 2 - post validation of the solution may have caught this in prod earlier - even if not in testing 3 - the solution for 100 was not fit for purpose.
As CM and RM, you do your best to ensure that all key gates / milstones have been met and are well documented.
And that is the fun
So as to your situation
If the CM and the RM agree that there should be post validation after production deployments, propose to senior mgmt, get agreement and implement
Otherwise - quit your moaning _________________ John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)
Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter
I am new here and appologize up front for sometimes being long winded and scatter brained.
We struggle with Change Validation in our company as well. While Change Validation falls outside the scope of ITIL Change Management, our company's structure heavily relies on change validation for change activity impacting customer facing infrastructure. Currently we have customized our change managment tool to account for validation requirements set by the change owners but as we are moving to a new tool we are looking to modify the process to better align to the out of the box ITIL workflow. To make a more interesting process development journey, our customers don't agree on validation strategies. One customer says "I want the change owner to tell me if I need to test, when and what to test." while another customer states "I know my products so don't tell me, I'll review the changes and test if I want to and if something goes wrong then we'll tell you." In short, we haven't gotten to the point where we know what the process is going to be when it grows up, I can say that we are moving in a direction that valitation is not in scope for "Change Management" but our department will still own the tools and the processes to manage it as a seperate yet supporting process.
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