Search
Topics
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Modules
· Home
· Content
· FAQ
· Feedback
· Forums
· Search
· Statistics
· Surveys
· Top
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your_Account

Current Membership

Latest: JRatley
New Today: 24
New Yesterday: 76
Overall: 142319

People Online:
Visitors: 57
Members: 2
Total: 59 .

Languages
Select Interface Language:


Major ITIL Portals
For general information and resources, ITIL and ITSM World is the most well known for both ITIL and ITIL Books. A shorter snapshot approach can be found at ITIL Zone

Related Resources
Service related resources
Service Level Agreement
Outsourcing

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.


The Itil Community Forum: Forums

ITIL :: View topic - How Do You Handle Multiple RFC pertaining to Patches?
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

How Do You Handle Multiple RFC pertaining to Patches?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ITIL Forum Index -> Change Management
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Debbie
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 13
Location: San Francisco, CA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:42 am    Post subject: How Do You Handle Multiple RFC pertaining to Patches? Reply with quote

We currently require an RFC for patches that may affect 1500 plus servers. How do most people handle this with regard to the number of RFCs that get created? If 1 RFC is created how to you go through your approval process since the business owners and system owners are all different? Not to mention all of the application owners.

Do most people consider these a standard change?
Back to top
View user's profile
UKVIKING
Senior Itiler


Joined: Sep 16, 2006
Posts: 3298
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Juan//Debbie

Actually I can see a Standard Change patch - the microsoft monthly patches come to mind.

It also depends on whose ox is being gored by the change.

If it is client workstations - Desk & lap tops machines, yes, I would make accept the change as a standard change. The individual machines patching would only affect the individual user machines if the chaneg fails (maybe lots ofthem)
BUT
If it is servers, no.... you can never tell what happens
_________________
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter
Back to top
View user's profile
jeffendy
Itiler


Joined: Aug 20, 2006
Posts: 25
Location: Indonesia

PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Debbie,

Applying patches to more than 1500 plus servers can be considered as a major change with high impact. Unless the servers are not the production servers. You better manage this change using project management methodology (i.e. PRINCE2). How many RFCs are created depend on your justification when you put this change into project. Maybe later on you will find useful to create one RFC for each server or one RFC for each division. One RFC can consists of several work orders. Work order can be assigned to the engineer who will perform the jobs.

Regards,
James Effendy
Back to top
View user's profile
m_croon
Senior Itiler


Joined: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 262
Location: Netherlands

PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Debbie,

How many buss. owners are we talking about? Does your tool provide for automated workflows? In that case, you could structure part of the approval process by these workflows. You'd have to define all your bus. owners or their delegates as virtual CAB members.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
UKVIKING
Senior Itiler


Joined: Sep 16, 2006
Posts: 3298
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Juan

I sort of agree to what you said and with what I said. ISTR that a standard change is a change that has been repeatable, known risk etc....

It all sorts of depends on what kind of patch, how many machines, what of machines, impact of doing/impact of not etc

If the patch is for a small # of machines/services and the risk if the patch failing is minimal, then I would let the change run a standard process

However, like you said...if the change's impact is high enough, buzz.

The most important thing is that

change management process and people need to keep a pulse on the operational system and net work world
_________________
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter
Back to top
View user's profile
m_croon
Senior Itiler


Joined: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 262
Location: Netherlands

PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just to get my former post clear: with automated workflow, I only refer to getting permission (for a CAB change that is). Actually, it is not 100% automated. It just makes sure that the entire process of getting permision is logged in your tool, and that the (CAB) change cannot be promoted to production without all parties giving permission directly in the change. Many tools such as HP Service Desk provide this functionality. With that many stakeholders involved it can be a usefull tool to have this part "automated". I agree that the actual s/w deployment should not be considered a standard change.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
UKVIKING
Senior Itiler


Joined: Sep 16, 2006
Posts: 3298
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Throwing my hands in the air

What do you mean ... Juan... are not All Microsoft patches identical and perfect in every way

ROFLMAO

True Juan True....

While I would not rate the monthly patches from Microsoft standard changes for the server world.... there are some microsoft patches which are less painful than other patches ... it all comes down to the risk

Myself, I would rate the desktop application and o/s patches lower on the impact than server patches
_________________
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter
Back to top
View user's profile
jeffendy
Itiler


Joined: Aug 20, 2006
Posts: 25
Location: Indonesia

PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sometimes the server needs to be restarted after applying patch(es). I can't imagine if 1500 plus servers are restarted at the same time after the patches are applied. In this case, the change must be carefully managed because service disruptions will be experienced by all users in the entire company.

Regards,
James Effendy
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ITIL Forum Index -> Change Management All times are GMT + 10 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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

Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001 phpBB Group
phpBB port v2.1 based on Tom Nitzschner's phpbb2.0.6 upgraded to phpBB 2.0.4 standalone was developed and tested by:
ArtificialIntel, ChatServ, mikem,
sixonetonoffun and Paul Laudanski (aka Zhen-Xjell).

Version 2.1 by Nuke Cops 2003 http://www.nukecops.com

Forums ©

 

Logos/trademarks property of respective owner. Comments property of poster. Rest 2004 Itil Community for Service Management & Foundation Certification. SV
Site source copyright (c)2003, and is Free Software under the GNU / GPL licence. All Rights Are Reserved.