Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:23 pm Post subject: Change Categories
I realise this is a difficult question to answer and differs from business to business, however I’m giving it an airing for feedback anyway.
We are looking to drive change approvals based on the V3 change types and categories.
So for a Normal Change i am looking at;
Major 20d lead time- Multiple business departments affected, introduction of a new service, decommissioning current live service.
Significant 10d lead time - Downtime required, Service degradation required, No back out available only forward fix.
Minor 5 d lead time - Build of a new single server (non-standard), Configuration Change no negative impact.
Both Major and Significant changes will require a pre review via CAB Agenda and possible a detailed walkthrough from the requestor / sponsor.
The Minor Change will be represented on the CAB day and potentially approved in the meeting.
The other thing to understand is that we are restricted to Tin and String changes and will occur at some point. The approval to proceed with a build from project (financial, strategy and resourcing) is controlled via a different project process. The Project manager interacts with change when actual environmental changes are required.
Basically, does this seem sensible? have we missed the point and can you think of criteria i can put into Minor.
Im not sure I get the first point about the realities of the corporate environment? My idea of the time frames is to offer some protection to the business and to put an end once and for all to engineers and project managers requesting changes at the last minute and expecting approval before CAB.
This will also give us some time to undertake assurances, peer reviews, security sign offs etc.... whilst still allowing an avenue for true fast track changes. Not where someone forgot and now needs a favour.
Configuration management is primitive within the organisation, but does exist for application deployments, however Change and Release Management are combined into the same team.
RFC forms we use have the scope for the full implementation instructions.
All the areas you have mentioned are in scope
Applications: - Rollout - patching -
Network - Although more difficult for me to
I suppose what I am asking what else could be put into the minor category. I feel saying all changes that have "no impact" and "low Risk" to production services is a big catch all that could bite us when we try to apply categorisation.
Joined: Sep 16, 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: London, UK
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:57 pm Post subject:
To my first point. The defintion of how you differentiate the types of changes should be based on the IT environment at hand
So for example: The CM scope is only networks so there is a fast turn around and very little testing as the majority of the work is either enable or disable F/W ports / IP.
So there would only need to be - Emergency (Fault fix), Normal Change
These are speedily approved (almost presumed)
However, there are a few changes that involves other work than F/W disable enable port /IP so you have Major
So you have 3 Change Classifications - Emergency and Major and Normal
Emergency for Fault fixes only
Major and Normal for everything else. The CAB only discusses the Major but the CM merely tracks the normal for statistical purposes _________________ John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)
Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter
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