There is a range of automation tools available for analytical modelling . The simplest tool available is a computer spreadsheet such as Microsoft Excel with its built-in solver function. Model s with a fair amount of sophistication can be built using spreadsheets. More sophisticated models can be constructed using tools, special purpose optimization programming languages (OPL) and optimization engines. Several commercial solutions for automation in service management include functions and modules for analytical modelling and visualization.
Service Strategy and other functions and processes in the Service Lifecycle can benefit similarly from such knowledge to improve performance in the presence of technical, financial and time constraints. Six Sigma™, PMBOK ® and PRINCE2 ® offer well-tested sets of methods based on analytical models. These should be evaluated and adopted within the context of Service Strategy and service management.
9 Challenges, critical success factors and risks
9.1 Complexity
9.1.1 IT organizations are complex systems
A complex system is characterized by organized complexity, as opposed to disorganized complexity (random systems) or organized simplicity (simple systems). In an organizational setting, for example, the operations group is a system made up of people, process and technology. However, the components of the operations group must interact with each other to perform. Hence they are interdependent. The operations group in turn must interact with other components of the IT organization.
This complexity explains why some service organizations resist change . Complex systems behave differently from simple systems and pose unusual challenges. They are tightly coupled. They are adaptive and self-organizing. Hence they are self-stabilizing and policy resistant. Their complexity overwhelms our ability to understand them. The result: the more you try to change them, the more they resist.
The reason is due to a limited learning horizon. Organization s do not always have the ability to observe the long-term consequences of their decisions and actions. They generally fail to appreciate the time delay between action and response. They are often caught in a vicious cycle of reacting to event s and attempting to predict them, rather than learning from them. Without continual learning, over a far enough horizon, today’s solutions often cause tomorrow’s problems. The result is policy resistance, the tendency for improvement initiatives to be defeated by the response of the organization to the initiative itself.
The natural tendency is to break services down into discrete processes managed by different groups with specialized knowledge, experience and resource s. This approach is useful. However, the more divided a system , the greater the need for coordination between components. An automobile, for example, is more than a collection of parts. The parts by themselves do not have a life of their own. The most significant breakthrough in braking systems for automobiles is not from simply enhancing the performance of brake pads or rotors, but from extending the braking system to include not only the brake components, but also road and weather conditions, changing the driver’s mental model of how brakes are to be applied, and the dynamic interactions between these elements. The systems view led designers to move beyond simply continual improvements in materials science and manufacturing to the counterintuitive idea of anti-lock braking systems (ABS) which compensate for variations in weather conditions and driver skills.
Similarly, breaking services and service management down into specific processes is a suitable tactic if their interconnectedness is not lost. Service management processes are a means and not the end. They are necessary because working together they produce the characteristics of service that define value for the customer . Treated separately, some of the most significant consequences of decisions and actions may remain hidden until after major problems and incident s.
9.2 Coordination and control
Decision-makers in general have limited time, attention span and personal capacity . They delegate role s and responsibilities to teams and individuals who specialize in specific systems, processes, performance and outcomes. This follows the principle of division of labour with managers acting as principals and their subordinates acting as agents. Specialization allows for development of in-depth knowledge, skills and experience. It also allows for innovation, improvements and changes to occur within a controlled space. Service management is a coherent set of specialized competencies defined around processes and lifecycle phases. An increase in the level of specialization leads to a corresponding increase in the need for coordination. This is a major challenge in service management because of the level of specialization needed for various phases of the Service Lifecycle , processes and function s. Coordination can be improved with cooperation and control between teams and individuals.
Cooperation problems involve finding a way to align groups with divergent and possibly conflicting interests and goals, to cooperate for mutual benefit. This is true not only for cooperation between internal groups but also between customers and service provider s. How do you agree on the definition of service level s with respect to a given level of user satisfaction? How much should a customer agree to pay for a given service level? What is a reasonable time frame for a change request to be approved? What service levels can you impose on an internal function or service group? How can multiple service providers cooperate as an alliance in serving a common customer? Cooperation problems can be partially solved by negotiating agreement s in which every party is better off. This requires the presence of mutual welfare of all groups involved. One of the reasons why relationships fail is the lop-sided nature of agreements. Type I providers are particularly vulnerable to such agreements since they have less choice and freedom in terms of their Customer Portfolio . However, as emphasized in earlier chapters, without a financially viable and self-sustaining system of value creation, service providers are bound for eventual failure . Value capture is necessary for growth and improvement in value creation.
Another means to improving coordination between groups is to maintain shared views of outcomes towards which all performance is directed. Such views are defined in terms of service strategies, objective s, policies, rewards and incentives. The views are further detailed with customer outcomes, Service Catalogue s, service definitions, contract s and agreement s, all described with a common vocabulary. Further coordination and control is achieved with the use of shared processes that integrate groups and function s, shared application s that integrate processes, and shared infrastructure that integrates applications. A Service Knowledge Management System allows various groups to have simultaneous but distinct control perspective s on the same reality.
Control perspective s are based on the objectives of one or more service management processes or lifecycle phases. They help managers to focus on what is important and relevant to the processes under their control and ensure that control information of good quality is available for them to be effective and efficient. Control perspectives may also be useful to determine the information requirement s for implementing effective organizational learning and improvement. Financial Management provides one such control perspective. In a market-based system coordinated by prices, there is little need for customers to provide detailed specifications on service design s, to impose technical constraints, determine how service asset s are to be deployed and how services are to be operated. Customer s indicate the prices they are willing to pay for a given level of service quality .
Читать дальше
