Archive for the ‘Processes’ Category

Carlsberg don’t make customers… part three: the budget guy

February 24th, 2010

Well, it’s been a few weeks, but I’m back to continue this series on our ideal customer profiles. We’ve already had the Process Guy and the Tech Guy, now it’s time for the budget guy.

If you remember, the way it generally works is that the Process Guy is the alpha – he’s the one with a problem to solve that is related to process. Often the organization wants to get a handle on some real qualitative data about IT performance – either for budgetary reasons or for lofty ambitions like ITIL and continuous improvement. The Process Guy brings the Tech Guy in to establish a) that trying to get that data out of ServiceCenter or Service Manager is going to be like divorcing Cheryl Cole - painful, drawn-out and expensive, and b) that SMI Suite will remove all the pain, time and some of the money.

At some point in this sales cycle, the Budget Guy shows up, because despite the very low cost of SMI Suite, neither the Process Guy or Tech Guy has any spending power – it simply isn’t a function of their role to sign off on more than a few bucks worth of software.

In some ways the Budget Guy is interesting because he’s the first person we’ve met in the organization whom we don’t have to convince – the Process Guy and the Tech Guy’s advocacy and belief in SMI Suite does far far more to convince the Budget Guy than anything we could say to him. But still, the introduction of the Budget Guy into the proceedings is far from a gimme.

After all, he wouldn’t be doing his job – and wouldn’t be entrusted with signoff on budget – if he didn’t at least do some due diligence. Sometimes this takes the form of fact-checking and re-checking everything that has already been discussed and agreed upon with the Process and Tech guys, but more often than not, the Budget Guy wants to look at the bigger picture.

He’s usually happy to take at face value that SMI Suite can, technologically, do what it promises if the Tech Guy says so, and he also understands, with the Process Guy’s advocacy, that SMI Suite will unlock the door to satisfying certain business needs – like the need to have accurate data about ITSM activities.

But he will almost always question the business benefit of all this. To use a rather labored metaphor, identifying a new type of spot welder that allows workers to weld three times as many bits of steel together as they could before, and is five times safer, and costs half as much to run as the old type, is all well and good… but not much use if you run a day-care facility.

Luckily for us, the business benefits of SMI Suite are pretty universal, so long as the organization in question runs an IT helpdesk and uses HP ITSM software. And, of course, each company we deal with is individual, so the benefits that are applicable change from organization to organization, but when we start to talk about improving helpdesk efficiency by accurately benchmarking and constantly remeasuring response times, or we talk about cutting costs based on accurate workload metrics, the Budget Guy usually takes an interest.

Next time: the Department Head

Tom

Why isn’t BI / reporting supporting your ITSM efforts?

February 18th, 2010

I read an interesting blog on complaints and potential reasons around BI/reporting in the organization.

10 meanings of why-my-BI-application-is-not-useful
By Boris Evelson

Which complaints and/or reasons are (most) applicable to you, your organization or your customers?

An overview from the blog with an ITSM perspective:

1. The data is not there, because

  • It’s not in the HP service management application (e.g. HP Service Manager)
The data is there, but
2. It’s not usable as is, because
  • The data is of poor quality (e.g. out of date, inconsistent or not complete)
3. I can’t find it, because I
  • Can’t find the right report
  • Can’t find the right metadata
  • Can’t find the data
  • I don’t have access rights to the data I am looking for
4. I don’t know how to use my application, because I
  • Was not trained
  • Was trained, but the application is not intuitive, user friendly enough
  • Need extensive knowledge of the underlying HP database structure
  • Need SQL knowledge to create reports
5. I can’t/don’t have time do it myself and
  • I don’t have support staff
  • I am low on BI priority list
6. It takes too long to
  • Create a report/query
  • Run/execute a report/query
7. I need to report/analyze on something that SQL can’t do, such as
  • Faceted search
  • SQL on data with uneven, unbalanced, ragged, recursive hierarchies
8. I don’t know what I am looking for, but my application is asking to
  • Run a specific report
  • Pick specific facts and dimensions

And 2 additional ones that  I added

9. I want do it myself but
  • My application doesn’t provide self service reporting capabilities
  • My organization doesn’t allow self service reporting
10. I don’t want to do BI, I want to run my business and expect
  • My application to present helpful information not just present data

Let me know what you think!

David vH

Carlsberg don’t make customers… part two: the tech guy

January 5th, 2010

Well, we’re back after a festive period of eating, drinking and crying like a big old girl at the end of It’s a Wonderful Life (“Zuzu’s petals! Zuzu’s petals!”… gets me every time).

Before the break we gave you part one of our “ideal customer” profile pieces, the Process Guy, who is usually our first point of contact within a company.BEAUTY AND THE GEEK

The Tech Guy is usually our second point of contact, although we sometimes find that the Process Guy and the Tech Guy are one and the same. It’s not as unusual as you might think for one individual to have the broad abilities and knowledge required to be both process and technology oriented. Indeed, even when the Tech Guy is a new individual, there is as much crossover as we generally see with the Process Guy; that is to say that our Tech Guy is as well versed in process matters as our Process Guy is technically aware.

Whenever we’re getting into a sales cycle with a new customer, it’s always the Tech Guy that first poses the really tricky questions. Where the Process Guy wants to know the broad strokes of what SMI Suite does, our Tech Guy is often more cynical, less ready to believe and, above all, concerned with the minutiae of how SMI Suite does what it does. He wants to know every last detail about every piece of functionality that SMI Suite offers. Often the Tech Guy takes some convincing because he hears from the Process Guy about what SMI Suite claims to do, and flat out doesn’t believe that it’s possible.

The flipside of that challenge is that once we have convinced the Tech Guy that our methods are sound (an hour spent with our extremely knowledgeable and passionate pre-sales consultants usually does the trick), he becomes a powerful advocate for SMI Suite within his own organization. In most cases, of our four Guys, it’s only the Tech Guy who is in a position to truly understand the power of what SMI Suite does as well as the technical mountains that we have had to climb in order to bring SMI Suite to market.

Next time: the Budget Guy

Tom

SaaS and ITSM and eccles cakes

November 6th, 2009

I hate to dispel the myth that writing for Westblog is nothing but being fed eccles cakes by scantily-clad Revs girls, but what with the economy and all, those days of hedonistic abandon are long gone, and, actually, writing these posts can sometimes feel like a bit of a chore.

Eccles-cakesSo happy is clam who discovers that someone else has written a really interesting piece on another blog, all about SaaS and ITSM, that can be brazenly hijacked and plagiarized for the purposes of Westblog… um… that provokes interesting thoughts about the things it mentions.

SaaS 3.0 and ITSM, Match Made in Heaven!!, is the piece, found over on Service Sphere’s blog. Aside from the Guinness World Record™ for longest blog entry in history (seriously, I’ve read Salman Rushdie novels in less time), the piece is notable for the fact that it takes a long hard look at SaaS – the topic on everyone’s lips, seemingly – but only from the ITSM standpoint, which itself raises some interesting questions. After all, is the fact that we sat up and took notice of this piece an indication that other ongoing and general discussions about SaaS seem a little disconnected from ITSM? Is that because yes, of course it’s easy to see why it makes sense to have your word processing app or whatever in the cloud, but ITSM software is not the same beast as MS Word?

After all, you can send your mother a CD (or is DVD these days?) of the Office suite and reasonably expect her to be able to install it herself, with maybe only one or two panicked phonecalls about having read the entire user agreement but not quite understood all the technical terms. The same is patently not true for Service Manager 7. My preconception – and in this I may be completely wrong (it has been known, just ask my wife) – is that any software that requires significant deployment or installation assistance, will require it no matter what the delivery method of the software. And if that is the case, is that reliance on specific personalization at odds with what we think of as the SaaS model?

Well, I’m not the person to ask, because I don’t know enough to be able to present a cogent argument. If only there was some sort of link to someone else’s blog covering this very topic…

Tom

PS Does anyone else reallllllly want an eccles cake now, or is it just me?

Improving IT performance and long-standing information cascades: understanding behavioral theory as a prerequisite to change

November 5th, 2009

People are known to make decisions based on the actions of others. Indeed, when required to make a decision in a given situation, one might observe the decisions made by others in a similar situation and conclude that if all your predecessors made the same decision it most likely is the right one. As one person follows the example of his forerunner, an ever-increasing number of people will follow the behavior of the first few decision-makers. Essentially, if twenty people are driving down the same road, unsure of where they’re supposed to be going, and the driver in front takes a left, chances are that everyone else will also take the left. Observing this behavior has led three economists, Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer and Ivo Welch, to develop a theory known as an information cascade: a situation in which every subsequent actor, based on the observations of others, makes the same choice independent of his or her private signal.

Rational_HerdingInformation cascades can have wide organizational, societal or economic impact. The unprecedented economic downturn of 2007-2009 may well indeed have been the result of an information cascade. In an article titled ‘How a Bubble Stayed Under the Radar’, published on March 2, 2008 in the New York Times, professor of Economics Robert J. Shiller exemplifies how an information cascade caused the real-estate market bubble: “even if houses are of low investment value, we may […] have two people who make purchasing decisions that reveal their conclusion that houses are a good investment. As others make purchases at rising prices, more and more people will conclude that these buyers’ information about the market outweighs their own.” He proceeds to state that “It is clear that just such an information cascade helped to create the housing bubble. And it is now possible that a downward cascade will develop — in which rational individuals become excessively pessimistic as they see others bidding down home prices to abnormally low levels.”

Within an organization, an information cascade may very well prevent change and maintain the status quo.  Processes and tools once instituted by a few are now followed and used by many. Indeed, the way things have always been done may seem the way to go. Information cascades, however, are fragile. As Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer and Ivo Welch point out, “A little bit of public information (or an unusual signal) can overturn long-standing informational cascades. That is, even though a million people may have chosen one action, seemingly little information can induce the next million people to choose the opposite action. Fragility is an integral component of the informational cascades theory!”

The economic woes of the last couple of years have impacted IT operations in many ways by increasing the pressures on CIOs and their teams and accelerating the need for IT organizations to change, to reduce IT costs and deliver more value to the business. Could the worst international economic crisis since the Great Depression be the ‘unusual signal’ that will cause the ITSM information cascade to crumble and instigate change within IT departments?

The answer is no. Instead, within an organization, business users must gain insight into their ITSM processes and use that insight to broadcast the signal that will ultimately enable IT to reduce cost and deliver more value to the business. Westbury’s Service Management Intelligence solution enables business users to do just that. With a powerful reporting solution in their own hands, business users can battle information cascades and instigate change that will continuously strengthen the value of IT.

Arnon

Paul Wilkinson guest blog part four: buzzword of the year – holistic

October 29th, 2009

paul-rectA fool with a tool is still a fool.

More than 10 years has passed since GamingWorks first published their book IT Service Management From Hell: A Guide to Worst Practices. 10 years later there still appear to be too many fools in IT. In this series of four guest blogs, IT Service Management from Hell co-author Paul Wilkinson will be looking at the reasons and giving some best practice advice for solving this ongoing problem.

Find part one of the series here, part two here and part three here.

In the previous three blogs we have examined the continuing lack of business and IT alignment, exploring how worst practices in ABC (Attitude, Behavior and Culture) underpin our lack of alignment as well as the way in which we adopt and deploy the frameworks such as ITIL. We stressed the need to ensure that attitudes are changed so that everybody understands the value they must deliver to the business and that we must translate the value propositions into all our initiatives. In this final blog we examine how our approach to applying people, Product, Process and Partner needs improving.

The second aspect of the four ‘P’s that can be improved upon?7diamondscardjpeg-s

2. The  ‘holistic’ approach.

Last year ‘leverage’ was the hot buzzword used by consultants. This year it seems to be ‘holistic’. So if we say we need to leverage a holistic approach then we must really be top notch consultants. It is the failure to adopt a really integrated or holistic approach that causes many initiatives to fail.  This stems from the different levels of ‘maturity’ of IT organizations. Some leap onto the ‘PROCESS’ bandwagon, adopt a framework like ITIL, produce process flows and procedures and ‘throw them over the wall and hope that people will follow them’. Other organizations are so technology focused they throw a tool at the problem. Creating the situation of ‘a fool with a tool is still a fool’. The most common approach to addressing the ‘People’ side is simply to send people en masse to ITIL training, assuming that when they return they will be able to magically ‘do’ ITIL.

This point is partly proven by the fact that the ABC of ICT survey revealed “throwing solutions over the wall and hoping people will adopt them” scores number five in the top ten worst practices. This applies to both the ‘Process’ focus, and to the ‘Product’ or tool focus. The largest common failing in applying the four ‘P’s is too little effort and energy on the most important P – People. Says who? Successful ITSM improvement initiatives are all about changing the behavior of people. People don’t like to change. Indeed another Forrester report revealed that 52% of these types of initiatives fail because of resistance. In our mind it is ABC that is the fundamental success or fail factor for tool focused or process focused initiatives.

This point is proved by the results of a survey into the key success factors from 1000 students having participated in an ITSM simulation. The biggest single success factor was ‘people’ scoring 44%. (In the ITSM simulation teams had to translate a set of business demands into the four ‘P’s and demonstrate that they could deliver the performance demanded by the business).

apollo13

Now you have read all four blogs you can test whether your ITSM improvement initiative will close the ever widening gap between business and IT.

  1. Ask a selection of your IT employees to tell you what a service is according to ITIL.
    ‘a service is a means of delivering value to the business in terms of outcomes the customers want to achieve without the ownership of specific costs and risks’. Ask them ‘What VALUE and OUTCOMES does the business demand and expect from ITIL?
  2. Go and look at the project plans and proposals for all tool, process and training programs or any partner agreements and sourcing initiatives and look for the business case. Is there a section related to the value and outcomes these initiatives must achieve?
  3. Look at your ITSM improvement initiatives. Is there a balance in the amount of effort between the four ‘P’s? Is there a significant investment in ‘People’? Ensuring the ABC worst practices described in the previous blogs have and will be addressed? And that initiatives are taken to ensure that this will not be one of the 52% of initiatives that fail due to resistance?
  4. If the answers to these tests are negative you now have to ask yourself the question “what AM I going to do about it?” Remember one of the top three ABC worst practices is “not my responsibility”. If you do nothing about it who else will? I’ll see you in 10 years time. My presentation slides are already made.

Paul

Paul Wilkinson guest blog part three: making value happen

October 23rd, 2009

paul-rectA fool with a tool is still a fool.

More than 10 years has passed since GamingWorks first published their book IT Service Management From Hell: A Guide to Worst Practices. 10 years later there still appear to be too many fools in IT. In this series of four guest blogs, IT Service Management from Hell co-author Paul Wilkinson will be looking at the reasons and giving some best practice advice for solving this ongoing problem.

Find part one of the series here, and part two here.

In our first two blogs we explored the ever increasing gap between business and IT and how Attitude, Behavior and Culture (ABC of ICT) are the key reasons we have failed to successfully adopt and deploy frameworks to solve the problem. We mentioned that more than 70% of IT organizations are unable to measure and demonstrate value using frameworks and tools. In blog two we said the first step is to firmly embed into the mindset of every member of IT the concept of a service according to ITIL v3. A Service is “a means of delivering value to the business in terms of outcomes the business wants to achieve without the ownership of specific costs and risks

So where does the problem lie in how we adopt and deploy the frameworks? Once again I’ll use ITIL v3 because it is a good starting point and reference as to what we are doing wrong and what needs improving.  According to Service Design improvement initiatives should be based around the four ‘P’s: People, Product, Process, Partner. If we examine most of the improvement programs and initiatives we can map them onto this. However there are two aspects about the four ‘P’s  that can be improved upon.

  1. The 5th P – “Performance” – should be added to the model. Performance, or Value in ITIL v3 terms should be ‘leading’ in the design of service management improvement initiatives. See the diagram. Before you design and implement processes, adopt and deploy management technology, send people on training or engage partners you should ask the question ‘Why? What value? and/or how will this reduce costs and risks’.

Five 'P's

As we mentioned in blog two, this point is proven by the fact that when we did an ABC of ICT survey with more than a thousand IT professionals the number one IT worst practice they selected in the workshop was “no understanding of business impact and priority” and number three was “IT is too internally focused.” If we do not understand the business needs then how can we hope to realize value? The fact that we are still too internally focused explains to me one of the reasons we keep presenting the same worst practices every ten years.

qspadescardjpeg-sThe second reason being that one of the top three chosen worst practices by more than a thousand IT professionals is “not my responsibility”. Nobody apparently feels responsible or accountable for breaking through the problems, hence the fact that business & IT alignment seems to be a constantly recurring theme and the reason we keep giving the same worst practice presentations every ten years! When we do decide to make a project proposal for implementing tools or ITIL is it any wonder that many of the projects in these difficult financial times gets cancelled. The number ten in the list of ABC worst practices – “IT thinks it doesn’t need to understand the business to make a business case.”

So that is one aspect of the four ‘P’s that can be improved upon. Ensure that the ‘Performance’ or ‘value’ underpins all of our initiatives. We must be able to demonstrate the value and the outcomes the business needs when we apply the four ‘P’s. What is the second aspect of the four ‘P’s that can be improved upon to ensure lasting, sustainable success?

Paul

If you build it, they will come

October 22nd, 2009

Here at the Westbury campus we’ve been having a few discussions recently about who our target audience is; their desires, their hopes, their fears… And one of the really interesting things (well, interesting to us, at least) that came out of those discussions was the subject of Heath Robinson style ad-hoc solutions to the problem of pulling reports out of an ITSM database. It’s of particular interest to us, because these sorts of solutions are our competition, so we pulled together a list of the top three reasons why customers ditch the home brew and get with the out of the box. The list was pulled together largely based on anecdotal evidence, so there’s bugger all science involved, just our own experiences collated into a hastily assembled list.

So, in no particular order, here are the top three:

It’s going to cost how much?

eniac4You know how this one goes: someone high up in the company decides that measuring the performance of IT is probably a good idea, and this directive gets passed down the line until reaches that guy who has far too much time on his hands and far too much autonomy, and who decides it would be just peachy if he could use this as an excuse to test out some of those theories he’s been working on about data warehousing and middleware. Next thing you know he’s put the order in for a new liquid-cooled server room, twenty-seven new servers and a team of DBAs, programmers, BI experts and coffee-fetching monkeys to look after it all.

Most frustratingly, the system works, and the high up gets those reports he or she wanted, so it’s really hard to argue against the installation of Deep Blue. “That’s the only way to get that data out,” your prodigal wastrel will tell you, shouting above the noise of twelve dozen case fans whirring. The truth of the matter is that he’s probably just doing what many of us in tough times – he’s making himself (and his over-built system) indispensable.

I need that report yesterday!

Number two on the list is also about money if you apply the time = money formula that I learned from watching too many 80s movies. But time is one thing you can’t buy and many of our customers are impatient people. They don’t want to wait around for their reports, just because someone else claims to be busy. When there is a separation between the person who requires the report – and who knows just how important and urgent the report is – and the person whose responsibility it is to actually run the report, then you get a disconnect. And, ultimately, the person who needs the reports will think twice before requesting them because it’s going to be too much of a hassle. And the fewer reports that are generated means the less that organization is paying attention to the measurable performance of IT, which means that any efforts towards process improvement or ITIL are doomed to fail. Conversely, when the time lag between thinking about an aspect of ITSM that you might like to report on and actually seeing that report on your screen or in your hand is shorter, the desire to run new reports increases. Suddenly, you’ll start reporting on seemingly unimportant aspects of performance just because you can, and any increase in a culture of measurement has big ramifications for how well your IT department is run and how well it is perceived externally.

She’s Lost Control

The final point is all about control. Having a specialist BI team in charge of a tool that exists for your benefit – and not having control of it yourself – can be frustrating. It’s a bit like when your Mum wants to upload the pictures she took of Uncle Dave’s 60th to Facebook, but needs your help to do it. And rather than just let you do it all yourself in five minutes, she insists that she keeps hold of the mouse while you talk her through the steps; getting the pictures off the camera and onto her PC, then uploading the pictures to Facebook, then publishing the album and so forth. Not that the BI group / your Mum are necessarily incompetent, just that when instructions have to be relayed, the process encourages mistakes and the need for repetition.

And often that disconnect between end user and ad-hoc system is there for a very good reason, in that the system is just too complicated to operate, or doesn’t have user access security nailed down enough to be opened up to anyone outside the BI team. But that doesn’t stop it being frustrating.

*

And of course, if I told you the answer to all of these problems was to use Westbury’s SMI Suite then this would turn into some sort of sly sales pitch. So I won’t.

Tom

Paul Wilkinson guest blog part two: taking the first step in closing the gap

October 14th, 2009

paul-rectA fool with a tool is still a fool.

More than 10 years has passed since GamingWorks first published their book IT Service Management From Hell: A Guide to Worst Practices. 10 years later there still appear to be too many fools in IT. In this series of four guest blogs, IT Service Management from Hell co-author Paul Wilkinson will be looking at the reasons and giving some best practice advice for solving this ongoing problem.

Find part 1 of the series here.

In our first blog we discussed the fact that the gap between business and IT seems to be growing and despite all the best practice frameworks we are not bringing IT under control. The first blog declared that the reasons were not the frameworks but the ABC of ICT. Attitide, Behavior and Culture within IT.

This second blog is entitled: Taking the first step in closing the gap.

Lau Tzu the great Chinese philosopher made a quote that very roughly translated goes “A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step”. This is sound advice for those of us embarking upon our long, tiring, sometimes painful, journey with ITIL in an effort to bring IT under control and close the business and IT alignment gap.

ITIL v3 is the latest of the frameworks that claims to help address the alignment issues we mentioned  and help IT organizations finally gain control, so I will use this as a starting point to show why ABC (Attitude, Behavior and Culture) is still a problem and what we should be doing to finally resolve it.

qclubscardjpeg-sWell first of all let’s look at what ITIL v3 says about a Service. This to me is crucial. If IT people could grasp, embrace and fully understand this concept we’d have the gap closed in no time. A Service, according to ITIL V3,  is “a means of delivering value to the business in terms of outcomes the business wants to achieve without the ownership of specific costs and risks”. If every single IT person could ask themselves the question ‘how does this activity contribute to business value’ or ‘how does my current behavior cause unnecessary business costs and create business risks’, we’d be a long way onto solving business and IT alignment.  This is the crucial first step changing people’s attitude about what it is they do and why they are doing it? We can’t possibly be aligned when most people in IT don’t understand the business needs. Don’t believe me? In a series of global ABC workshops with more than 1000 IT professionals the number 1 chosen ABC ‘worst practice’ was “no understanding of business impact and priority”. We in IT do not know or understand business priorities.

Changing attitude is the first step. But what about now embedding this into ‘Behavior’. Actually make it happen. This is where the tools and frameworks come in. Adopting and implementing process based working is all about introducing new ways of working. New ways of behaving. The way in which we currently adopt and deploy the frameworks and tools is also one of the key fail factors as to why we are still failing. 70% of IT organizations are unable to demonstrate the value gained by implementing these types of improvements.

So where are we going wrong in our adoption of frameworks? And how can we ensure that we can adopt and deploy them successfully? In the next blog we will tell you how.

Paul

Paul Wilkinson guest blog part one: the GAP… or is it chasm?

October 8th, 2009

paul-rectA fool with a tool is still a fool.

More than 10 years has passed since GamingWorks first published their book IT Service Management From Hell: A Guide to Worst Practices. 10 years later it would appear that the statement about ‘a fool with a tool…’ is still applicable to too many IT organizations. In this series of four guest blogs, IT Service Management from Hell co-author Paul Wilkinson will be looking at the reasons and giving some best practice advice for solving this ongoing problem.


itsmfromhellEvery year the gap grows. Which gap? On the one side the growth in the importance of IT to business operations and on the other side the seeming inability of IT organizations to bring IT under control and demonstrate value. Says who?

A recent Forrester report declared that only 15% of IT leaders said they were aligned. A full 80% of business managers stated the importance of IT in terms of lowering costs, improving productivity, acquiring and retaining customers, but felt that IT was poor in realizing these outcomes. One of the problems is that IT reports on IT operational excellence and not on business value. Apparently a key best practice for resolving this is to make business-value communications integral in everything IT does and ensuring that IT operations and IT project metrics relate to increased business value.

This is nothing new – business & IT alignment seems to the hype every year. The IT industry is inundated with ever more frameworks like ITIL v3, BiSL and CobIT in an effort to tackle the problems and bring IT under control, and there are an increasing array of advanced service management tools for automation and reporting. Despite all these ‘new toys’ we are still not under control? Why is this?

ABC of ICT icebergIt is all to do with the ABC of ICT. What is that? ABC stands for the Attitude, Behavior and Culture of those involved in the use and management of IT. ABC is like an iceberg, much of it is hidden beneath the surface and yet it is capable of inflicting enormous damage to your IT improvement initiative, and more importantly to your business.

So why are we not under control? Despite all these frameworks and what are these hidden ABC worst practices that are standing between your ITSM improvement program and success?


In the next blog we will tell you the first step in closing the gap.

Paul