ServiceNow Event 15.11.2012 / ITIL for the Enterprise @CERN
1 like712 views
The document discusses how service management best practices used in IT can be applied more broadly at CERN, a large particle physics research organization. It provides context on CERN, including its missions, facilities like the Large Hadron Collider, and challenges. It describes CERN's service management environment, covering many different types of services across the organization. It outlines the project to implement a service management approach at CERN, including defining services, processes, and structures. The goal is to bring more maturity and efficiency to managing CERN's diverse infrastructure and services through an established framework.
ServiceNow Event 15.11.2012 / ITIL for the Enterprise @CERN
- 2. How service management best practice can be applied beyond IT Reinoud Martens CERN GS/SMS Maienfeld 15/11/2012
- 3. Agenda • Introduction to • CERN • CERN Service Management environment • The project • Definition • Implementation • Review • Current situation • Conclusion
- 4. About CERN • World’s largest particle physics centre • World’s largest scientific instrument • 1954 - Europe’s first joint venture • 2012 - 20 member states - 2 associate members & 7 observers • 1.2 bn CHF budget • ~ 2300 staff • >1000 fellows, students LHC & project associates • >10000 visiting scientists over 100 nationalities (half of world’s particle physicists)
- 5. CERN’s missions Seeking answers to questions about the Universe. What is it made of? How did it come to be the way it is? Advancing the frontiers of technology and engineering. Uniting nations together through science. Today >10000 visiting scientists from more than 100 countries. Training young scientists and engineers who will be the experts of tomorrow.
- 6. CERN : Facts & Fiction • The World Wide Web was invented at CERN in 1989 by the British scientist Tim Berners-Lee. • Some of the spin-offs: Improving cancer therapy technology, medical and industrial imaging, radiation processing, electronics, measuring instruments, new manufacturing processes and materials,.. • CERN does unfortunately not own an X-33 aircraft as it was suggested in Dan Brown’s book “Angels and Demons”.
- 7. The Physics Challenge The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) helps to find answers to fundamental questions • The LHC, allows us to look at microscopic big bangs to understand the fundamental laws of nature • Which questions: • Why do particles have mass? • Newton could not explain it and neither can we… • What is 96% of the Universe made of? • We only ‘know’ 4% of it! • Why is there no antimatter left in the Universe? • Nature should be symmetrical • What was matter like during the first second of the Universe’s life, right after the "Big Bang"? • A journey towards the beginning of the Universe will gives us deeper insight
- 8. The Physics Challenge The universe is a tough nut to crack. By smashing pieces of matter together, creating energies and temperatures not seen since the universe's earliest moments, the LHC could reveal the particles and forces that wrote the rules for everything that followed. It could help answer one of the most basic questions for any being in our universe: What is this place?
- 9. The particle physicist’s toolbox collisions events Particle accelerator Experiments Data Analysis
- 10. The particle physicist’s toolbox The accelerator complex • LHC The world’s most powerful accelerator: • A 27 km long tunnel filled with high-tech instruments • Equipped with thousands of superconducting magnets • Accelerates particles to energies never obtained before • Produces particle collisions
- 11. The particle physicist’s toolbox 4 Experiments : Very large sophisticated detectors § Atlas experiment during construction : 7000 tons § Hundred million measurement channels § Data acquisition systems treating Petabytes per second
- 12. The particle physicist’s toolbox • Computing infrastructure to store, distribute and analyse the data • A Computing Grid linking ~200 computer centres around the globe • Sufficient computing power and storage to handle 15 Petabytes per year, making them available to thousands of physicists for analysis
- 13. CERN, a place of extremes The fastest racetrack on the planet… Trillions of protons race around the 27km ring in opposite direc7ons over 11,000 7mes a second, travelling at 99.999999991 per cent the speed of light.
- 14. CERN, a place of extremes The emptiest space in the solar system… To accelerate protons to almost the speed of light requires a vacuum as empty as interplanetary space. There is 10 7mes more atmosphere on the moon than there is in the LHC.
- 15. CERN, a place of extremes One of the coldest places in the universe.. With an opera7ng temperature of about -‐271 degrees Celsius, just 1.9 degrees above absolute zero, the LHC is colder than outer space.
- 16. CERN, a place of extremes The hottest spots in the galaxy… When two beams of protons collide, they generate temperatures 1000 million 7mes hoIer than the heart of the sun, but in a minuscule space.
- 17. CERN, a place of extremes The biggest most sophisticated detectors ever built… ALICE To sample and record the debris from up to 600 million proton collisions per second, scien7sts are building gargantuan devices that measure par7cles with micron precision.
- 18. CERN, a place of extremes One of the most extensive computer systems in the world… To analyze the data, tens of thousands of computers around the world are being harnessed in the Grid. The laboratory that gave the world the web, is now taking distributed compu7ng a big step further.
- 19. CERN latest events CERN experiments observe particle consistent with long-sought Higgs boson Geneva, 4 July 2012. At a seminar held at CERN today as a curtain raiser to the year’s major particle physics conference, ICHEP2012 in Melbourne, the ATLAS and CMS experiments presented their latest preliminary results in the search for the long sought Higgs particle. Both experiments observe a new particle in the mass region around 125-126 GeV.
- 20. CERN A laboratory with extreme requirements in many domains. How about service management ?
- 21. Service management – What we think it IS ? • Established industry best practice, used with success by thousands of organisations worldwide (“de facto” standard) • A strategic framework, covering all services (not only IT) • Business/customer/user focussed (focus on WHAT not HOW) • A set of management processes covering the complete service lifecycle • An approach to ‘adopt and adapt’ to ensure service solutions provide the best possible fit to the specific requirements of the organization Service management – What it IS NOT ! • A tool (e.g. service now) • A service desk • A conspiracy to monitor people
- 22. CERN Service Management Environment The Particle Physics community is bringing the world together … • Our users! • engineers • physicists • technicians • administrators • computer scientists • craftspeople • mechanics • support personnel • …
- 23. CERN Service Management Environment The freedom of science… • … is providing us every type of user!
- 24. CERN Service Management Environment Services we are covering (1) : § General IT services § Physics specific IT services (including Grid) § Medical Services & Fire Protection Services § Civil Engineering & Facility Management § Registration, Access & Safety Services § Alarm System Services
- 25. CERN Service Management Environment Services we are covering (2) : § Visits & Outreach Services § Material & Storage Services § Mail & Shipping Services § Library & Archive Services § Housing Services § HR, Finance & Legal Services
- 26. CERN Service Management Environment Some numbers § 495 hotel rooms, 3 restaurants § 2 Sites, 657 Buildings, 238 Barracks § 15000 active access cards § > 1000 cars § 5500 PC’s & 1500 MAC desktops § 6900 servers with 41000 cores § 14 PB disk space § 48 PB tape storage § 70000 network ports. feeding 34000 hosts
- 27. CERN Service Management Environment Infrastructure & SERVICES Support Accelerators & Technology Physics & Experiments
- 28. CERN Service Management Environment Services ~25% Accelerators ~45% Physics ~30% Director-‐General -‐ Rolf-‐Dieter Heuer ~ 6% DG services (Safety, Legal, Audit, Planning, VIP, etc..) ~ 6% X AdministraNon and general infrastructure -‐ Sigurd LePow ~ 14% FP Finance, Procurement and Knowledge Transfer -‐ T. Lagrange ~ 2.5% X GS General infrastructure services -‐ T. PeIersson ~9% X HR Human resources -‐ A.-‐S. Catherin ~ 2.5% X Research and scienNfic compuNng -‐ Sergio Bertolucci ~33% + CERN USERS IT Informa7on technology -‐ F. Hemmer ~9% X X PH Physics -‐ P. Bloch ~25% X Accelerators and technology -‐ Steve Myers ~ 46% BE Beams -‐ P. Collier ~16% X EN Engineering -‐ R. Saban ~14% X X TE Technology -‐ F. Bordry ~15% X
- 29. CERN Service Management Environment The situation 3 years ago. • Infrastructure and services neglected in favor of LHC project • Resources under scrutiny à desire for benchmarking, metrics, KPI’s • CERN victim of LHC’s success à do more with less • Realization of (lack of) maturity à wish to grow up • Administration à Management Cockpit Project
- 30. Awareness à Project • Objectives • Standard or framework • Service structure • Process definitions • Roles of the people • Implementation • Review • Current situation • Conclusion
- 31. Service Management for CERN Objectives 1. One Service Desk for CERN (one number to ring, one place to go, 24/7 coverage) 2. Standard Processes for all Service Providers at CERN (one behavior) 3. Services defined from a User’s point of view 4. Services easy to find by everybody, without knowledge of CERN internal structures 5. Service and process quality measurable 6. Improved collaboration over the borders of sections, groups and departments (break down silo’s) 7. Very high level of automation of all known procedures 8. Framework for continuous improvement in the fields of efficiency and effectiveness
- 32. Which Standard / Framework ? ISO Different best practice for IT and NON IT services doesn’t look a brilliant idea
- 33. Choice: ITIL V3 framework, but • Remove all references to IT (for the non IT people) • Stay PRAGMATIC (only take what is useful; leave the rest for ‘later’ J) • No Extremism, No over-engineering Service Management team
- 34. Service structure in 2009 Technical Expert Users (Institutes Administrative Users Experiments) Users § High level experts in all areas § Functional “elements” scattered around § Different types of users with different interests § No comprehensible communication framework § No structured service offering § No central contact point to find what you need
- 35. Service structure (Business Service Catalogue) • Customer Services & Service Elements • From the user‘s point of view (new for CERN) • Different for different types of users • Combination of functional elements to provide a complete functionality for users • New „Service Owner“ Roles representing Services • Related to users
- 36. Service structure (Business Service Catalogue) • Functional Services • Lists all technical services, activities & functions • Group and Section leaders in charge of all quality and resource related topics • Related to „support groups“ – groups of experts that perform 2nd and 3rd line support
- 37. Service structure (Business Service Catalogue) 2 dimensional Service Catalogue • Covers all Services provided • Lists all Functional Services • Connecting both sides of the catalogue • Contains classification to shows level of importance • Foundation for Process Automation & Service Portal • Contains: • Services (240) • Functions (462) • Relations (~1800) Culture Change Shift from How à What Shift from Function à Service
- 38. Service structure (Service Desk & Portal) Users in Projects Administrative Expert Users and Experiments Users Service Desk Service Web Portal Common Tool
- 39. Process Definition: Incident & Request (Business) Impact Priority Matrix 1 Down 2 Degraded 3 Affected 4 Disrupted critical advers e major advers e impact minor advers e impact s mall number o f t he impact o n t he s ervice on t he s ervice on t he s ervice population affected 1 High: T he d amag e c aus ed 1 2 3 4 Urgency by t he Incident increas es rapidly. Major High Moderate Low 2 Medium: T he d amag e 2 3 4 5 caus ed b y t he Incident increas es cons iderably o ver t ime High Moderate Low Planning 3 Low: T he d amag e c aus ed 3 4 5 6 by t he Incident o nly marg inally increas es o ver t ime Moderate Low Planning Very Low
- 41. Process Definition (status) Finalized: • Incident, Request & Change • Business Service Catalogue management • Knowledge management • Service level management In preparation: • Major incident handling • Outage handling & Status boards • Event management
- 42. Service Management Role definitions Service Desk User Manager Assistance Supervis Service es Manager On Duty Use Customer Service Desk Services Ass igns To Coordinates Support Groups functions Supe rvise Functional d Service Manager Coordinates Service Owner
- 43. Tool Selection (After process and catalog definition!) Legend: Tool Service Now Remedy Service Desk Express iET ITSM Omnitracker Service Desk plus Easy V ista OTRS ITSM S-‐BPM Suite TrackIT TicketXpert Incident Monitor Service Manager ExpertDesk Service Desk Service Manager 7 Tivoli Valuemation POB Service Management Service Desk Manager 20 /20 MSM iWise e-‐Service Desk SupportDesk ITSM SMI Suite Service Management Suite ITSM Help Desk TopDesk Help Desk Service Desk Service Desk helpLine Service Desk Assyst 7.5 "Score": Rating from 0 ( feature not available, not programmable) to 5 ( full functionality provided out of the box, no extra e ffort required). "Configuration/programming e ffort": Optional field for defining customization/programming e ffort. V alues entered here will be used mainly for detailed distinction i n case of undecision. "Additional comments": Optional field for additional helpful comments aimed at progressing tool selection. Downselect Manufacturer service-‐now.com BMC BMC iET Solutions Omninet Manage Engine Staff & Line OTRS Frontrange jcom1 Numara isonet Monitor 24 -‐ 7 i nc. Livetime Mansystems Overall score i s determined by multiplying Weight and out-‐of-‐the-‐box rating; a 0 rating for a "Must-‐have" feature leads to automatic failure. Definition of Weight values : 5=must have, 3=should have, 1=nice to have Score values: 5 = Out of the box, 4 = customisation/configuration, 3= scripting, 2=minor programming, 1=application programming 0=not possible, Effort in mandays Matrix 42 HP IBM USU Wendia Cherwell CA Sunrise Marvel InfraWise ICCM House on the Hill Westbury Priox Epicor iNet TopDesk Nilex Naumen LAN Desk helpLine Easit Axios Systems Provider Aspediens IT Concepts IT Concepts Fritz & Maciol Fritz & Maciol Main Category Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Configurat Additional Additional Additional Additional Additional Additional Additional Additional Additional Additional Additional Additional Additional Additional Additional Sub-‐category Weight Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ Score ion/ comments comments comments comments comments comments comments comments comments comments comments comments comments comments comments High-‐level Criteria programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm programm Individual e lements Current Process Requirements Current Process Requirements -‐ Score (35% of overall score) 35 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ Future Use Requirements Future Use Requirements -‐ Score (10% of overall score) 10 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ Interface Requirements Interface Requirements -‐ Score (15% of overall score) 15 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ Technical Requirements ( requirements that are not applicable can be i gnored) Technical Requirements (requirements that are not applicable can be ignored) -‐ Score (10% of overall score) 10 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ Measurement Requirements Measurement Requirements -‐ Score (5% of overall score) 5 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ Reporting Requirements Reporting Requirements -‐ Score (5% of overall score) 5 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ Hosting schemes ( no i mpact final score, as one or more of these schemes are always present) Hosting schemes (no impact final score, as one or more of these schemes are always present) -‐ Score (0% of overall score) 0 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ Licence Model and costs ( Info to be provided i n cost and comments column) Licence Model and costs (Info to be provided in cost and comments column) -‐ Score (10% of overall score) 10 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ General Quality Factors General Quality Factors -‐ Score (10% of overall score) 10 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ TOTAL SCORE 100 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ 0 -‐ Preselection criteria % of score Service Now Remedy Service Desk Express iET ITSM Omnitracker Service Desk plus Easy Vista OTRS ITSM S-‐BPM Suite TrackIT TicketXpert Incident Monitor Service Manager ExpertDesk Service Desk Service Manager 7 Tivoli Valuemation POB Service Management Service Desk Manager 20 /20 MSM iWise e-‐Service Desk SupportDesk ITSM SMI Suite Service Management Suite ITSM Help Desk TopDesk Help Desk Service Desk Service Desk helpLine Service Desk Assyst 7.5 Customer e xperience 20 4 3 2 4 5 5 4 2 1 3 3 4 3 3 3 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 Implementation e ffort ( feasible roll out within 4 months) 15 5 1 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 Provider's viability and completeness of vision 15 5 5 4 3 5 3 4 5 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 0 5 3 3 3 3 0 5 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 3 0 3 Native relevant ITIL best-‐practice content 10 5 3 4 5 3 1 5 0 1 0 0 3 5 5 3 Fully Web 2.0 based ( Back office & Portal) 10 5 2 5 4 3 5 5 3 3 3 4 5 5 3 Technology Stack Compatability 10 4 5 4 3 3 5 1 3 3 3 5 4 5 3 Product Design Quality & Maturity 20 4 3 2 4 4 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 TOTAL SCORE 100 4.56 3.00 3.40 3.95 3.90 3.40 4.10 2.00 1.80 2.57 2.70 3.50 3.65 3.60 3.00 2.40 2.40 2.90 2.10 0.90 0.90 1.50 1.80 0.90 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.70 2.10 2.10 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 2.10 1.80 2.10 0.90 http://www.itsmportal.com/tools?searchtext=service%20management&action=search&op=Search&form_build_id=form-‐963bb6a68bcce30357e7bd0ba6c94292&form_id=querytools_form Pink V erify 2.0 toolsets ( ITIL V 2) yes YES YES yes YES yes Pink V erify 3.0 toolsets YES 2009 release YES Remedy 7.0 YES NO yes YES 2.0 YES 9.0 YES Footprint YES YES YES SERVICE-‐MANAGFEMENT 7.0 YES YES YES YES YES YES Pink V erify 3.1 toolsets YES Service-‐manager 7.1 YES SERVICE DESK 4 • 40 Tools evaluated in the pre-selection phase • 6 Tools evaluated in detail (300 questions) • 2 Tools in the final competition (on site demo, hands on, and reference visits) • Tool Selected – 100% Web based - SAAS • Considered Requirements: • Processes • Service Catalogue • Measurement & Reporting • Technical (Architecture) • Interface • Future Needs
- 44. Tool Implementation Phase 1 – Do the basics to get operational (autumn 2010) : • Business Service catalogue ( CERN design & implementation ) • Incident & Request ( existing basic processes – CERN catalogue automation ) • Service portal ( CERN design & implementation) Phase 2 – Grow the system while acquiring experience (2011) : • Service level management (out of the box for incident / CERN build fro request) • Reporting ( ok for operational reports disappointing for • Functional improvements (many requirements / • Interfaces to other “ticket” systems ( GRID computing, Assed management ..) • Knowledge management (adapted to the business service catalogue) • Change management ( CERN build simplified process ) Phase 3 (2012) • Process & tool improvements • Event management (CERN implementation)
- 45. Tool Implementation • Business Service Catalogue driven • Access from both dimensions • Service à Function • Functions à Service • Highly automated • Support Assignments • SLA & OLA • Performance reporting
- 46. Tool Implementation (Service Portal) § User access to all services § Search function § Browse the catalogue § Report issues § Follow issues § Access knowledge base
- 47. Service Management for CERN How did we go about it? § External ITIL expert knowledge and experience § Ncc Management Consultants (Experts in ITIL applied to non IT) § 2 dimensional Service Matrix proven in practice § Specific experience in huge organizations § Tool implementation § Aspediens: expert coaching § ServiceNow: good relations with the tool manufacturer § Initially 2 Departments (IT & General Services) § Initially 2 Processes (Incident, Request) § Grow and Improve gradually § More departments (Finance, Human Resources) § More processes (Change, Problem, Event, Knowledge, …)
- 48. Service Management roadmap 2009 • Service Catalogue & Matrix • Service Role (e.g. Service Owner) Definitions Concepts • Process Design • Web Portal & Service Repository • Service Descriptions 2010 Data and • Service Management Tool Evaluation Tools • SM Tool Implementation (Oct 2010 .. Feb 2011) • Service Desk Planning & Staffing Implemen tation • Role Assignments • Training 2011 • Consolidation Rollout • Change, Knowledge & Service level management Review • Improve • More Processes (Event, Problem & Outage) Operation • Extended Scope 2012
- 49. Project Review § Quality review by ITIL senior consultant (Colin Rudd - autumn 2011) § Approach: § Interviews with key staff involved in all area’s of service management activities § Interviews with representatives of the user community § Identify and quantify the current level of service management maturity § Results: § Report on strengths, weaknesses and gaps with prioritized recommendations for improvements
- 50. Assessment summary: Process & Functions Incident 5 4.5 Request 4 3.5 Portal 3 Event 2.5 2 1.5 Technical 1 Problem 0.5 0 Desk Change Knowledge Colin Rudd Supplier SLM Service Management consultant, mentor and coach SCM ITIL Author Chairman of itSMF UK colin.rudd@itemsltd.co.uk
- 51. Assessment summary: Process & Functions 5 4.5 4 Processes Functions 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Colin Rudd Service Management consultant, mentor and coach ITIL Author Chairman of itSMF UK colin.rudd@itemsltd.co.uk
- 52. Assessment summary: The bigger picture Vision and governance 5.0 OrganisaNon, Strategy and 4.0 communicaNon & 3.0 steering relaNonships 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.6 0.0 Culture, service 2.4 2.9 Processes and atude 2.8 3.0 Products and People Colin Rudd technology Service Management consultant, mentor and coach ITIL Author Chairman of itSMF UK colin.rudd@itemsltd.co.uk
- 53. Assessment summary: Industry comparison Vision and governance 5.0 4.5 OrganisaNon, 4.0 3.5 Strategy and 3.0 communicaNon 2.5 steering 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Culture, service Processes and atude Products and People Key CERN technology Colin Rudd Max Service Management Avge consultant, mentor and coach Min ITIL Author Chairman of itSMF UK colin.rudd@itemsltd.co.uk
- 54. Assessment : Recommendations Establish a coalition Transform culture Improved inter-working Governance policy Knowledge sharing Proactive capability Vision Enterprise architecture Continual learning Strategy & roadmap Improved communication Continual improvement Management reports Customer driven processes Key recommendations Service desk schedule Major incidents Service level management Problem management Knowledge transfer Service criticality Change management Service portal Important recommendations Colin Rudd Service Management consultant, mentor and coach ITIL Author Time Chairman of itSMF UK colin.rudd@itemsltd.co.uk
- 55. 18 months of operation: some figures § 77000 incidents § 98000 Requests § 1300 Knowledge articles § 291 Services § 521 Functions (support groups) § >900 concurrent sessions § Portal popularity grows § Service quality improves
- 56. What's next: § Extend scope (More CERN Services) § Improve service quality (process & people) § Coach support teams using SLA / OLA / UC § Include risk matrix in the system § Change management § Event management § Implement the Colin Rudd recommendations
- 57. Conclusion • CERN’s mission is to provide tools and infrastructure to its ‘users’; the particle physicists of the world • This infrastructure was build over a 50 years period, represents an enormous investment, and will be exploited for many years to come • In order for our ‘users’ to be able to do their job efficiently they must be supported by “best in class” service organization, using simple, comprehensive, coherent, smooth and efficient processes and tools (both IT services AND NON IT services). • While trying to implement this ‘vision’ we learned a lot, 1. Higher than expected benefits for the non IT area 2. Underestimation of the cultural differences (IT <-> non IT) • We are convinced the result will be a positive and necessary change for CERN, it’s users and support staff.
- 58. Questions reinoud.martens@cern.ch