Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
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.
Search
Languages
Select Interface Language:
Advertising
Please contact us via the feedback page to discuss advertising rates.
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:02 am Post subject: RFC Content & Approach (Mature CM Processes)
Hi,
Just wanted to get some objective views on how other CMs/SMEs govern and manage RFCs, and what the stance, approach, policy or process is when dealing with RFCs which do NOT conform to those set standards.
For Example - I implemented a formal document which details what information MUST be stipulated within a given RFC (Full Normal, not Standard).
Once the Change Management Team receive RFCs at Classification via a dedicated workflow tool (NOT PAPER BASED) they will fully assess the change, ensure fit for purpose, contains the correct level of information, include relevant sign-offs etc, etc.
The Problem i have is that some people firmly believe that unless the RFC is perfect at classification, or 1st base then its rejected, which i disagre with. More commonly these are passed back to the change raiser to address the shortfalls.
I personally am a firm believer in a phased approach (Full Normal, exc Emergency RFCs) which ensures that RFCs are raised at the earliest opportunity and key information is added over time by the Suppliers, or Technical authorities, especially given the fact that alot of CRs are non-technical.
Be good to get some views and suggestions on how others are doing it.
Regards
Joined: Sep 16, 2006 Posts: 3590 Location: London, UK
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:40 am Post subject:
In regards to your first issue
The Problem i have is that some people firmly believe that unless the RFC is perfect at classification, or 1st base then its rejected, which i disagre with. More commonly these are passed back to the change raiser to address the shortfalls.
My answer is - what does your process / policy document say about this
if it does not say anything .. then that is the reason for the different deicision trees
It there fore it needs the defintion, _________________ John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)
Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter
"My answer is - what does your process / policy document say about this
if it does not say anything .. then that is the reason for the different deicision trees
It there fore it needs the defintion,"
The policy states that currently that should the change not be fit for purpose then it requires re-work or rejection.
The intention of the statement was to understand how other organisations deal with this type of scenario, especially as policy documents are sometimes to rigid etc.
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