Audit ITIL V3 Recommandation

AIRBUS OIVW ITIL Assessment
ITIL recommendation
Versions : Version 1.6 09/03/2007 (Updated version after the assessment of the Spanish Natco)
March 2007
Author : Antoine Gendron Senior Consultant antoinegendron@yahoo.fr 1
Introduction Modification of the document

Main modifications which have been implemented in the document after the meeting of the 2 February 2007 are the following :
Subject General General General General Modifications Synthesis of the Natco Gaps Recommendations to apply the Natco gaps Detail of all actions to reach the level 5 More detailed explanation when Airbus failed to a maturity level (Mandatory questions, bad scoring) Remedy to be replaced by "Service Management tool" Synthesis Commentary Page 53 Last page of each process and page 51 First and last page of each process All the document
General General Incident Management
Proposition of an action plan for the main recommendations : - Which recommendations ? - Who, When, How ? Clarification of the Scope CAD-CAM : example to be deleted
To be done with OIVW responsibles (F. Schyn, T. Chaput...). All activities have to be listed for each recommendations : it would be a new job to get a detailed action plan.
Global action plan (page 54, 55) First page of all processes 16
Problem Management Problem Management Configuration Management
Responsibilities of Problem Management to be detailed WPM3 : There is a PM procedure. WPM3 has to be modified. WCONF6 : to be explained (link with databases). Explain the scope of the CMDB to be ITIL compliant : Relationships between CIs to be detailed.
Problem Management could be implemented within OIVW and a level 2 pilot scope : responsibilities could be detailed for this pilot scope.
23 25 31
www.unilog-management.com www.unilog.com
AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT
Introduction Modification of the document

Main modifications which have been implemented in the document after the meeting of the 2 February 2007 are the following :
Subject Change Management Change Management Change Management Change Management Change Management Modifications There is a change coordinator for German scope (Marek Wulf). How should be managed the transnational CAB ? Commentary Page 38 39 39 39 40
Service Level Management Service Level Management Service Level Management
A list of standard changes should be How to manage standard changes? define for the OIVW scope Change calendar : to be substituted by change schedule Process to be checked : there is a change management Procedure sent by Guillaume Legros procedure the 7/02/2007 RSLM1 : The team which manages the Service Catalog is not enough coordinated with the Service Level Manager (eg : Manager of Helpdesk Service Line for OIVW) RSLM2 : which added value for OIVW ? RSLM3 : Airbus does not have end to end Service Management". Recommendation deleted
48
49
Introduction Goal of the meeting

Goal of the meeting
The goal of the meeting is to introduce the recommendation stage of the

OIVW ITIL assessment. The first stage, AS IS assessment, has been introduced the 16th January 2007. The recommendations have been introduced the 2nd February 2007.
Introduction
Recommendations are analyzed in the following ways :
Quick Wins or not Levers to implement the recommendation :

LEVERS
Communication change
Training change Organization change (new Document formalization

position) System change
Gains of the recommendation :

Quality Cost
Service Desk AS IS Assessment
Service Desk Assessment

The scoring for Service Desk is the following : Maturity Level : 4.5 / 5 OIVW Service Desk organization has passed ITIL level 4.5 and does not fail to mandatory questions. OIVW is going to pass the level 5 Customer Interface when the customers surveys will be in a production phase and no more in a pilot phase.
Service Desk Results
(Points)
26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
3.0 Products
2.0 Process Capability
1.0 Pre-Requisites
1.5 Management Intent
Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Service Desk: The scope is the IT Service Desk managed by OIVW.
Maximum attainable score Airbus score
4.0 Management Information
5.0 Customer Interface
3.5 Quality Control
4.5 External Intergration
2.5 Internal Integration
Service Desk AS IS Assessment
Service Desk Assessment (Synthesis)

Main strengths :
SSD1 : Service Desk Organization : OIVW team, T. System teams (150 members) SSD5 : Quality criteria: Technical Handbook, trainings, Magic and Memento tool SSD7 : Weekly and monthly reports SSD8 : Cooperation between OIVW, T. Systems and the Users (ISR) : Service planning, user and ISR committees
Maturity Level : 4.5 / 5
Main weaknesses:
WSD2 : No full Single Point of Contact : number "8811" for the travel and business expenses support, logging of Service Request by ISR WSD3 : User information not well updated in the Magic database
Natcos gaps :
Different helpdesks in Germany (Engineering Helpdesk, dedicated helpdesk in some factory units)
Service Desk Recommendations

Topics for improvement
Topic : There is not a real Single Point of Contact.
Recommendation
RSD1 : Implementation of a Single Point of Contact for the Service Desk

All IT incidents or Service Requests should be into the scope of the Service Desk. The user should call the Service Desk when an incident occurs or because of a Service Request. It would better that the number to be dialed would be the same one for all type of incidents or Service requests. There would be also a way to allow the user to log the Incident or the Service Request into the Service Management* database (with a WEB client). These tickets logged by users would be firstly assessed by the Service Desk. Service Desk procedure for the user. There would be also an industrialization of the recording of Service Requests. * BMC Remedy tool is going to replace BMC Magic tool. So, the term used is the Service Management database or tool.
WSD1 : Some users do not know enough the Service Desk scope because they contact the Service Desk for subjects out of Service Desk activities. For example, some users of the French Natco call the Service Desk when they have a Service Request, while they should contact their ISR Risk : Waste of time and Dissatisfaction for the customers WSD2 : There is not really a Single Point Of Contact. For example, there are ways available to call directly some level 2 Support teams like OCBS. There are also direct numbers for specific services like travel or business expenses support. Service Requests are also directly logged by the ISR : there is no direct Service Desk involvement for the Service Request management. Risk : Airbus employees do not always know which number they have to call when an incident occurs or when they have a Service Request (IT service, travel, business expenses, )
LEVERS
Communication change Training change Organization change (new
Document formalization
Gain : The gain would be a simplification of the
Quality
Scheme next page


Illustration of the RSD1 recommendation :
AS IS
Recommendation
ISR
Service Request Service Request
ISR
Service Request
Dedicated HD (Specific Services, factory unit)
User
Incident
User
Service Desk
Incident
Service Desk
Incident
LEVERS
Level 2
Level 2

Topic : User forms are not well updated
Recommendation
RSD2 : Optimization of the updating of user forms. two solutions are proposed :
First solution : Users can already directly update the user form in the Airbus Directory (desk, phone, location). Service Desk should explain to users that it is important to be done. Second solution : The rights to update the use form of the Service Management database could be given to the Service Desk agents. The agents could update the Service Management database which would be interfaced with the Airbus Directory. This solution would need : To have an interface from the Service Management tool to the Airbus Directory. This interface should be coordinated with the current interface from the Airbus Directory to the Service Management tool. The quality of the updating of User forms by Service Desk agents should be verified by AEDS administrators.
WSD3 : Service Desk agents notice sometimes that user forms are not well updated in the Magic Database (eg : users phone, location or department). But they have no rights to update users forms into the Magic tool or the Airbus directory tool (AEDS). Some Airbus users are also not recorded in the Magic tool : 5-7 % of incidents are recorded with unknown users. Risk : User forms are not well updated into Airbus databases
LEVERS
Quality
Gain : The gain would be to have forms better up to date and to have less tickets with unknown users. An other gain would be a better satisfaction of users : users dont like not to be in the Directory when they call the Service Desk.
10
Service Desk recommendations (synthesis)

The scoring for Service Desk was 4.5 / 5 :
OIVW organization is going to pass the level 5 Customer Interface when the customers surveys will be in a production phase and no more in a pilot phase.
Service Desk recommendations are the following : Recommendation

RSD1 : Implementation of a Single Point of Contact for the Service Desk RSD2 : Optimization of the updating of user forms.
Quick Wins
No Yes
Gain
Quality Quality
Scope
Airbus Airbus
11
Incident Management AS IS Assessment
Incident Management Assessment

The scoring for Incident Management is the following : Maturity Level : 4.5 / 5
20
(Points)
30
25
OIVW Incident Management process has passed ITIL level 4.5 and does not fail to mandatory questions. OIVW is going to pass the level 5 Customer Interface when the customers surveys will be in a production phase and no more in a pilot phase.
Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Incident Management : The Incident Management scope is all IT incidents (Hardware, Software, Application) managed by OIVW for all the Natco (CE, FR, GE, SP, UK).
15
10
3.5 Quality Control
1.0 Pre-Requisites
4.5 External Integration

2.5 Internal Intergration
3.0 Products
12
Incident Management AS IS Assessment
Incident Management Assessment (Synthesis)

Main strengths :
SIM1 : Recording of incidents into a Service Management database : Magic database SIM2 : Regular meetings with the business representatives (ISR) SIM4 : Customer information: automatic mails, Web interface SIM6 : Incident tracking function
Main weaknesses:
WIM1 : VIP incidents recorded in a specific database (AMI database) WIM2 : More than 1000 level 2 and 3 resolver groups WIM3 : No preventive alarm : before going over the SLAs agreed lead time WIM4 : No systematic OLA between the SD and the non OIVW level 2 resolver groups
Natcos gaps :
There is no specific management for VIP incidents in the Spanish Natco.
13
Incident Management Recommendations

Topic : VIP incidents are logged in the AMI database
Recommendation
RIM1 : Logging of all incidents in the same database

VIP incidents should be logged in the same database as other incidents (Service Management database). If Incidents are logged by level 2 teams (eg : OCBS Support), this incidents have also to be logged into the Service Management database.
Gain : It would allow to share the information by all Service Desk and resolver groups members.
WIM1 : VIP incidents are not recorded into the Quick wins Magic database : VIP incidents are managed by a dedicated team which logs incidents into the AMI database (Access database). Risk : the information about all incidents is not shared by all Service Desk and resolver groups members. Quality
LEVERS
14

Topic : More than 1000 level 2 and 3 resolver groups
Recommendation
RIM2 : Optimization of the organization of level 2,3 resolver groups

Airbus IT organization would be optimized with the gathering of the level 2 groups : these support groups could be gathered with a tool and business criteria (eg : SAP/Supply Chain like Supairworld, SAP/HR) or with technologic criteria (Network competence center, Unix Competence Center.). Gain : The gain for the Service Desk would be to assign tickets easier to the relevant level 2 group. The global gain for Airbus is a cost reduction.
WIM2 : There are more than 1000 level 2 and 3 resolver groups. Risk : It is difficult for the Service Desk to assign the ticket to the relevant resolver group. There are also additional costs for Airbus to manage so many level 2 and 3 resolver groups.
Cost
LEVERS
Scheme next page

15

Illustration of the RIM2 recommendation
AS IS
Level 2 Level 3
Gathering of Level 2 groups
Recommendation
Level 2 Level 3
Service Desk
ticket
ticket
Service Desk
ticket ticket
LEVERS
16

Topic : No automatic preventive alarm
Recommendation
RIM3 : Customization of the Service Management tool

It would be important to customize the Service Management tool in the best way to support ITIL processes. For example, it would be interesting to implement alerts to support the respect of SLAs lead time. It would be necessary to : Make the specification of the Service Management tool modification Customize the Service Management tool (if possible)
WIM3 : There is no automatic preventive alarm into the Magic tool : Magic tool send a mail when the Quick wins lead time agreed in the SLA is over and not before Risk : The lead time agreed in the SLA is more difficult to be respected
Quality
Gain : Better respect of the lead time of the SLAs
LEVERS
17

Topic : No systematic OLA between SD and the non OIVW level 2 group
Recommendation
RIM4 : Implementation of an OLA with the Strategic level 2 resolver groups

Firstly, the list of strategic level 2 resolver group (Network-Tel, Portal, ERP) should be defined. Then the Operational Level Agreement between the Service Desk and each resolver group should be built. This agreement would define some criteria between the Service Desk and the strategic level 2 groups : it would allow to support the SLA between the Service Desk and the business. For example, a criterion of the OLA between the Service Desk and the specific level 2 group could be to forward tickets from the Service Desk to the level 2 group with a delay of max x minutes (when the ticket need an involvement of the level 2). This OLA should allow to support the SLA between IT department and the business : for example, to resolve 85 % percent of ticket in the agreed lead time (the lead time depends on the Incident category).
WIM4 : There is no systematic OLA between the SD and the non OIVW level 2 resolver groups Risk : The coordination between SD and non OIVW level 2 groups is not always efficient and some incidents are not resolved as quickly as possible
NB : There is also no OLA between level 2 and level 3 resolver groups
LEVERS
Quality
Gain : Achievement of the SLA and satisfaction of the users
18
Incident Management recommendations (synthesis)

The scoring for Incident Management Desk is 4.5 / 5 :
OIVW organization is going to pass the level 5 Customer Interface when the customers surveys will be in a production phase and no more in a pilot phase.
Incident Management recommendations are the following : Recommendation

RIM1 : Logging of all incidents in the same database RIM2 : Optimization of the organization of level 2,3 resolver groups RIM3 : Customization of the Service Management tool RIM4 : Implementation of an OLA with the Strategic level 2 resolver group
Quick Wins
Yes No Yes No
Gain
Quality Cost Quality Quality
Scope
OIVW Airbus OIVW Airbus
19
Problem Management AS IS Assessment
Problem Management Assessment

The scoring for Problem management is the following : Maturity Level : 1 / 5
OIVW Problem Management process has passed ITIL level 1 and failed to level 1.5 because OIVW organization does not have a dedicated Problem Management organization with a problem manager.
Problem Management Results

(Points)
1 8
1 5
1 2
3.5 Quality Control
3.0 Products
1.0 Pre-Requisites
The Problem Management scope is all IT problems (Hardware, Software, Application) managed by OIVW for all the Natco (CE, FR, GE, SP, UK).
Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Problem Management :
20
AS IS Assessment Problem Management Incident Management AS IS Assessment

Input Level 0,1 Level 1.5 Level 2,3 Output
Incident resolved but underlying cause unresolved
Many similar incidents without problem recorded Logging of a problem Logging of a problem Logging of a problem Closure of the problem
Resolutio n of the problem yes
No
No
m e l bo rP
21
Problem Management AS IS Assessment
Problem Management Assessment (Synthesis)

Main strengths :
SPM1 : Reactive Problem Management aspect : assignment of problems to resolver groups and management of Incidents with common symptoms SPM6 : Raising of Request For Change on a problem analysis
Maturity Level : 1 / 5
Main weaknesses:
WPM1 : No proactive Problem Management : no logging of problems before incident occurs WPM2 : No dedicated budget and team for Problem Management activities WPM3 : There is not an enough deployed procedure for analysing significant, recurring and unresolved incidents and identifying underlying problems.
Natcos gaps :
No transnational Problem Management : the same problem may be logged in each Natco (eg: network or applicative server down)
22
Problem Management Recommendations

Topic : No real Problem Management organization
Recommendation
RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management organization. The members of this organization could be the following :
General Problem Manager : a general Problem Manager could manage all the Problem Management process, track unresolved problems and manage the Problem Management reporting. Local Problem Manager : a local Problem Manager could be nominated for each team : a dedicated local problem manager for the level 1 team, for the 1.5 team and for each strategic level 2 teams (eg : OCBS support). The local Problem Manager would verify all problems logged by the agents of his group and assign the problems to another group if necessary : all problems would be flagged in the Service Management tool (verified or not verified by the Local Problem Manager). Agents : only practiced agents could log Problems into the Service Management database. These agents should be members of level 1, 1.5, 2 or 3 teams. The name of the agent who would have logged the problem into the database should be saved in an historic field. Gain : to have an organization to manage the problems
WPM2 : There is no staff really dedicated to the Problem Management. Risk : The risk is to have a poor Problem Management without sufficient employee involvement. WPM4 : There is no global coordination of problems : there is no official Problem Manager Risk : Problems are not sufficiently managed.
LEVERS
Quality
Scheme next page
23

Illustration of the RPM1 recommendation
AS IS
Recommendation
General Problem Manager
No Problem Management Organization
Service Desk
Level 2
Level 1.5 Problem Manager Local Problem Manager
Level 3
Local Problem Manager
LEVERS
Level 1 Problem Manager
Level 1 teams
Level 1.5 teams
Level 2 teams
Level 3 teams
24

Topic : No suitable Problem Management process
Recommendation
RPM2 : Implementation of a Problem Management process

It would be necessary to define the type of problem to be managed and the Problem Management procedures. There are two types of problem : Reactive problems : Analysing Incidents as they Occur. The process could be the following : A reactive problem would be logged by a practiced agent (member of level 1, 1.5, 2, 3 resolution group) when an investigation is necessary for one or more incidents. Level 2 or level 3 team members would identify the root cause and a method of resolving the problem with a Workaround : a Known Error would be logged into the Known Error Database. Local Problem Manager of the level 2 or level 3 teams could also log a RFC (Request For Change) in the aim of resolving the Known Error. The Local Problem Manager would log the RFC into the Service Management tool. When the Known Error would be resolved (with or without a change), the Known Error and the linked problem would be closed. Proactive problems : Analysing Incidents over differing time periods and logging problems before incidents occur. These problems would be mainly managed by level 2 and Level 3 team members. Gain : Reduction of the occurrence of incidents
WPM1 : Potential problems are assessed and identified but they are not recorded into a database : there is no proactive Problem Management with a logging of proactive problems into a database. Risk : the risk is that more incidents are going to occur. WPM3 : There is a procedure but this procedure is not enough deployed for analysing significant, recurring and unresolved incidents and identifying underlying problems. Risk : More incidents can occur if the problems LEVERS are not identified
Cost
25
AS IS Assessment Problem Management Incident Management Recommendation

Input Level 1 or 1.5 Level 1 or 1.5 Local manager agents Level 2 or 3 agents
Logging of a problem
Level 2 or 3 Local manager

Verification of the problem
Output
Analyzing incidents and trends
Investigation Incidents with a necessary investigation Logging of a problem Verification of the problem
Logging of a Known Error Forward to level 2
Logging of a RFC ?
Yes
Logging of a RFC RFC
No
m e l bo rP
Resolution of the problem
Verification of the closure
Closure of the problem
26
Problem Management recommendations (synthesis)

The scoring for Problem Management Desk is 1 / 5 :
OIVW organization would pass the level 3.5 Quality Control with the implementation of the recommendations RPM1and RPM2 described before. Then OIVW would pass the level 5 with : - Level 4 (Management Information) : A full Problem Management reporting solution (analysis of problems, problems of a particular type, potential hot spots) should be implemented. - Level 4.5 (External integration) : The integration of Problem Management with other processes is already implemented. - Level 5 : Customer Interface : Customers satisfaction surveys should be implemented.
Problem Management recommendations are the following : Recommendation

RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management organization. RPM2 : Implementation of a Problem Management process
Quick Wins
No No
Gain
Quality Cost
Scope
Airbus Airbus
27
Configuration Management AS IS Assessment
Configuration Management Assessment

The scoring for Configuration management is the following : Maturity Level : 1.5 / 5
OIVW Configuration Management process has passed ITIL level 1.5 and failed to level 2 : Configuration item naming conventions are different in each Natco, procedures for auditing and analysing configuration Item are missing.
20
Configuration Management Results

(Points)
25
15
10
Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Configuration Management : The Configuration Management scope is all Configuration items managed by OIVW for all the Natco (CE, FR, GE, SP, UK). These Configuration Items are the following: IT assets, Software, Licenses, Application, catalog of all software, catalog of PCs
3.0 Products
1.0 Pre-Requisites
3.5 Quality Control
28
Configuration Management AS IS Assessment

Configuration Management Assessment (Synthesis)

Main strengths :
SCONF1 : Software and hardware databases (Magic, AAL) SCONF2 : Management of links between physical servers and databases in the HP scope (Managhas database) SCONF6 : Measures taken to avoid anomalies (Magic database customization, standard for AAL scope) SCONF7 : Identified target : 80% of inventory reliability for end 2006 SCONF8 : Management of link between configuration and major changes during the CAB meeting
Main weaknesses:
WCONF3 : Poor analyzing and auditing procedure (eg: there is no historization into the Magic tool). No physical housekeeping (Magic, AAL) WCONF6 : Many databases but no CMDB approach : managing links between CIs and matching services with IT infrastructure WCONF8 : Meetings with Financial management but no License management : no way to assess installation against license
Natcos gaps :
Not always the same tool in all Natcos (Software Inventory and Distribution scope : Zenworks for the German Natco and SMS for other Natcos) Naming convention rules different in each Natco (Inventory Number) Procedures well-known but no full homogenization between Natcos (eg : German users are using a Magic wizard which is not used by other Natcos) Hardware assets are rented to a financial company and are managed within Excel datasheets in the Spanish Natco. AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 29
Configuration Management Recommendations

Topic : Configuration Management tools and process
Recommendation
RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and processes to be optimized with the new Service Management tool Change historization : Airbus could implement the logging of historical changes of CIs in the Service Management tool : historization of previous CIs locations or users should facilitate the auditing of CI records. (not possible with Magic tool but OK with Remedy tool). Housekeeping / archiving : Physical housekeeping and archiving could be implemented for the Service Management and AAL tools. Each year, the database should be backuped and then the former records should be deleted. Common procedure : A common procedure for managing the Service Management tool should be implemented in all Natcos. This procedure would be very detailed and would encompass all CIs changes : How to log a new CI, move a CI, retire a CI.. Number naming convention rules should also be detailed in this tool.
WCONF3 : There are poor analysing and auditing procedures : there is no historization into the Magic tool (user, status or location modification). There is also no physical housekeeping : a lot of retired assets remain in the Magic database for accountancy reasons (NB : accountancy data are managed in the SAP tool). Risk : the Magic database is not safe and optimized WCONF4 : There are naming convention rules different in German and French Natco : Inventory number naming convention rules are different in French Natco from German Natco in the Magic tool Risk : Insufficient transnational cooperation
LEVERS
WCONF6 : There are many databases but not really a database which matches services and IT infrastructure with a CMDB (Configuration Management Database) approach. Risk : It is not possible to size up the risk of the implementation or the modification of a CI on the Information System
Following next page
30

Recommendation
RCONF1 : (following)
Relationships between CIs : A CI (Configuration Item) is an IT asset (software, hardware, documentation) : all CIs should be uniquely identified. The information to be recorded for each item would be defined and include the relationships and documentation necessary for effective Service Management. Airbus should also define which categories of CIs have to be managed. The Service Management tool should also facilitate the establishment of relationships between CIs (parent/child, service relationship). The Service Management tool should also gather CIs data managed currently in many databases : hardware assets, hardware catalog, software installation, software licenses, software catalog. This database should also manage the relationships from CIs with other processes : Incident, Problem, SLAs.. Customization : The Service Management tool should also be customized to allow the reading/modification of record (eg : employees forms, tickets forms, problems forms) for each users profile (eg : agent, problem manager). The updating right of each field of the database should also be customized (eg : ticket number, problem assignee) Common tool : OIVW should get common tools for each Natco. It would be more easy to get the same process and less expensive to be managed (eg : Distribution and inventory tools).
Quality
Gain : to have a safe and useful configuration database
31

Topic : License Management
Recommendation
RCONF2 : License Management against software installation Management to be implemented

OIVW should firstly check all Airbus departments which are managing or buying IT licenses. Then all License information would be centralized into the Service Management database. All software installation should be centralized into the same database. Software installation are collected with the SMS tool into the Service Management tool. A Counter should be implemented into the Service Management tool to verify if the number of licenses is matching with the number of installations for each License type. A workflow of Installation / Validation should be implemented. Firstly, there would be a hierarchal validation from his department manager. Then, Only one Airbus agent would authorize technically the installation of a new software. Then, If the technical validation is OK, an other Airbus agent would buy if necessary new licenses.
WCONF8 : License management is not carried out : there is no possibility to match software installations with software licenses. Software installations are managed in the AAL tool. Software Licenses are also managed in the AAL tool but do not encompass all IT licenses of Airbus company and is not enough updated. Risk : the risk is to buy too much or not enough licenses
LEVERS
Organization change (new
Communication change Training change
Cost
Gain : Decrease of the License Management cost
Scheme next page

32

Illustration of the RCONF2 recommendation : Workflow of Installation / Validation :
User
Department Manager
Hierarchal validation Non OK
Technical agent
Technical Validation (Non standard Installation) Non OK
License Manager
License validation Non OK
Installation Request
OK
OK
OK
Installation Non validated
Installation validated
33
Configuration Management recommendations (Synthesis)

The scoring for Configuration Management Desk is 1.5 / 5 :
OIVW organization would pass the level 5 Customer Interface with : - The implementation of the recommendations RCONF1 and RCONF2 described before. - Level 5 (Customer Interface) : Customers satisfaction surveys should be implemented.
Configuration Management recommendations are the following : Recommendation

RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and processes to be optimized with the new Service Management tool implementation RCONF2 : License Management against software installation Management to be implemented
Quick Wins
No No
Gain
Quality Cost
Scope
OIVW Airbus
34
Change Management AS IS Assessment
Change Management Assessment

The scoring for Change management is the following :
(Points)
75 70 65
Change Management Results

OIVW Change Management process has passed ITIL level 2.5 Internal Integration and failed to level 3 Products : there is no change calendar of approved changes (except in UK) and there is not enough Change Management reporting.
60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
3.5 Quality Control
1.0 PreRequisites
Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Change Management : The Change Management scope encompasses all changes which are OIVW changes : Asset changes, Software changes. OIVW is also CAB member : all the process of change managed by the CAB is also assessed (RFC, CAB validation).
3.0 Products
35
AS IS Assessment Change Management Incident Management AS IS Assessment (FR, GE)

Input
Change with : -Breaking risk of the Service Delivery - Severe impact Logging of a RFC into Magic
Requester
CAB
Output
Assessment of the RFC RFC accepted
Presentation of the RFC to the CAB

CAB Decision Accepted
Refused Pending
RFC refused
me gna h C
Updating of the RFC
Pending RFC
36
AS IS Assessment Change Management Incident Management AS IS Assessment (UK)

Input Requester Change coordinator
No RFC Complete ? Yes
CAB
Output
Assessment of the RFC
Change with : Breaking risk of the Service Delivery - Severe impact
Filling of the RFC form
Assess priority
RFC accepted
Assess impact
CAB Decision Accepted
Mailing of the form to the Change coordinator
Add to change calendar Service Catalog review

Log into a spreadsheet and into Magic if transnational impact
Refused
RFC refused
a Me gna h C
37
Change Management AS IS Assessment
Change Management Assessment (Synthesis)

Main strengths :
SCHM1 : Change Management organization : RFC, CAB SCHM3 : Assigned roles and responsibilities : CAB chairman, Requesters, Change coordinator (UK, GE) SCHM6 : Change Management tools : Magic tool, spreadsheets, eroom
Maturity Level : 2,5 / 5
Main weaknesses:
WCHM2 : No Post Implementation Review WCHM3 : No RFC assessment and priorisation before to be CAB assessed (except in UK) WCHM4 : Change already prepared before validation by the CAB WCHM6 : No central change calendar (except in UK) WCHM7 : No Change Management reporting (% of RFC with agreed, % of changes with failures)
Natcos gaps :
RFC are assessed and priorised before to be presented to the CAB only in UK There are only Change calendars in UK All Requests for Change are not recorded into the Magic database for the UK scope Process is not the same for each Natco : ISR log RFC in the French and German Natcos within the Magic tool. Requesters send a form to the change coordinator in the UK Natco. Requests for Change are firstly logged and assessed in a Lotus Notes tool before to be logged by T. Systems agents into the Magic tool (Spanish Natco). There is no CAB in the Spanish Natco. AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 38
Change Management Recommendations

Topic : Change Management activities
Recommendation
RCHM1 : Change implemented

Management
process
to
be
WCHM2 : There is no Post Implementation Review when a change has been done. Risk : The right implementation of the change is not assessed. WCHM3 : The change is not assessed and priorised before his presentation to the CAB (Except in UK Natco). Risk : The CAB has to agree too many changes. WCHM4 : Many changes are already prepared and ready to be implemented before to be presented to the CAB. Risk : All the job of change preparation is lost if the CAB refuse the change. WCHM6 : There is no change schedule of approved changes (except in UK). Risk : The risk is to have a conflict between two changes during their implementation. WCHM7 : There are no Change Management reporting (% of RFC with agreed, % of changes with failures) Risk : It is not possible to assess the performance of the Change Management process.
A Change Manager (Change Coordinator) should be designated for each Natco. Request For Change should be recorded into the Service Management tool for each Natco. Request for Change should be assessed, classified and priorised by the Change Manager before to be sent to the CAB (Change Advisory Board). Standard changes would be verified by the Change Manager and not sent to the CAB : a list of standard changes should be defined within OIVW organization. Other changes would be sent to the CAB. Changes should not be prepared before being validated by the CAB. The CAB should decide before if a change should be prepared or not. The CAB should also plan all changes in a schedule in order to avoid conflicts during change implementation. Change Management reporting implemented by the CAB. should also be
LEVERS
Scheme next page

Quality
Gain : all changes would be managed with a better quality
CAB should make a PIR (Post Implement Review) when a change has been implemented : this PIR could allow verifying if the business need of the change is satisfied. A change with a transNatco impact should be firstly assessed by the Natco CAB where the RFC is done. If this CAB would agree the RFC, the Change should be also agreed by a transnational CAB. Members of the transnational CAB would be the Change Manager of each Natco.
39
AS IS Assessment Change Management Incident Management Recommendations

Input Requester
Change Manager
No Request validatio n? Yes Incident, Problem No Reques t validati on ? Yes Client Filling of the RFC in the S. Management tool Priorisation (urgent, non urgent) No Change building
CAB
Release Management
Output
RFC refused
Change Preparation
Tests
RFC accepted
Project
Categorization (standard, minor, important, major)
Coordination and planning of the change Implementation
a na Me gna h C
Standar d change ? Yes
No
RFC closed CMDB updated
Post Implementation Review Implementation by the Service Desk
40
Change Management Recommendations
Change Management recommendations (Synthesis)

The scoring for Change Management is 2.5 / 5 :
OIVW organization would pass the level 4 Management Information with the implementation of the recommendation RCHM1 described before. Then OIVW would pass the level 5 with : - Level 4.5 (External integration) : The implementation of the Change Management with other processes is to be improved : with Problem Management (changes required to resolve problems / known errors), with Configuration Management (change impact assessment on configuration items) and with Service level Management (potential change impact on service level agreements) - Level 5 (Customer Interface) : Customers satisfaction surveys should be implemented.
Change Management recommendations are the following : Recommendation

RCHM1 : Change Management process to be implemented
Quick Wins
No
Gain
Quality
Scope
Airbus
41
Release Management AS IS Assessment
Release Management Assessment

The scoring for Release management is the following : Maturity Level : 2 / 5
OIVW Release Management process has passed ITIL level 2 and failed to level 2.5 OIVW organization has failed to the mandatory question : there are not only authorised and tested versions which are installed because too many users are PC administrator (FR : 30-35%, GE) An other major subject is that license information is not recorded against software installation records
Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Release Management : The Release Management scope is all releases about Configuration Items managed by OIVW. Releases which are concerned are mainly Software releases.
Release Management Results

(Points)
24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 3.5 Quality Control 3.0 Products 4.0 Management Information 4.5 External Integration 2.0 Process Capability 1.5 Management Intent 2.5 Internal Integration 1.0 Pre-Requisites 5.0 Customer Interface
42

Release Management Assessment (Synthesis)

Main strengths :
SRM1 : Many tools : AAL tool (application validation), SMS and Zenworks (distribution, automatic inventory) SRM3 : Assignment of Release Management responsibilities : project leader, operational groups (building, testing, implementing releases) SRM4 : Availability of a Definitive Software Library : shared server which contains all master copies SRM5 : Numbering conventions for each release
Main weaknesses:
WRM2 : Too many PC administrators rights for the users (except in UK) WRM3 : No license management WRM4 : No back-out plan produced for each release WRM5 : Insufficient Release Management training (AAL tool) : project leaders do not use enough all AAL functionalities
Natcos gaps :
The gap is that the automatic inventory and distribution tool is not the same in all Natcos : SMS for FR, UK, SP and Zenworks for GE. There are many PC administrator rights for many users for FR and GE Natco but not for UK and Spanish Natco. SMS administrator verifies that only safe and authorised versions of software are installed : he can also uninstall the relevant software versions (only in the Spanish Natco). AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 43

Topic : Software Release Management activities
Recommendation
RRM1 : Release Management activities to be optimized
WRM2: There are not only authorised and tested versions which are installed because too many users are PC administrator in the French and German Natco (about 35% for the French Natco). Risk : There is no good License Management and there is a security risk. WRM4 : There is not really a back-out plan produced for each release. The N-1 version is stored and a "N-1" come back is possible. Risk : The risk is to have a service break after an implementation WRM5 : There is an insufficient Release Management training (AAL tool scope) : project leaders do not enough use all AAL functionalities (eg : most of project leaders can not manage the functional validation stage) Risk : Project leaders do not use all AAL benefits
LEVERS
Only authorized and tested versions should installed in the Airbus company. Users should not PC administrator. A communication should be done this subject and then PC administrator rights should removed.
be be on be
Release Management activities should be coordinated with the CAB. Changes which are not standard changes should need a CAB involvement : the CAB should authorize the implementation of a change after the test phase. Back-out plans should be produced and tested before the implementation of each release. Project leaders should be trained to the using of the AAL tool. Gain : to have more industrialized Release Management activities.
Quality
44
Release Management recommendations (synthesis)

The scoring for Release Management is 2 / 5 :
OIVW organization would pass the level 3.5 Quality Control with the implementation of the recommendation RRM1 described before. Then OIVW would pass the level 5 with : Level 4 (Management Information) : There should be an implementation of a full Release Management reporting solution (number of major/minor releases, number of problems in the live environment attributable to new releases) Level 4.5 (external integration) : The integration of Release Management with other processes is already implemented. Level 5 (Customer Interface) : Customers satisfaction surveys should be implemented.
Release Management recommendations are the following : Recommendation

RRM1 : Release Management activities to be optimized
Quick Wins
No
Gain
Quality
Scope
OIVW
45
Service Level Management AS IS Assessment
Service Level Management Assessment

The scoring for Service Level Management is the following :
(Points)
Service Level Management Results

OIVW Service Level Management process has passed ITIL level 3.5 and failed to level 4 because there is not enough SLM reporting.
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14
Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Service Level Management : The Service Level Management scope is all Service Level activities which impact OIVW. The scope is mainly Service Level Agreement from OIVW with the client (Airbus business teams) and the operational agreement with subcontractors (T. Systems) or with other partner which deliver the Service for the SLA (level 2,3 resolver groups). The OIVW Service Catalog is also in the assessment scope.
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 3.5 Quality Control 3.0 Products 4.5 External Integration 2.5 Internal Integration 1.5 Management Intent 1.0 Pre-Requisites 4.0 Management Information 5.0 Customer Interface 2.0 Process Capability
46
Service Level Management AS IS Assessment

Service Level Management Assessment (Synthesis)

Main strengths :
SSLM2 : SLAs, OLAs SSLM5 : Publishing of an Intranet Service Catalog SSLM6 : Identified key targets for service hours, availability, reliability, support, response times for SLAs
Main weaknesses:
WSLM2 : No implemented process to update the Service catalog (Mercury tool) WSLM3 : Not enough Service Level Management Reporting to the management (eg : number of requests for new services) WSLM4 : Service Level Management is not a CAB member WSLM5 : There are not enough indicators between IT and the business in the SLA.
Natcos gaps :
There is no gap
47
Service Level Management Recommendations

Topic : Catalog of Service not updated
Recommendation
RSLM1 : Catalog of service to be managed

A procedure should be defined to update the Mercury ITG tool. This procedure should be presented to all catalog manager during a training session. OIVW should implement a review of the ITG tool to verify if the catalog is well updated with all services modification. Gain : to have a Service Catalog up to date.
WSLM2 : the Catalog of Service is based on a Mercury tool technology. There is no process implemented to update this tool and this tool is not easy to be used for the OIVW Service catalog manager. Moreover, the team which manages the Service Catalog is not enough coordinated with the OIVW Service Catalog Manager. Risk : the Catalog of Service tool is not enough updated (Mercury tool).
Quality
LEVERS
48

Topic : No end to end Service Management indicator
Recommendation
RSLM2 : Indicators to be implemented

Indicators between the business and all the support teams (Service Desk, level 2, level 3) should be defined : An indicator of incident resolving should be shared by the Service Desk, the level 2 and the level 3 groups. This indicator could be : resolution of x% of incidents in the agreed lead time of the SLA OIVW should define OLAs with strategic level 2 groups (Network-Tel, Portal,) in order to reach the SLA. Gain : better satisfaction of the business and better coordination with level 2 and level 3 groups.
WSLM5 : There is no end to end indicator between IT and the business. AS IS Indicators in the Help Desk Service Line are the following : First Call Resolution : 80% of incidents solved by the Service Desk < 20 mn for level 1 and < 30 mn for level 1.5 First level Resolution : > 90% incidents solved by the Service Desk level 1. Phone Call answered in less than 30 s Phone call hang up : < 6% of phone call to hang up before answered User administration efficiency These indicators are only between the Service Desk (level 0,1,1.5) and the business. Risk : Dissatisfaction of the business
Quality
LEVERS
49
Service Level Management recommendations (Synthesis)

The scoring for Service Level Management is 3.5 / 5 :
OIVW organization would pass the level 5 Customer interface with : - Level 4 (Management reporting) : A SLM reporting solution should be implemented (number of requests for new/changed services, monitoring charts) - Level 4.5 (External Integration) : The implementation of the Service Level Management with other processes is to be improved : with Change Management (impact of changes to SLAs), with Financial Management (negotiation of SLAs), with Incident management (implementation of SLAs in the Service Desk tool). - Level 5 (Customer Interface) : Customers satisfaction surveys should be implemented.
Service Level Management recommendations are the following : Recommendation

RSLM1 : Catalog of service to be managed RSLM2 : Indicator to be implemented
Quick wins
No No
Gain
Quality Quality
Scope
Airbus Airbus
50
Presentation of our findings Synthesis of the level to target

Synthesis of the level to target :
ITIL Process AS IS level 4.5 4.5 1 Interm How to reach the intermediate Target ? ediate target 5 - Level 5 : Customer surveys should be in a production 5 3.5
phase - Level 5 : Customer surveys should be in a production phase
How to reach the level 5 ?
Service Desk Incident Management Problem Management
Idem intermediate target Idem intermediate target
- RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management

organization - RPM2 : Implementation of a Problem Management process
- Level 4 : Implementation of a Problem Management
Configuration Management
1.5
- RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and
reporting solution - Level 4.5 : already implemented - Level 5 : Customers satisfaction surveys to be implemented Idem intermediate target
processes to be optimized - RCONF2 : License Management to be implemented - Level 5 : Customers satisfaction surveys to be implemented
Change Management
2.5
- RCHM1 : Change Management process to be

implemented
Release Management
3.5
Service Level Management
3.5
Problem Management, Configuration Management, Service Level Management should be implemented - Level 5 : Customers satisfaction surveys to be implemented - RRM1 : Release Management activities to be optimized - Level 4 : Implementation of a Release Management reporting solution - Level 4.5 : already implemented - Level 5 : Customers satisfaction surveys to be implemented - Level 4 : Implementation of a Service Level Management Idem intermediate target reporting solution - Level 4.5 : External Integration : Change Management, Financial Management, Incident Management - Level 5 : Customers satisfaction surveys to be implemented
- Level 4.5 : External Integration with other processes like
51
Presentation of our findings Synthesis

January 2007
The ITIL assessment of the audited processes is the following :

Target (end 2007)
Lvl.5 : Value
Lvl.4 : Service
Lvl.3 : Proactive
Lvl2 : Reactive
Lvl1 : Chaos
Service Desk
Incident Management
Problem Management
Change Management
Release Management
Service Level Management
52
Presentation of our findings Synthesis of the Natco Gaps

Synthesis of the Natco Gaps and the main failures of the transnational organization :
ITIL Process
Service Desk Incident Management Problem Management
Natco Gaps / Failures of the transnational organization

Different helpdesks in Germany (Engineering Helpdesk, dedicated helpdesk in some factory units) No Gap
Recommendations to apply Natco gaps

RSD1 : Implementation of a Single Point of Contact for the Service Desk /
No transnational Problem Management : the same problem may be logged in RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management each Natco (eg: network or applicative server down) organization RPM2 : Implementation of a Problem Management process Not always the same tool in all Natcos (Software Inventory and Distribution RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and scope : Zenworks for the German Natco and SMS for other Natcos) processes to be optimized with the new Service Management tool implementation (Common tool) Naming convention rules different in each Natco (Inventory Number) Procedures well-known but no full homogenization between Natcos (eg : German users are using a Magic wizard which is not used by other Natcos) RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and processes to be optimized with the new Service Management tool implementation (Common procedure) RCHM1 : Change Management process to be implemented
Change Management
RFC are assessed and priorised before to be presented to the CAB only in UK There are only Change schedules in UK All Requests for Change are not recorded in the Magic database for the UK scope Process is not the same for each Natco : ISR log RFC in the French and German Natcos within the Magic tool. Requesters send a form to the change coordinator in the UK Natco. There is no transnational CAB
Release Management Service Level Management
There are many PC administrator rights for many users for FR and GE Natco RRM1 : Release Management activities to be optimized but not for UK Natco No Gap /
53
Presentation of our findings Preparation of an action plan (1/2)

A global action plan should be built. Then a detailed action plan should be built for each recommendation : all actions of each recommendations would be defined.
Process Recommendation Quick Gain wins Scope Priority Actors (High, Medium, Low) Standardization Airbus Quality Quality Cost Quality Quality Quality Airbus OIVW Airbus OIVW Airbus Airbus Could be implemented firstly within OIVW and a pilot level 2 organization Idem RPM1 Scheduled Workload Commentary Date
Service Desk Service Desk Incident Management Incident Management Incident Management Incident Management Problem Management
RSD1 : Implementation of a Single Point of Contact for the Service Desk RSD2 : Optimization of the updating of user forms. RIM1 : Logging of all incidents in the same database RIM2 : Optimization of the organization of level 2,3 resolver groups RIM3 : Customization of the Service Management tool RIM4 : Implementation of an OLA with the Strategic level 2 resolver group RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management organization
No Yes Yes No Yes No No
Problem RPM2 : Implementation of No Management a Problem Management process

Cost
Airbus
54
Presentation of our findings Preparation of an action plan (2/2)

Process Recommendation Quick Gain wins Scope Priority (High, Medium, Low) Qualit OIVW y Actors Scheduled Date Workload Commentary
Configuratio RCONF1 : Configuration n Management tools and Management processes to be optimized with the new Service Management tool implementation Configuratio RCONF2 : License n Management against Management software installation Management to be implemented
No
No
Cost
Airbus
Change RCHM1 : Change No Management Management process to be implemented Release RRM1 : Release No Management Management activities to be optimized Service Level RSLM1 : Catalog of service Management to be managed Service Level RSLM2 : Indicator to be Management implemented No No
Qualit Airbus y Qualit OIVW y Qualit Airbus y Qualit Airbus y
55
OIVW ITIL Assessment
AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. This document and all information contained herein is the sole property of AIRBUS S.A.S.. No intellectual property rights are granted by the delivery of this document or the disclosure of its content. This document shall not be reproduced or disclosed to a third party without the express written consent of AIRBUS S.A.S. This document and its content shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied. The statements made herein do not constitute an offer. They are based on the mentioned assumptions and are expressed in good faith. Where the supporting grounds for these statements are not shown, AIRBUS S.A.S. will be pleased to explain the basis thereof. AIRBUS, its logo, A300, A310, A318, A319, A320, A321, A330, A340, A350, A380, A400M are registered trademarks.
56

Audit ITIL V3 Recommandation

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Audit ITIL V3 Recommandation

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

AIRBUS OIVW ITIL Assessment

Author : Antoine Gendron Senior Consultant antoinegendron@yahoo.fr 1

Introduction Modification of the document

General General Incident Management

Problem Management Problem Management Configuration Management

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

Introduction Modification of the document

Service Level Management Service Level Management Service Level Management

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

Introduction Goal of the meeting

The goal of the meeting is to introduce the recommendation stage of the

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

Recommendations are analyzed in the following ways :

Quick Wins or not Levers to implement the recommendation :

Training change Organization change (new Document formalization

Gains of the recommendation :

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

Service Desk AS IS Assessment

Service Desk Assessment

Service Desk Results

2.0 Process Capability

1.5 Management Intent

Maximum attainable score Airbus score

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

4.0 Management Information

5.0 Customer Interface

3.5 Quality Control

4.5 External Intergration

2.5 Internal Integration

Service Desk AS IS Assessment

Service Desk Assessment (Synthesis)

Maturity Level : 4.5 / 5

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

Service Desk Recommendations

RSD1 : Implementation of a Single Point of Contact for the Service Desk

position) System change

Gain : The gain would be a simplification of the

Scheme next page

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

Service Desk Recommendations

Dedicated HD (Specific Services, factory unit)

position) System change

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

Service Desk Recommendations

position) System change

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

Service Desk Recommendations

Service Desk recommendations (synthesis)

Service Desk recommendations are the following : Recommendation

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

Incident Management AS IS Assessment

Incident Management Assessment

3.5 Quality Control

4.5 External Integration

1.5 Management Intent

Maximum attainable score Airbus score

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

4.0 Management Information

5.0 Customer Interface

2.0 Process Capability

2.5 Internal Intergration

Incident Management AS IS Assessment

Incident Management Assessment (Synthesis)

Maturity Level : 4.5 / 5