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: J7220
New Today: 147
New Yesterday: 154
Overall: 131045

People Online:
Visitors: 65
Members: 9
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 - changes in a decentralized environment
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

changes in a decentralized environment

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ITIL Forum Index -> Change Management
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AndyW
Senior Itiler


Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Posts: 77

PostPosted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:24 pm    Post subject: changes in a decentralized environment Reply with quote

Hi,
I'm working for a global company as change manager. Yesterday the question came up how to handle changes which are coming from local applications in other countries.

In the past there were a few concerns regarding change approval for emergency changes coming from local applications. The application owners argue that they don't want to wait for an official change approval by the change manger because of:
- the change manager does not know the details of the application and can not contribute any value to the change
- the impact of the change is only local and can be best assessed by the local change owner
- the change manager lives in a different time zone and waiting for his approval would take too long.

Any best practice approach ITIL would propose for this issue?
Back to top
View user's profile
Skinnera
Senior Itiler


Joined: May 07, 2005
Posts: 121
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi AndyW,

Don't know if it is ITIL best practice, but in my org RFCs can arise in other territories for applications that are hosted and supported in those territories but used across all territories.

In those circumstances the following happens;

the owning territory raises the RFC and notifies the CM funtions in the other territories.
those CM functions then raise 'info only' RFCs in their own FSCs and notify them out for awraeness.
the RFCs are tagged as 'cannot be challenged', for all the reasons you state above.

This is because we don't have an integrated toolset, having become global by acquisition rather than organic growth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
asrilrm
Senior Itiler


Joined: Oct 07, 2007
Posts: 441
Location: Jakarta, INA

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,
The question is are the other territories included in the CMDB?
If they are, then they are all subject to Change Management process, and the RFC should come to you
Back to top
View user's profile
m_croon
Senior Itiler


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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

asrilrm wrote:
Hi,
The question is are the other territories included in the CMDB?
If they are, then they are all subject to Change Management process, and the RFC should come to you


I do not agree, I think you are turning this around. Something should be part of the cmdb if you desire change control over it, not the other way around. If AndyW's organisation is convinced that these changes realy have local impact only, a decentralised operation might be usefull and much more acceptable to the people involved. The following could be considered:

* Decentralise certain powers to local change officers (according to SMART definition / scope which changes this involves)
* Design the workflow (centrally) that these officers need to follow (locally)
* Facilitate them with tooling, making sure that there is one FSC (and one only). This will keep everybody informed.
* Demand a periodic (week? month?) report from all change officers to monitor the quality of their work.

Cheers,

Michiel
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
asrilrm
Senior Itiler


Joined: Oct 07, 2007
Posts: 441
Location: Jakarta, INA

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I could have been mistaken.
We serve an airline that has many domestic branches. Each branch run their own sales and financial applications (because of different accounting reqs). However, to ensure compatibility, the specifications came from Head Quarters, in terms of hardware, systems software, network, and line communication.
Because of this, we include them in our CMDB, so every change in a branch (hardware, etc, but not application) should come to Change Management process.
I don't know if this is a proper practice but we haven't got any problem so far
Back to top
View user's profile
m_croon
Senior Itiler


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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi asrilrm,

Why see it as a mistake. Whatever works, works. ITIL does not state you should follow either your or my suggested path. If yours works for your organisation, excellent.

My point is that you can (could) make a difference between:
1. determining certain "starting points" (such as architecture, product choice, proces workflow) from a centralised perspective, and at the same time:
2. allowing local parts of your organisation to act locally, yet according to the starting points as determined above.

For this combination to work, you need certain agreements (OLA?) in place re. periodic reports from the local parties involved.

This would be my choice. It means that steering the process is more difficult, yet it gives more flexibility to your organisation and therefor more acceptance of change management.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
asrilrm
Senior Itiler


Joined: Oct 07, 2007
Posts: 441
Location: Jakarta, INA

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course, and you've made a good opinion, thanks! Very Happy
*adding to his knowledge database*
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.