Archive for the ‘Processes’ Category

Metric of the month – First Call Resolution

April 19th, 2010

At Metricnet the current metric of the month is First Call Resolution.

This metric is one of the metrics that’s in use at almost all of our customers and if your not measuring it yet, you should!

Check out http://www.metricnet.com/metric_month.html for their coverage of the metric.

Of course we ship a start up report around First Call Resolution with our SMI Suite product and we actually provide an easy to configure computed boolean as there are numerous variations in determining whether or not a ticket has been resolved at first call.

David vH

Post to Twitter

Gartner Magic Quadrant: BI tools

April 7th, 2010

You may remember a few months ago Gartner produced one of their magic quadrant reports on ITSM platforms – something we all read with interest here at Westbury Towers because we were keen to know how HP Service Manager fared against the competitors. We have, after all, hitched our wagon to Service Manager’s train, and the perceived value of Service Manager has a knock-on effect for us.

Fast forward a few months and another Gartner magic quadrant is out and again it’s looking at an area pretty close to Westbury: BI tools.

Our relationship with SAP Business Objects isn’t quite the same as our relationship with HP. After all, we’re an OEM reseller of Business Objects – it’s part and parcel of our Service Management Intelligence Suite product. But our solution is also somewhat platform independent when it comes to the BI tool – if you’re standardized on Cognos, for example, we can work with that, and SMI Suite is still very relevant.

So what’s the upshot from Gartner’s exercise in compare and contrast? Well, on their quadrant’s x-axis (“completeness of vision”), SAP Business Objects falls second only to IBM – quite an achievement in a field of fifteen big players. But on the y-axis (“ability to execute”) Gartner has it seventh – still good, but not as good. Overall this places Business Objects in the “leaders” quadrant.

On a more detailed level, Gartner says that “BusinessObjects’ reporting and ad hoc query capabilities continue to be cited as its top strength by its customers,” and that it provides “leading-edge capabilities, many [of] which complement its BI platform, in the areas of collaboration and decision support, text analytics, in-memory analytics, OnDemand BI (SaaS), search coupled with BI, data integration with lineage and impact analysis, and data quality.”

In the “cautions” column, however, Gartner warns that “customer support ratings for SAP are lower than for any other vendor in our customer survey”

Overall SAP comes out as one of the better, more established players, albeit with some areas to improve on.
Read the full report here: http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/oracle/article121/article121.html

Tom

Post to Twitter

Carlsberg don’t make customers… part four: the department head

March 23rd, 2010

Well, it’s been a while, but I’m finally back to conclude this run down of our ideal customer profiles with part four – the Department Head. I’ve already looked at the process guy, the tech guy and the budget guy.

To recap, the process guy is usually our first point of contact. He wants to improve process, drive down IT costs, improve efficiency and so forth, and realizes that he needs to understand, empirically and backed up with real data, what the IT department is doing. The tech guy comes in to verify that what we claim SMI Suite can do, it can actually do, and that we really can deliver an out of the box solution with none of the data warehouse, BI team, dedicated DBA nonsense that you would usually expect. Once they’re both on-board, they’ll bring in the budget guy to approve the spend – which, given the cost of the alternatives, is rarely a big ask.

But often there’s one final person we need to convince, and that’s the department head. He’s the guy with overall responsibility, the one with the vision for how he wants his department to operate. Often we find that he simply isn’t interested in the level of detail that speaks to the other three. He isn’t immediately concerned with exactly what SMI Suite does, or how it does it.

He is, however, concerned about what the implementation of SMI Suite will mean to the big picture, because he’s the ultimate big picture guy. He wants to know how much money SMI Suite is going to save him, and how long it’s going to take for him to get a return on his investment. He wants to know which other big players – and particularly those in the same sector, or those of a similar size – are using SMI Suite and what their experiences are. The flipside of that is that once SMI Suite is up and running, and the ROI well demonstrated, he is usually happen to give us the sort of customer testimonial that we can then use on the next department head we encounter.

That concludes this little series, which I like to think of as a sort of latter day Charles Dickens kind of a deal. Shorter than A Christmas Carol. Slightly less tedious than Bleak House. I hope you enjoyed it.
Tom

Post to Twitter

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

Post to Twitter

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

Post to Twitter

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

Post to Twitter

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?

Post to Twitter

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

Post to Twitter

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

Post to Twitter

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

Post to Twitter