The IT Skeptic - Comments for "ITIL services are customer-facing, whatever catalogue they appear in"

Reality v the possible

JamesFinister — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:02:23 +0000

Rob,

Remember we are talking about a real life scenario I've seen repeated several times. not the approach we would get the business - and it is a business decision - to adopt if there a chance of them listening to anything a humble ITSM consultant might say.

In theory, if not in practice, there is no problem if a CxO level manager is genuinely acting as a customer. I'll come back to that thought. In the case where costs are allocated to budget holders then the budget holders are probablycustomers in name only. They have no control over either the cost or quality of the service they recieve

I'm not sure of the relevance of your point about the distance between the user and the customer, it doesn't form any part of my thinking.

"The fact that the organisation sets policy for something doesn't mean it is the customer, any more than government legislation makes the government the customer. these are environmental factors." is an interesting point and obviously reflects a lot of thinking about public sector reform over the last 25 years - but does it stack up in this case? After all that nebulous entity "the business" is both setting the policy and paying for it. Budgets after all, are an artificial construct.

As to my last point I simply mean that it is a service delivered purely to our internal users, not to the business' customers. Email is actually a very bad example of that on reflection, because although we often think of email as an internal service it is usually business critical because of the impact it has on inward and outward communication with the outside world.

James Finister
www.tcs.com
http://coreitsm.blogspot.com/

Not following you

skeptic — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:20:42 +0000

I don't understand the example. Someone is paying IT to run email. Now either it comes out of a fixed operating budget, in which case the CFO or CEO are the customer (however the org wants to treat it - whoever is signing off the budget), or each department pays allocated costs in which case they are the customers.

there is no rule says the customer has to be closely connected to the users. In internal IT they often aren't. It's a problem but it's a fact. Chargeback tries to change that.

The fact that the organisation sets policy for something doesn't mean it is the customer, any more than government legislation makes the government the customer. these are environmental factors.

I don't understand what "internal business/facilities service" means. Internal to what? All our services are business services that are provisioned by IT, surely?

Rule of Thumb

JamesFinister — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:58:01 +0000

Rob,

That's my normal rule of thumb as well, but it depends on all parties recognising who that customer is. Take email for instance, trying to find a customer for it to sign an SLA can be quite a challenge - which isn't to say it shouldn't have a customer, but that sometimes the customer might be a proxy, for instance the CFO owning it on behalf of others. Obviously any IT service treated as an overhead can provide a challenge in this area. Then if the rules over use of email (mailbox size, filtering rules) are set by the business, as they often are, doesn't that make email an internal business/facilities service that is provisioned by IT, rather than an IT service?

James Finister
www.tcs.com
http://coreitsm.blogspot.com/

payin'

skeptic — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:24:12 +0000

You know me James I'm a bear of very little brain. I like to keep things simple. In my lexicon the customer is the one paying. Therefore there is always a customer somewhere. And there is usually only one customer per service transaction.

So yes we do provide transactions to users of our customer's services but only one of them is payin' so only one is the customer at the time.

Orphans

JamesFinister — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:03:23 +0000

On a couple of occasions situations have arisen where it has occurred to me that there might be some services that do not have a traditional customer as such, but rather a mixture of users and stakeholders. I suppose I'm thinking in terms of commodity/utility services. There might also be some services that IT provide direct to their customer's customers rather than via their customer.

James Finister
www.tcs.com
http://coreitsm.blogspot.com/

example services

skeptic — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:50:00 +0000

IT provides the service of stewarding information and providing transaction infrastructure for any of the business's own services to its external end customers.

IT also provides professional consulting services for business analysis, project management, change management and deployment every time the business wants to change its services.

In addition IT provides technology services to the business which link indirectly to the business's services e.g. provision of desktops and phones.

In order to avoid confusion with the services IT provide to the business, which are described in IT's BSC and TSC, I'm tempted to call th business's services to external customers, which don't get catalogued in any IT service catalogue, "revenue services" (but public sector and notforprofits won't like that name)

which customers and services

Liz — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 03:46:48 +0000

I agree with Horacio - we need input from the business regarding services they feel we provide or should provide to shape our service catalog in support of their needs. And thank you Skeptic for making it clear that UCs or OLAs should not be considered services in my service catalog. Going back to Mark O's comment/question... in IT, we have our business customers and they in turn have their customers i.e. end consumers. The services in our catalog are relevant our business customers (NOT to end consumers), correct? This goes back to the definition of service, business service, IT service... the service catalog should contain IT services which we provide in support of business services they provide, but NOT contain the business services which the business provides to their customer. Right? That would be in their catalog? Can you provide a couple of examples of IT services which support business services which would be in the service catalog? Thanks!

Defined flexibility

vinodka — Mon, 17 May 2010 04:55:46 +0000

I agree with Rob here.

It might not be practical (at least not in most type of service providers) to be completely flexible in your catalogue and keep it entirely (or predominantly) external focused. You HAVE to take your current capabilities and constraints when you prepare your Service Catalog.

My view is, what ever flexibility/customization you can give in your service catalog has to be 'defined flexibility' (which is defined taking into consideration, your strategy, capabilties, constraints, current design etc).

In the example of the restaurant - whether to allow customers to use your kitchen with external chef/cook has to be a strategic decision most of the time - isn't it? (unless you want to satisfy a key customer of yours by providing an exception approval for him).

Having said that, your approach is entirely true for Service pipeline! - That need to be and can be completely external focused, flexible and agile.
If the strategic management feels it is a good idea to provide those services - like allowing the kitchen to be used by external customers and chefs- then that should come to Service catalog through pipeline, through proper analysis and decisions.

Vinod
www.itserviceview.com
www.wings2i.com

I think there is a simpler explanation...

Horacio — Sun, 16 May 2010 22:24:37 +0000

I think there is a simpler explanation...

Geeks insist in including "Technical Services" into the catalogue, because they feel very comfortable defining them. It's very easy for them to describe TS in a Service Catalog format because they can pose as customers for them.

But it's much more challenging for a geek to pose as a real customer and try to describe a business service from a customer perspective. And this is the real challenge.

So, challenged as they are, if you leave these "Technical Services" out of the catalog, the SC would be pretty empty. Of course, the "Email" service and the "File & Print" service would also proudly be part of the service catalog. Very original.

And it's much more difficult when these service catalogs are produced without any kind of input from the business. In this case, the most likely output is to have an unhappily amused customer that will only corroborate how little IT understands business.

Of course I'm taking the case a little to the extreme, but I honestly think that these Technical Services in the Service Catalog are like a security blanket for IT people unable to understand business.

Thick skinned but sensitive - thats me!

ianclayton — Tue, 11 May 2010 16:28:10 +0000

Aale - no problem - its just that unfortunately there still seem to be a few folks out there that salivate at the chance to take any comment I, and a few of my fellow scrutineers, make about ITIL. I'm pretty thick skinned - skinned I said! But I do want others to understand that what is of paramount importance is that something as important and valuable in so many ways as ITIL, as a commercial product, is subject to the same inspection and comment as any other similar offering. It should be a healthy thing, but it seems some think that its akin to drilling holes in their lifeboat to let the water out.

Internal services?

aroos — Tue, 11 May 2010 05:15:19 +0000

Yes, that set was about user experience but I think the concepts could be applied to IT service design too. Do you really think that you can design the inside separately. I agree that ITIL SD tries to do it but I do not think it works. Actually that sounds just like the internal services you oppose.

In my opinion the slide set is relevant to this BSC/TSC discussion in the sense that it does not use that split. It shows service as a layer model and points out that a service is a journey and different customers take different paths.

Aale

PS Quite fittingly I'm sitting in a Pendolino train that should be doing 220 km/h but keeps stopping due to some system error. I wonder which version of Windows they use.

Different standards

aroos — Tue, 11 May 2010 04:50:07 +0000

Ian
Sorry for misjudging your comment. IMHO you listed enough errors to make it useless but that is then just my interpretation. All ITIL books have some useful stuff in them but in my mind that is not enough.

Aale
PS
I'm also an old ITS manager who turned into ITSM consultant in 1989. V2 Service Manager and V3 Expert. Studying for the Expert made me much more critical of V3 than I had been before.

I did not say Service Design was useless

ianclayton — Tue, 11 May 2010 01:12:12 +0000

Aale

Tut tut ... I did not say it was useless and you know me for someone who has been a harsh critic of ITIL. My mantra (which often goes unrepeated or referenced - rather conveniently by some) has always been to "protect a planned or existing investment in ITIL". My loyalty is with my clients, not ITIL. But I did not say, nor do I think teh ITIL Service Design, or any other core book, is useless.

What I will say is that ITIL Service Design failed to respect a whole profession, industry and body of knowledge - enterprise architecture. It failed to also recognize that some countries have regulations around the topic of managing and investing in infrastructure with a major law here in the US that dates back to 1996. It has horrible examples for a service catalog and diagrams that have more arrows in them than shot at Custer's last stand - but its not useless. Why - because its purpose is different from what many suppose it to be, and use it for.

My comment was pointed at those that claim too much or read too much into ITIL. My comment was also aimed at those who present time and time again on ITIL V3 without moving any of us forward past what we knew at the time of its launch, or since through reading the books.

ITIL is a contribution not a religion to be evangelized, as so many did during its launch - strange how those folks now evangelize (IT)SM - yet they now drop the IT - why? ITSm is IT + SM - the proven principles of service management (with origins in the business realm of product management) applied to the challenges of It - a perfect name.

As for those who keep renaming ITSM to BSM or something else - it would be polite if they actually finished something first - ITSM. And that alone should be a clue to buyers of their 'expertise'. When you next consider employing or contracting someone to help you with an (IT)SM initiative ask them ho wmany of the 25 items they can help you with I listed in my blog article "My Service Management Professional ‘Bucket List'"!

ITIL and the Service Design book is valuable, as a starting point for understanding what IT Service Management is, and for discussion. It is NOT designed IMHO to solve things. Therefore it is not useless, just misrepresented or misunderstood by too many who are the go-to folks for so many IT organizations trying to address management imperatives.

Remember - as an ITIL Expert I admit to you all that the designation alone means little - except that I know how to study and pass an exam. Like others, I have to regularly dig deep and and call upon my 30 years of experience WORKING WITHIN IT, MANAGING DATA CENTERS, AND MAKING IT PAYROLL.

Service Design

skeptic — Mon, 10 May 2010 20:16:00 +0000

From time to time I find myself defending the ITIL books - this is one of them. I don't think they are talking about the same Service Design.

The slideset you refer to is discussing the design of delivery of a service transaction to a user, what ITIL would call a service reguest fulfillment transaction. It is discussing the design of the touchpoints.

ITIL is discussing the design of the IT processes and infrastructure to support and deliver a service. not at all the same thing.

While the honeycomb model is an interesting consideration for ITIL service design, I don't see the rest of it as terribly relevant. it is relevant to the application designers designing the user interface to services. It is also relevant to those designing the request fulfillment interface. but that isn't what ITIL calls Service Design.

I'm all in favour of outside-in thinking, but not if the inside falls out. ITIL SD designs the inside.

Service design is different

aroos — Mon, 10 May 2010 11:33:00 +0000

Ian is right here. ITIL Service Design book is useless.

Service design is a new disicpline that many universities teach today. See Wikipedia for start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_design. It is obvious that the authors of ITIL SD book did not study Service Design but neither do Service Designers read ITIL, there are no cross references.

This slideshow explains some interesting concepts of service design. http://www.slideshare.net/sylvain/ux-design-service-design-design-thinking. I think one could use these concepts also in IT service design. Slides 35 to 42 are the core if you do not want to go through the full presentation.

Aale

Exactly the conversation that should be had at conferences!

ianclayton — Sat, 08 May 2010 23:56:30 +0000

Well! This thread is another prime example of what I called for (I was not alone) years ago when helping create the itSMF USA Annual Conference. Given today's economic woes IMHO if there is an ITIL session it should answer a question like this thread tries to pose and encourage responses to. If authors are to present - they should either form a panel or present to the question.

After all, ITIL is lauded as a source of 'best practice'. Unfortunately in my view its welcome common sense in the easier areas - nearer operational activities, and nothing but a trouble maker in other more strategic and life-critical areas, such as service portfolio, customer outcome sniffing, relationship management, change, continual improvement, problem management, and the service portal, access point, request management and catalog areas... phew..

You only need to look at the example catalog the Design book offers...hhmm.. A catalog is a brochure. It is a primary marketing tool. Marketers should design and maintain. Its a critical element. If developed inside-out (as ITIL is generally positioned) the IT organization will find itself being on the Cloud before they ever get it right. The smaller the IT organization the quicker that may happen.

Do not argue about what ITIL says - that will end up like a 'handbags at ten paces' event in the pub car park. ITIL is unclear on this topic as I said and offers incomplete guidance. Get the authors to sit on a panel at an ITIL conference - there's a WHOLE TRACK at the itSMF USA one - and explain themselves - or find a better source. Please do not waste time trying to make whats documented fit.

a single entity in Visio

skeptic — Fri, 07 May 2010 22:39:07 +0000

First, many "technical services" are not services. They are just systems. They have no business model, nor means of engaging with them outside of the business unit. Often they are only treated as a single entity in Visio: they are not measured as a service, not OLAed service by service, there is not one accountable owner, no charging model, no warranty and so on...

Second, the whole point of ITSM is to engage the customer in their terms: to stop blinding them with science and baffling them with bullshit. The customer wants to see what comes out of the pipe, not what is inside the factory. if they do want a tour, then yes by all means show them the TSC parts-explosion of each service.

Third what customer enjoys being presented with menu options they can't have?

business view

skeptic — Fri, 07 May 2010 22:29:00 +0000

Don't have a problem with any of that. Any service provided external to the unit in question should be in the catalogue. My issue is with the geeks who want to have infrastructure "services" in the catalogue because they currently have such a system internally. But if the business view of that service AT THE LEVEL OF THE EXTERNAL CUSTOMER does not currently exist then it should not be in the catalogue, TSC or BSC.

Customer: "Well, the one thing is that we have a family chef and we'd actually like to have him provide the menu."
Maitre d' : "Of course. Fortunately, we have a chef. Your guy can swap with him and he'll show your guy around the kitchen"
Customer: "What do you charge for renting your kitchen?"
Maitre d' : "ummm..."
Customer: "Do you have a license to provide rental food preparation facilities?"
Maitre d' : "ummm..."
Customer: "Would we be covered by your insurance if our chef accidentally set fire to the place?"
Maitre d' : "ummm..."
Customer: "You've never thought this through before have you?"
Maitre d' : "well..."

It depends...

DavidT — Fri, 07 May 2010 20:21:15 +0000

Does there have to be one-and-only-one format for services structure? Just about everything in ITIL leaves enough wiggle room to adapt to and overcome organizational idiosyncrasies, why not a service catalog?

Maybe I oversimplify, but I see business services provided to business consumers via the service catalog agreed upon through SLAs. Technical services and capabilities support those services and are governed by OLAs. The business consumers don't see the technical services, but so what if they did? Just deny them the ability to order them. What does it hurt for them so see the effort and composition underneath the business services?

Regards,

David

Depends on what the customer wants from the restaurant

Charles T. Betz — Fri, 07 May 2010 18:01:51 +0000

Maitre d' : "And how was your meal today, Mrs. Uppercrust?"
Customer: "Quite passable. I love the decor in this dining room. I'm wondering, do you host special events? It's my Fluffy's tenth birthday."
Maitre d' : " We have a banquet room upstairs that is decorated in the same style. We can certainly accommodate you there."
Customer: "Well, the one thing is that we have a family chef and we'd actually like to have him provide the menu."
Maitre d' : "Of course. Fortunately, the banquet room has a catering kitchen. We accommodate these types of events all the time. Here is our standard offering & price list for special events:

1. Hourly fee for kitchen facilities
2. 2% markup for case quantities bought through our wholesaler (or you can bring in your own food).
3. Hourly kitchen prep staff (e.g for potato chopping), or your caterer can supply
4. Dishwashing staff (or your caterer can supply)
5. Excess waste removal
6. Cash bar services (bartender/cashier)

And so on...

The catalog is defined by the customer and what they need in the moment, and the truly agile service provider should also be alert to the need to unbundle and re-bundle...

Charles T. Betz
http://www.erp4it.com