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: HXkd
New Today: 19
New Yesterday: 56
Overall: 145997

People Online:
Visitors: 74
Members: 0
Total: 74

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 - Service Requests - Have ITIL and ISO got it right?
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Service Requests - Have ITIL and ISO got it right?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ITIL Forum Index -> ITIL Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
collism
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:11 am    Post subject: Service Requests - Have ITIL and ISO got it right? Reply with quote

ITIL classes a service request as a type of Incident. ISO20000 doesn't but does mention in part 1 that the Incident management process is responsible for keeping the customer notified of the progression of incidents and service requests, so it shows that that a service request is not an incident.

This leaves the situation messy especially for those ITIL compliant companies wishing to move to ISO20000 acreditation.

I believe this comes from underlying problems of the functional vs Operational process discussion.

I believe that this would be resolved by removing the Service Desk function from ITIL (as is confuses matters for new comers) and replace it with a Interface management process (Call management etc ..) Which sectionalises calls from customers into incidents and service requests, directing incidents into the incident mangement process and service requests into the relevant process

P/w reset - Change mgmt as a pre approved change (although the process activities performed by the service desk )
Other service requests may go to the service level management process in ITIL or the Business Relationship Management Process in ISO20000


Does anyone agree with this?
Back to top
View user's profile
UKVIKING
Senior Itiler


Joined: Sep 16, 2006
Posts: 3313
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ISO 20000 is not ITIL. It is a mgmt process which requires the implementation of ITIL as part of ISO20000 certificiation/process

A Service Request is an incident because....

where else would it go


The Service Desk is a function which manages/controls Incident Management.

When a customer/user calls, an Incident record is created to record the contact with the customer/user. Until the customer/user says ' I want to ' instead of 'I cant do ' the Service Desk cant properly classifiy the call.

So there is no real point in re-doing ITIL merely because you have an issue with SR vice IM
_________________
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter
Back to top
View user's profile
Guerino1
Senior Itiler


Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Posts: 500
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

UKVIKING wrote:
The Service Desk is a function which manages/controls Incident Management.

When a customer/user calls, an Incident record is created to record the contact with the customer/user. Until the customer/user says ' I want to ' instead of 'I cant do ' the Service Desk cant properly classifiy the call.


Hi,

Actually, the Service Desk is and always will be in place specifically to handle "Service Requests". ITIL seems to have redefined this and appears to have reversed the hierarchical representation. Based on having implemented ITIL solutions for the last few years, I believe ITIL got the Service Request/Service Management concept totally wrong. Service Requests really should be the root and Incidents should be a form of Service Request. But it appears the decision has been made and the world has to deal with it.

For example, someone might call the Service Desk asking for an answer to a question. This is not an Incident, as there was no formal "disruption" in any of their services or environments. However, the request to answer a question is definitely a request for service.

BTW, it's important to note that the world is moving in a direction to try and reduce/remove the need for a Service Desk by implementing "Self Serve Solutions". While I personally don't believe the need for a Service Desk will actually ever be eliminated, the trend to move to an S^3 solution eliminates calls and converts the contact directly into an electronic Service Request that gets routed to the appropriate Service Group, who performs the Service and ultimatley closes the SR ticket. It represents a federated service model that eliminates the need for a Service Desk to be a bottleneck.

Anyhow, I hope this helps.

Regards,
_________________
[Edited by Admin to remove link]
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website
JoePearson
Senior Itiler


Joined: Oct 13, 2006
Posts: 116
Location: South Africa

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I won't disagree with Frank and UKVIKING. There's a slight disconnect with the definition of "incident" interpreted strictly, and what Incident Management and even more the Service Desk are supposed to handle. "Causes or may cause an interruption to or reduction in the quality of service" does seem to imply that a request for assistance, or installation, or time & materials work, or similar things are not incidents. But these requests must be handled by the service desk. Perhaps what we're left with is the need to recognise two sides to "Incident Mgt": call management, or the interface management you suggest, and incident-as-disruption management. But for companies that still struggle to distinguish incidents and problems, this isn't necessarily going to make things easier!

One note: ISO20000 does include requests in incidents. In ISO/IEC 20000-1:2005(E), para 2.7 incident says "may include request questions such as How do I? calls". And para 8.1 Incident Management says "Objective: To restore agreed service to the business as soon as possible or to respond to service requests."
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
UKVIKING
Senior Itiler


Joined: Sep 16, 2006
Posts: 3313
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep

Joe

You are right about the incident definition in the ISO20000..... I will squirm in my chair as I re-read that section

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

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


Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cheers for the feedback,

I know its not an easy one, Ive implemented ITIL in many places and find the same misconceptions crop up. I just wish ITIL was sectionalised a bit more to remove the confusions. I know this would make more processes and some may find this a little more bewildering, but after reading literature I believe it would make everything clearer and easier to discuss processes between companies /department

thx again

Matt
Back to top
View user's profile
Guerino1
Senior Itiler


Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Posts: 500
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Collism,

This is one of the reasons why ITIL has issues in the states. To people who have bigger picture responsibilities for IT, the implementation of ITIL leaves too much to be desired and has some very obvious flaws in it. While in many cases ITIL helps set a standard terminology and offers same basic best practice concepts, in other cases it also causes ambiguity, confusion, and even causes many enterprises to go down a path that is very difficult to recover from. I believe this is why when you implement ITIL, you have to be very careful not to implement it to the letter and keep bigger picture business concepts in mind.

The ITIL framework, at a high level, is very good. The details in the ITIL specification are mixed and there are definitely some inconsistent and even incorrect concepts, within it, that can be dangerous to an enterprise that doesn't think through their implementation.

Regards,
_________________
[Edited by Admin to remove link]
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website
UKVIKING
Senior Itiler


Joined: Sep 16, 2006
Posts: 3313
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frank

ITIL does not dictate how you implement IT.

It merely provides a template on the division of work within an aspect of IT - first in the Operational world and then in the implementation of the Operational world.

Can you tell me what other standard can be be used instead of ITIL for what ITIL does ?

I dont see the problem that you see about ITIL in the US.

More and more companies are wanting ITIL in their organizations.

The problem is when people try to use ITIL for things that ITIL is not designed for - and when there is other tools/processes to meet them
_________________
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

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


Joined: Oct 13, 2006
Posts: 116
Location: South Africa

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John,

I agree with your rhetorical question: there's no vendor-neutral alternative option to give you what ITIL gives you, and as long as you see ISO20000 as the same thing (officially not, of course) there's no other standard. Of course there's COBIT, but that is more about auditing control than providing how-to.

But I have to agree with Frank that "The ITIL framework, at a high level, is very good" but "the implementation of ITIL leaves too much to be desired and has some ... flaws in it. While in many cases ITIL helps set a standard terminology and offers same basic best practice concepts, in other cases it also causes ambiguity, confusion, and even causes ... enterprises to go down a path that is very difficult to recover from. I believe this is why when you implement ITIL, you have to be very careful not to implement it to the letter and keep bigger picture business concepts in mind." (I deleted "very obvious" because I don't think they are.)

I've seen enterprises go down a path that's difficult to recover from - like getting the wrong definition of DSL, or misunderstanding the roles of escalation levels vs incident and problem allocation.

One area I feel particularly strongly that this applies is the nature of the CMDB. If you check out ERP for IT and the IT Skeptic you'll see some strong arguments for the ITIL CMDB being a complete trap unless best practice data modelling (and perhaps business process modelling) are applied, and replace some of the simplistic statements in ITIL.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Guerino1
Senior Itiler


Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Posts: 500
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi John,

Please see my comments, embedded below...

UKVIKING wrote:
ITIL does not dictate how you implement IT.

It merely provides a template on the division of work within an aspect of IT - first in the Operational world and then in the implementation of the Operational world.


This is true and I agree with you. The issue is that it is "sometimes" incomplete, inconsistent, ambiguous, and even flawed in some of these templates.

This is not to criticize it, though. I am a supporter of ITIL and believe in it. It's just that after having implementing many aspects of it, multiple times, and dealing with many IT leaders who have also done so (or involved me in doing so), I have found that ITIL does have many "issues". Let's face it, as much as there is positive in it, ITIL was created by humans and no human is perfect. This is why I always believe in and recommend that common sense supercede ITIL.

Quote:
Can you tell me what other standard can be be used instead of ITIL for what ITIL does ?


Currently, there is no organization that publicly offers such guidance. However, I know that there is an effort underway to roll out a much more complete solution than ITIL. I'm under NDA to not discuss the details but I can say that I have been engaged to review it and possibly be involved in it. I can also say that there are quite a significant number of C-level IT executives from very large government agencies and commercial companies that are driving it. Their purpose is that they see the value in things like ITIL but they also see the incompleteness and flaws in ITIL. I don't know if it will be successful but it does sound like a very promising and logical concept that has extreme potential. Let's face it, nothing is permanent and every old fad eventually gets replaced with a new fad.

Quote:
I dont see the problem that you see about ITIL in the US.


I'm not trying to convince you to see what I do. However, I speak with C-level executives, every day, that do see what I'm speaking of. They're responsible for the bigger picture, not just IT infrastructure and production operations. As a result, they care about IT as a whole and require solutions that address IT as a whole.

Quote:
More and more companies are wanting ITIL in their organizations.


This is very true and, as I stated above and in many previous posts, I believe this is a very good thing. Not only do I support it but I help drive it, here in the U.S. Remember, TraverseIT exists to help ITIL faster, cheaper and better than traditional models for implementation. Our business model revolves around the baseline that is ITIL.

Quote:
The problem is when people try to use ITIL for things that ITIL is not designed for - and when there is other tools/processes to meet them


I don't see this. I can honestly say that I have never once run into a company that tried to use ITIL for anything other than what ITIL recommends it be used for (Incident Mgmt, Problem Mgmt, Change Mgmt, CMDBs, etc. No one is trying to use ITIL for design, development, PMO, etc.). More commonly, they will go down a path implementing something that is recommended by ITIL, such as Incident Management, and have it conflict with more traditional Service Reqeust Management. Another example is the complete vagueness and even inaccuracies in the definition of things like the DSL. A huge issue that many IT and non-IT leaders have with ITIL is that it fosters a culture of making IT bigger and stronger, rather than reducing it and possibly eliminating it. For example, while it fosters creating a solid Incident Management escalation process, it says nothing about trying to improve quality and reduce costs enough to possibly eliminate the need for a Service Desk and/or Service Delivery team. Remember, for most companies IT is an "expense" and a non-core competency. It's not a revenue generator for these companies and every dollar you spend on ITIL is a dollar pulled away from opening new revenue streams. This doesn't mean it's a bad thing to invest in ITIL. It just means it needs to be tempered with common sense.

As always, I enjoy the information exchange. I hope this helps.

Regards,
_________________
[Edited by Admin to remove link]
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Guerino1
Senior Itiler


Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Posts: 500
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Joe,

JoePearson wrote:
John,
I've seen enterprises go down a path that's difficult to recover from - like getting the wrong definition of DSL, or misunderstanding the roles of escalation levels vs incident and problem allocation.


The definition of the DSL is so vague in ITIL that very few enterprises will even attempt to implement it, as the risk of getting it wrong can be too detrimental to them.

Quote:
One area I feel particularly strongly that this applies is the nature of the CMDB. If you check out ERP for IT and the IT Skeptic you'll see some strong arguments for the ITIL CMDB being a complete trap unless best practice data modelling (and perhaps business process modelling) are applied, and replace some of the simplistic statements in ITIL.


Amen, my friend. I can't provide an accurate statistic, here, but I can honestly say that the majority of the people that say "CMDB" really are talking about nothing more than an Asset Register/Inventory. Quite disturbing to me is that very few IT infrastructure resources I speak with seam to even understand what a real CMDB is. As a result, they'll implement nothing more than a simple Asset Register and start to make other systems dependent on it, making it very expensive and complicated to pull out of the investment or even improve it to meet the needs of a growing enterprise.

Again, I hope this helps.

Regards,
_________________
[Edited by Admin to remove link]
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website
raroa
Senior Itiler


Joined: Dec 05, 2006
Posts: 54

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As the IT Skeptic says, sooner or later someone will do the equivalent red and blue books for ISO20000 and that will be that for ITIL. And he suggests that since that someone will need deep pockets to fund such an undetaking they will probably be American and quite possibly based in Redmond.
Back to top
View user's profile
bamsejon
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Apr 02, 2007
Posts: 9
Location: Falun, SE

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guerino1 wrote:
Hi Joe,
Amen, my friend. I can't provide an accurate statistic, here, but I can honestly say that the majority of the people that say "CMDB" really are talking about nothing more than an Asset Register/Inventory. Quite disturbing to me is that very few IT infrastructure resources I speak with seam to even understand what a real CMDB is. As a result, they'll implement nothing more than a simple Asset Register and start to make other systems dependent on it, making it very expensive and complicated to pull out of the investment or even improve it to meet the needs of a growing enterprise.

Regards,


Amen to that, been there, are there Smile
Back to top
View user's profile MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ITIL Forum Index -> ITIL Discussion 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.