Applying the CSI Model to Teenagers

I had a recent chat with a coworker of mine that used the CSI Model at home in a funny yet very practical way. I have her permission to use this and I hope you find this as interesting as I have.

In her own words…. “In addition, to my career responsibilities I have the honor and for the most part the pleasure of being a Mom to two teenage girls. As we all have experienced in life, our work demands sometimes spill over into our home life. On occasion, I have been accused by my girls that I am NOT their boss, and to leave my work demeanor at the front door. Being so entrenched in striving for continual improvement, I figured, this model works at the office, why not see if I can improve things at home? I know – this has trouble written all over it!

The CSI Approach – Using the CSI Model

• Step 1 - What is the vision? (Define your vision, your goals, your objectives)
• My vision is that my 17 year old high school junior has straight A’s on her report card for the third marking period – Jan, Feb, March
• Step 2 - Where are we now? (Baseline Assessments)
• It is the beginning of Feb, and I have the baseline. Her school has a great system; all the class assignments, projects, papers and tests are graded quickly by the teachers and they update the CMDB within 2 school days (nice SLA, yes?). When a grade is added, I receive an email (event notification), and can look at the report with the new grade and pull a baseline. Oh NO – BAD NEWS – pulled the baseline – hmmmm- C’s, D’s and 1 F – ARE YOU KIDDING ME an F? Ok ok Mom – take a step back, don’t let emotions take over here!!!! Stick to the CSI model.
• Step 3 - Where do we want to be? (measurable targets)
• Well, now that I took a deep breath after I pulled the baseline, and by the way had a not so pleasant parental chat with my daughter, I am going back to the vision; we want to be at all A’s; however reality is setting in and I don’t believe straight A’s are attainable. So, speaking with my daughter the stakeholder – (she is ACCOUNTABLE), we have adjusted the requirements and are trying for all B’s!
• We put together SMART Targets! Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely
• Our newly aligned goal: All B’s for the end of marking period 3.
• Step 4 - How do we get there? (service and process improvement)
• Now comes the hard part, an actionable plan for my daughter to get her grades up! So my daughter and I sat down together and started talking about the things she needed to do in order to achieve the goal. Also, how was I going to be able to see if she was bringing her marks up? In other words, what are the critical success factors and what are the key performance indicators to measure if she is on track? Well we came up with 3 CSF’s. One was getting her a tutor for her worst subject, Spanish; the second CSF, doing her homework and turning it in on time, and the third, studying UNINTERRUPTED for tests. For those who have teenagers you understand this – while studying there will be NO cell phone, NO texting, NO TV, NO radio, according to my daughter NO life.
• Surprise Surprise, we had some quick wins. Her first Spanish test after she had a tutoring session – she got a 93! We continued with the plan, meeting once a week, reviewing reports and tweaking our improvements.
• Marking period ends which brings this Step 4 to a close.
• Step 5 – Did we get there? (measurement and metrics)
• Well, I know you are on the edge of your seat. Did she make it? Did she get all A’s – hmmmm no she did not. Did she get all B’s, hmmmm no she did not.
• Drum roll please, She got 4 B’s, 2 A’s in her dual enrollment college classes, and unfortunately a C in Spanish her weakest subject. (this was the F)
• Not exactly meeting the step 1 goal, but she exceeded expectations in some areas and other areas there is still room for improvement.
• Step 6 – How do we keep the momentum going?
• My daughter is well into her fourth marking period. She has learned valuable lessons from her last semester. She has kept up with the Spanish tutor. She has seen and felt the benefit of Continual Service Improvement. We are still trying for those straight A’s, but when all else fails with teenagers use bribery – LOL!”

 I hope you found this real life use of the CSI model educational. As my coworker and her daughter have learned, CSI never ends. We should strive to continually improve our personal development. In the work place, we should strive to improve our services.

If you have any CSI stories, please share them with us. Would love to hear how we are making the world a better place!

Effective Brainstorming Session

There are several problem analysis techniques which are discussed in the V3 Service Operation book, including brainstorming. I have used brainstorming sessions often in my career. Brainstorming is used throughout the problem solving process whenever the team needs to generate ideas quickly and effectively. Some sessions have been very valuable, others not so much. What was the difference? Basically, we need some structure around the sessions and some rules of engagement.

Let’s begin by defining brainstorming. This is a technique used to quickly generate a list of ideas by a team to solve problems or issues. The relevant people must be gathered together either physically and/or electronically to increase creativity and idea generation in a very short amount of time.

Here are 3 different types of brainstorming methods: 

• Free Wheeling Brainstorming
• Participants call out their ideas when they occur to them and in no particular order. A recorder posts all ideas for everyone to see as they are presented.
• Round Robin Brainstorming
• Each team member is asked, in turn, for an idea. Members may pass on any round as the session continues until all members have passed during the current round.
• Slip Method of Brainstorming
• Each individual writes down their ideas on small slips of paper or index cards. The slips are then collected and organized by the group

 The typical brainstorming session consists of three phases:  

• Idea Generation
• Team Leader presents the problem. It should be stated in specific, precise terms and known to all participants. Leader makes sure all understand the problem, the session objective and the brainstorming method. All ideas are recorded on a flip chart, only one person talks at a time to ensure that all ideas are recorded. Team begins generating ideas using the method selected for the session. Do not stop until all ideas are exhausted.
• Idea Clarification
• Review the list for understanding and duplication. Do not discuss the ideas now. Testing and evaluation will occur later. Clarification and/or modification of an idea is only done with the approval of the idea originator.
• Idea Evaluation
• Review the list to eliminate irrelevancies or issues that are not related to the predetermined purpose of the session. Idea evaluation is often performed in conjunction with other analytical tools. It may take place outside the team meeting itself.

 Here are some Brainstorming Rules to guide your session: 

• Clearly state the purpose of the brainstorming session.
• Record ideas where they are visible to the whole group. Recorder writes down the words of the idea presenter unless the presenter agrees on an acceptable paraphrase of their idea.
• Build on the ideas of others (leapfrog).
• Strive for quantity (not quality) of ideas.
• Do not evaluate ideas; there is no right or wrong idea.
• Encourage presentation of wild or even impossible ideas.
• Never criticize ideas. Remember the goal is quantity not quality.
• Everyone contributes.

Brainstorming sessions can be very innovative and constructive. It is crucial that the Problem Manager documents the outcome and any agreed resulting actions. The Problem Manager needs to control the session using the above guidelines. Best of luck, with these simple tips, the effectiveness of your next session should improve!

 

The ITIL Application Management Lifecycle and SDLC

I often get questions on the differences and similarities between the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) and the ITIL Application Management Lifecycle. Is the ITIL framework just another rebranding of SDLC? SDLC defines the organization’s standards for the creation and maintenance of applications. The SDLC can be divided into ten phases during which defined IT work products are created or modified. The phases range from initiation, design, development, implementation, operations & maintenance to disposition. The tenth phase, disposition, occurs when the system is disposed of and the task performed is either eliminated or transferred to other systems.

The ITIL Application Management Lifecycle presents a more holistic, service oriented view. It allows for greater alignment between the development view of the applications and the live management of those applications. This ITIL lifecycle focuses on the overall management of applications as part of IT services. Understanding the characteristics of each phase of the Application Management Lifecycle is crucial to improving the quality of the service delivery.

The Application Management Lifecycle phases are:

• Requirements – requirements gathered based on the business needs of the organization
• Design – requirements translated into specifications
• Build – application and the operational model are made ready for deployment
• Deploy – operational model and application are put into the existing IT environment
• Operate – the IT service provider operates the application as part of the business service
• Optimize- performance is measured, improvement discussed, and more development is initiated if needed.

One important thing to remember is that these phases are CIRCULAR; Optimize feeds into the Requirements phase. Each step of the lifecycle uses business priorities as the driver. The performance of the application in relation to the overall service is measured continually against the Service Levels. Please remember an application is not a service, it is just one component of many that is needed to provision a business service. 

We need to integrate the SDLC activities into the larger context of the ITIL Application Management Lifecycle. It should be similar to the approach in how we integrate a governance framework such as COBIT, or a program methodology such as PMI. We need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each lifecycle; look for integration points and overlaps. They need to both be aligned as part of the overall strategy of delivering valuable IT services to the business. More information on the ITIL Application Management Lifecycle can be found in the Service Operations book, section 6.5.4 page130.

Change Categorization

Rusty asked:

I was looking for terms used for categorizing the impact of a change, I remember in Version 2 of ITIL that changes where categorized as Major, Significant, Minor and Standard is that no longer done? Or is the Imapct also defines as the priority High, Medium, and Low

Rusty,

I’m going to give you my answer in three parts. This information can also be found in Section 4.2 of your Service Transition Book.
 
In ITIL V3 changes are now categorized into three distinct types:
 
• Standard Change: Change to a service or infrastructure for which the approach has been pre-authorized by Change management that has an accepted and established procedure to provide a specific change requirement. It has a defined trigger, documented tasks and budgetary approval. The risk is low and well understood.

• Normal Change: Change to a service or infrastructure for which the risk must be assessed and must go through the Change Advisory Board (CAB). These are Changes that happen either only once or infrequently and the impact/risk to the current environment must be assessed.

• Emergency Change: Change that must be introduced as soon as possible, usually in order to repair an error within the environment. There is substantial risk involved and must be approved by the Emergency Change Advisory Board (ECAB). There is a separate escalation procedure in order to reduce or eliminate the impact/unavailability currently affecting the environment.

When assessing impact/risk we usually use an impact/risk categorization matrix and from this determine the associated scrutiny the change will receive by the Change Authority.

• High impact/High probability = Risk Category 1 (Emergency change)
• High impact/Low probability = Risk Category 2 (Normal change)
• Low impact/High probability = Risk Category 3 (Normal change)
• Low impact/Low probability = Risk Category 4 (Standard Change)

 When determining priority we use the formula:

 Priority = Urgency + Impact

We can use the following examples of priority: 

• Immediate – life at risk, significant loss of revenue (corrective)
• High – Severely affecting key users or large # of users (corrective or innovative)
• Medium – No severe impact, but cannot wait until next change schedule or release (corrective, innovative or update)
• Low- Change is justified and necessary, but can wait until next change schedule or release.  (any type)

So we look at the Priority, exam the risk and this helps us determine the type of change we will use.

Organizational Change Management

One of the most important yet often less fully considered aspects of using Service Management is Organizational Change Management. When it comes down to it, Service Management is about people—as customers, users, providers, maintainers, supporters and a myriad of other roles. So while we get caught up in getting effective, efficient and economical services, processes and technologies in place to provide value, we must not push aside the importance of attitude, behavior and culture.

We have all encountered new situations, changes in process or work flow, new technologies and other unfamiliar situations. Most people recognized from experience that different people deal with change in different manners. But we do not have to rely simply on hearsay or belief or personal experience. We can turn to experts in the field of Organizational Change Management for a way to work through the adoption of new ideas, approaches and technologies.

In 1962 in his work Diffusion of Innovations, Everett Rogers laid out a theory as to how new technologies, ideas and changes are introduced, accepted and institutionalized in an organization. Rogers’ Adoption Theory, as it has become known, proved highly important in helping to establish the field of Organizational Change Management. We can apply this theory to Service Management and our efforts to effectively and efficiently implement new processes, services and technologies.

Rogers spoke of five categories of individuals in relationship to adoption of new ideas and technologies. Each of these groups takes a different view of change and innovation and reacts differently.

• Innovators—these individuals accept change often for the sake of change. These types should be identified early in an OCM effort and used as change agents to help convince others
• Early Adopters—These individuals take some convincing, but when shown the benefits of the change will become some of your strongest supporters
• Early Majority—These individuals represent the bulk of people in your organization and require a fair amount of convincing and evidence of the benefits of the change
• Late Majority—These individuals take a large amount of convincing and are among your most skeptical people with regard to the benefits of the change
• Laggards—these individuals may never be convinced and will often dislike change for the sake of disliking change

I suggest you begin by identifying people who fit in each category. Focus first on getting the Innovators to serve as agents of change by becoming bearers of the messages you want people to hear. Then you can approach each group in turn. As you secure the support and buy-in from that group use the group to help convince the others. The number of people who support the change in process or approach will outnumber those who are against it. The tide of change and support and favoritism will be on your side. Any Laggards or others who still resist must be then shown that their resistance is doing more harm to the organization than good.

If we can learn to leverage the ideas of Everett Rogers, we can create an advantage for ourselves in terms of people accepting new ideas, technologies and ways of doing things in our organizations. Rather than let people embrace resistance to change, use Rogers’ Adoption Theory to get people to embrace innovation.

Service Requests and Standard Changes

Paul recently asked;

Hello,

When browsing on the topic of Service Requests, I visited your site where a question was answered on the differences and similarities of Service Requests and Standard Changes. I was triggered by the following passage:

"It is important to note that not all Service Requests are Standard Changes. Service Requests can include questions, queries, complaints and compliments. Similarly, not all Standard Changes are Service Requests. Standard Changes can include batch jobs, patches and other low risk changes that are not "requestable" by the user. Any Service Request or Standard Change that presents a higher risk may require reassessment and reclassification by Change Management."

I am trying to think of a term that would differentiate the one from the other. Considering that there are Service Requests that may invoke a Standard Change, I can see two possibilities: it may be a Standard Change that can be requested by any end-user or it may be a Standard Change that would need at least 1 approval (to verify the requestor's authority, for example by a functional support team, in delgation of the CAB). I've heard companies calling the first sort "Model Change Requests" and the second sort "Standard Changes". Is there standard nomenclature that would express the difference between the one and the other, and, if not, have you heard of useable common practises for this distinction?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts,

Paul M.
---------------
Thanks for the insightful question. Perhaps another perspective on the situation might be helpful.

One way to think of the relationship between Service Request and Standard Change is from the perspective of the person actually performing the work. If I can perform the work of the item for myself (because I have permission, authority, skills, access, etc.) then I will be performing a Standard Change. If I must ask someone else to perform the work on my behalf (because I do not have the skills, permission or authority) then I will open a Service Request. In the background, nearly ever Service Request that requires some kind of action to be performed would technically need a Standard Change. For example--I request a password reset (Service Request) but you perform the reset (Standard Change). Creating both mechanisms to perform one action is bureaucratic, so simply count your Service Request form as a type of Standard Change Request.

I am not aware of an official nomenclature other than Standard Change or Service Request. The key is to identify the types of low risk, low cost, low impact activities that could be done by an authorized, skilled person and designate those as Standard Changes. Then identify those procedural, repeatable, standardized activities that someone would need to request from an authorized, skilled person and designate those as Service Requests.

As new situations arise, determine if they fall under either of the categories and put them under that type of mechanism or control from that point forward.

I hope this helps!

Use CSI to Meet Changing Customer Needs

You can’t always go home again, but you can use Continual Service Improvement (CSI) to meet the changing needs of your customers.

I recently posted a blog about returning to a service desk I had managed and spoke about how the changing business environment had impacted management’s ability to sustain the current list of Critical success factors (CSFs) and Key Performance indicators (KPIs). The 1st question that was asked was “What should we measure?” Within the new business reality we reviewed how the corporate vision, mission, goals and objectives had changed? We spoke with service owners, business process owners, business analysts and customers and asked what was critical to them. What services that we were providing was creating the most value to them and enabling them to meet these new goals and objectives?

Management then identified the gaps of “what we should measure”, to “what we can measure”. From this a more customer focused list was developed. The overriding objective of these new service measurements was to provide a meaningful view of the IT service as experienced by our customers. The three key areas that customers most cared about were:

• Is the service available? 
• Is it reliable? 
• Is it being delivered with the proper level of performance? 

Service desk along with Technical Management began to tie incidents to particular CIs and measured component availability. Management reviewed the “Expanded incident lifecycle” and reliability of services and components. They measured the maintainability of components and CIs tied to particular service incidents. They measured the serviceability of their suppliers to meet contracted services. From a performance perspective they worked with capacity management and tied performance related incidents of services to components and CIs. All of these positively impacting the availability and reliability of those critical business services on which the customer depended.