Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:24 am Post subject: Back-end Changes?
In our organization, we implement changes either in DB (Back-end) or using an interface of the application (front-end). RFC assessment will distinguish what kind of a change is being requested.
I have a RFC, which is approved by our CAB as back-end change to update some records in the DB. Now, we have found that for the month of July, there is a very minor update to the DB, whcih can be done through front-end. Do we need to have a new RFC to make this change through front-end or can we just document in our approved back-end rfc that since there is a very minor update so for the month of july we are making this change through front-end?
Joined: Feb 28, 2006 Posts: 411 Location: Coventry, England
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:52 am Post subject:
I don't understand the significance of the need to classify changes as Back-end or Front-end. My Oracle guys deal with DB changes all the time, we simply register them as a Change.
For me, as your CAB has already authorised the Change, the concern ought to be why they, understanding the need for your classification system, have not picked up that the change has not been classified correctly.
OK, so an error has been made - I am unforgiving, and would ask for a new RFC as the old one is incorrect.
I know it sounds like 'Rules is Rules' , but you must ensure that no watering down of the CM process is allowed. The end result (taken to extremes) could easily be that they just don't bother raising an RFC but make the change anyway.
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:18 am Post subject: Bakc-end Changes
Thank you for your reply.
Actually, the change I am talking about is approved by our CAB as "Maintenance Service" to be run monthly.
There is a script written to update records in the DB so we have called it as "back-end".
Now, we have only 1 record that needs to be updated and we don't want to run the script as it has been identified that this can be done through front-end. It was not identified before.
So according to ITIL, do we need to create a new RFC to state that this update will be done through interface.
Also something to consider, since this is maintenance is done monthly. Just for this month, we can do through front-end as we have only one record. But if we are going to have multiple records update then we will need to run a script.
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 Posts: 500 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:57 am Post subject:
There is no "according to ITIL" here. ITIL does not get down into such detail and leaves it up to organizations, like your own, to classify and categorize their work.
I think you may want to revisit your categorizations. The problem with Taxonomies/Ontologies is that there is never really one that fits all situations. Also, as your enterprise grows, the contents within such Taxonomies/Ontologies grows to be very large, as you will be able to apply Changes to any part of the organization. Some examples that might be useful to you include but are not limited to:
Application - API
Application - Batch Stream
Application - Build & Packaging Configuration
Application - Business Rules
Application - Content
Application - Input Data Feed
Application - Output Data Feed
Application - Data Model
Application - Deconstruction Configuration
Application - Deployment/Distribution Configuration
Application - Execution Configuration
Application - Installation Configuration
Application - Instantiation Configuration
Application - Presentation/User Interface
Application - Protocol & Communications
Application - Report
Application - Other
Facility - Command, Control, & Communications Center
Facility - Conference Room
Facility - Data Center
Facility - End User Desk Space
Facility - Training Room
Facility - Other
Infrastructure - Computing Desktops
Infrastructure - Computing Servers
Infrastructure - FAXes
Infrastructure - General Non-Computing Device
Infrastructure - Network
Infrastructure - Phone
Infrastructure - Printers
Infrastructure - Racks
Infrastructure - Routers
Infrastructure - Storage
Infrastructure - Switches
Infrastructure - Other
SW Infrastructure - Application Server
SW Infrastructure - Batch Server/Scheduler
SW Infrastructure - Business Intelligence & Reporting
SW Infrastructure - Chat
SW Infrastructure - Content Management
SW Infrastructure - Database
SW Infrastructure - Extract, Transformation, & Load
SW Infrastructure - FTP
SW Infrastructure - Portal
SW Infrastructure - Queues
SW Infrastructure - Security
SW Infrastructure - Other
The actual list can get huge. But the above holds most organizations over. I haven't even gotten into categorizations for Changes that account for other areas, such as Services and Processes.
Anyhow, I hope this helps.
Regards, _________________ [Edited by Admin to remove link]
Joined: Feb 28, 2006 Posts: 411 Location: Coventry, England
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject:
Frank's advice is spot on, as we both have said, your problem seems to be in your categorisation of Changes.
To answer your specific question - As a Change Manager, I would want a new RFC to cover the new scenario. I am very severe when it comes to the wording of Changes. If the Change says back-end, then it does not cover front-end.
I get the impression that your 'back-end Change' is a pre-authorised Standard Change - Am I right or am I reading too much into what you are saying?
I would expect that a monthly Change that follows a set of steps that can be proceduralised, would be set up as a Standard Change, thus giving your techies as much flexibility as possible.
I would also recommend that you look at getting practitioner level Qualification for Change Management (I am assuming that you haven't already done this - aplologies if I am wrong)) - simply spending time with other people who are handling Changes everyday will give an enormous boost to your confidence.
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