ITIL, MOF and SCSM

17. února 2009 13:12

Yes, are there any despite the workflows? I've been able to do a good job as Incident Manager and an acceptable one as Change Manager with SCSM. But what about a tighter integration about ITIL? Specifically, I want to know if there are plans for an intelligent CMDB - visual displays of CI-relations, imports of groups from SCCM and SCOM or a better history (the current one is not very usable).

Thanks in advance!

-Mike

17. února 2009 19:03

0

Hello Mike,

As a program manager responsible for Change Management, I am interested in your feedback about this feature. Could you provide more details about your experience with Change Management in SCSM?

My colleagues will address your other questions soon.

Regards,
Vladimir Bakhmetyev [MSFT]

17. února 2009 19:14

Vlastník

0

We are implementing visual display of CI dependency relationships and integrating that with incident and change management, in conjunction with our implementation of Service Maps.

I'm not sure what you mean by importing groups from SCCM and SCOM - are you asking for SCSM to sync SCCM Collection membership (know which computers are in which SCCM collection) and SCOM group membership?

There are also some improvements in History being considered - what would you like to see there?

18. února 2009 8:00

0

Hi Marc and Vlamdimir - thanks for your quick response!

First, to address Marc's question:

I did indeed mean SCCM collection and SCOM group membership. Let's say you have a number of computers clustered in SCCM via DNS address - maybe the branch office of a worldwide cooperation. It would be very helpful if that could translate to easy accessible info within SCSM, too, as I would know exactly where I am and which systems are most likely affected during and incident and during change. Consider it an additional layer to the CI-relations within the CMDB.

For history, I would really like to see a more intuitive and accessible historization. That could range from viewing past configurations of a CI through simple button press (i.e. go to the history tab, select a date and the CI's mask gets filled with the values of that date) or any other means of easy visual representation - for example a timeline where changes are clearly marked and identified, so I coulod see "last week" was a change to CI-part "HD" which is denounced by a little HD-icon (or something). I click on it and immediatly see the CI item version before the change, after the change and the current version. Those are just a couple of small dieas that srping to mind.

Now to Vladimir:

Just to make sure we're on the same likne here, I do not actually work in Change Management. I'm a Consultant trying to gauge the Service Manager's capabilities within the larger ITIL framework. As such, I did experiment with Change Management in sandbox mode.
My experience was that I did like the way workflow was handled - the way you can add review and manual activies, link CIs and have people collaborate on it. What I found tedious was the fact that you'd alway shave to log into Service Manager, navigate through the number of changes, find yours, open it, browse tot he tab, open the activity, change it, save twice and then leave. I would like to see this process automatized and/or optimized.
Let's take the review activity, for example.What I would think would quicken the workflow was that with an email-notification, I get send two URLs that process the voting for me (one for yes and one for no). This way, I - the busy change manager - can easily nod minor changes without bothering to click through thousands of menus. Same way could work for an assigned change activity - of course, within limits. Another possibilitiy would be to offer a web interface wich options tailored to the specific windows account. As change manager, I could simply go to the portal, get identified by single-sign-on and have a tab greeting me with pending change requests. I can mark several of them at once and hit "accept" whily I can deny others.
Again, those are just a few ideas that spring to mind.

Regards,
Mike

18. února 2009 9:41

0

Hi Mike,

Thanks a lot for your feedback - it's very useful.
In the next beta we are addressing the issue you described (actually, it is already is in our internal builds):

- In the console, there is "Activities" folder in the left navigation tree with "Manual" and "Review" activities subfolders
- There are views under those folders called "Assigned to Me" - so you can see all manual and/or review activities assigned to the current user of the console. You can create your own views structure if you need that.
- That user can open a single activity and "vote" (mark manual activity either as completed or as failed) or vote "for" or "against" on the review stage
- He/she can also vote without opening the activity - by selecting the activity in the grid view and by clicking the "Done/Failed/Approve/Reject" tasks in the tasks pane
- He/she can do the same with multiple activities simultaneously

IMHO, this approach streamlines and simplifies operations with activities in the console.

However, we won't provide web console in V1 (but will provide self-help portal for end-users). There is no web portal for the reviewers/activity implementors. We are thinking about adding some simple web parts, but I can't promise that.

Regards,
Vladimir

18. února 2009 10:25

0

Hi Vladimir,

thanks for the quick answer! That does sound promising. I hope the console's performance will increase, too. I'm curious - if you implement that self-help portal - can't you build on that to provide a rudimenteray web "quick-okay"-interface?

Regards,
Mike

18. února 2009 20:22

0

Probably :-)

9. března 2009 22:48

0

Does this product support or does it plan to support project portfolio management? That is will it be able to provide resource utilization and reporting with projects (small and large) and support requests? Will it allow you to put placeholders of time with these projects for future dates to be able to show resource utilization or availability?

With change management do you have the ability for power users to create change templates (checklists of sorts) that ensure repeatable solid process flows with tasks that need to be completed first before others will be released or notified / assigned.

Can tasks be integrated with outlook?

Is this planned to be validated for ITIL via pink elephant? Which of the 14 ITIL areas that Pink validates are being targetted initially and which ones will be next?

Sounds like a fun project.

Looking for a single solution to manage and report all IT related work.

Thanks,

Daryl

motoq9c exchange activesyn

10. března 2009 15:52

0

Hello Mike,

I see you keep referencing to ITIL but SCSM will be MOF oriented. Even though both have lots of areas where they touch.
Talked to the people who set up MOF and found out that the idea was to have MOF and ITIL coincide more but the ITIL group started to ask unrealistic licensing fees.
This caused Microsoft to step away from the ITIL and focus more on MOF.
I prefer MOF, especially the latest version is a great improvement. But will this be a problem for you?
We work with lots of organizations who have ITIL incorporated within the organization. How do you look towards this?
Let me know am curious.

Thanks,
Darren

12. března 2009 12:06

0

Darrenf said:

Hello Mike,

I see you keep referencing to ITIL but SCSM will be MOF oriented. Even though both have lots of areas where they touch.
Talked to the people who set up MOF and found out that the idea was to have MOF and ITIL coincide more but the ITIL group started to ask unrealistic licensing fees.
This caused Microsoft to step away from the ITIL and focus more on MOF.
I prefer MOF, especially the latest version is a great improvement. But will this be a problem for you?
We work with lots of organizations who have ITIL incorporated within the organization. How do you look towards this?
Let me know am curious.

Thanks,
Darren

Hi Darren,

I apologize in advance if this answer is too long. ;)

First, I am not fully familiar with the MOF. The only background I have is a nice chart right behind me at a whiteboard listing its various phases and processes. But even with this, it is pretty clear how close MOF and ITIL are. All - or most of them - processes and phases of ITIL are represented within this model. And to just answer your question - you preferring MOF will not be a problem for me. ;)

My hammer, however, is ITIL and thus the Service Manager looks like the appropriate nail to me. I consider the ITIL phases and process and try to find out how to apply the SM in order to support the people working within these processes. As of right now, the Beta supports Change and Incident Management in a way. I see a lot of promises and a good start, but right now no real working end. I've listed several requirements already, and a lot of them are apparently already planned for Beta 2 (which I really look forward to). With these changes, I see the SM a viable product to be employed within these Processes. Especially the tight integration with the rest of the System Center will make it worth its price.

So, Incident and Change Management are dealt with. That's good so far. For the SM, however, my wish would be to be able to realize the entire ITIL system with it. As this is a high aim that will probably never be met, my hope is that as many process can be supported as possible. This is especially true for "soft processes" that focus on non-technical issues, such as drawing up an SLA or managing the product portfolio. Having one single software to deal with that would be the ultimate goal. I do realize, however, that the Service Manager will intentionally focus more on the technical aspect (which is perfectly okay).

Coming from this, there are several mandatory technical aspects I believe must be realized with Service Manager in order to push it as "ITIL-tool" (and MOF-tool, too!). Right now, the SM presents itself as a glorified ticketing system. This is not meant to offend - with the additions of Beta 2, the SM will move further towards its MOF/ITIL-software target. But in order to make these steps, several other technical processes need to be implemented. Those would be: problem management, release management and an improvement to configuration management. Support for these processes would establish the SM as a Release/Technical end support tool, bundling all functionalities needed in Service Transition and Operations (Changing/Supporting/Operating in MOF respectively). In my opinion, this would lay the right foundation.

The next - and very important - step would be to realize the supporting functions, specifically aiming at SLAs and monitoring/administrative tasks. Service Design and Service Strategy come to mind. While those processes inherently are very difficult to realize with a single software program and feel more natural with human interaction, a single software to collect the results, distill them and have them influence the following phases would be the ultimate selling point. I know this is a very abstract target definition - I myself have only gut feelings I could supply you with. In my opinion, everything that could be automated - deliveries, definition extractions, etc. - should be automated. I could envision the Service Manager supplying you with an interface to modularily build your service portfolio. You could add service objects to the portfolio object. These service objects could then "trickle down" the entire system. For example I could link different SLAs to them, or easily find out which CIs they are made up from. This could even go further - the Ops-Connector could signal me whenever a service is inhibited (exchange server down -> mail service is not available) or in danger of being inhibited[1].

I believe the Service Manager will be an okay product if it focuses on technical aspects like ticketing and infrastructure overview. But if the SM could also focus on using synergy effects to encompass even more, it would create an impressive value, making it an unignorable selling point. My hopes are that through the tight integration with other system center products and a clever software design, it could position itself on the market as not only a better product for incident/problem/etc. management but also as a product without competition because it delivers a powerful tool to actually "do" ITIL/MOF easily and with easy access.

Right now, I see Service Manager beginning to explore this possibility. With Beta 1, such an integration is not possible (yet). I could pitch SM as an Incident and Change Management tool, but only for rudimentary and day-to-day situation. Everything beyond is not possible (for example managing changes on a higher logical level like services oder company sites). If SM could go beyond this point and provide integration of abstract and technical levels, it would gain tremendous use.

ITIL and MOF are no technical problems you can solve by supplying x functions. Their use and the kind of usage depends heavily on the organization implementing it. This graduality is already supported by the management packs Service Manager can use. It must also be supported by the granularity of built-in functions SM offers. That means that the SM should be tailorable to your needs just as ITIL and MOF are tailored to the needs of the organization, thus creating a program that adaptively mimicks the implemented service processes on a software-base for easy implementation.

So, in closing: Service Manager shows a lot of promise, but without a change in design principle and widening of focus (which may or may not be implemented and/or planned for Beta 2 and FC) I fear it will end up as a nice-product and not be the revolution it currently still can be.

Best regards,
Mike

[1] I have a couple of more ideas and wouldn't mind brainstorming on this integration, if you were interested.

16. března 2009 16:01

0

Hello Mike,

Well I guess you really thought things through there. Don't mind the amount of text. The more the better I always say. It gives people the chance to make themselves understood.

Now about your comments. I understand where you are coming from. Even though several things will be possible I do not think SM will get the integration you are hoping for. (Not only you are hoping loads of people are)
I too hope that we will get more from the system, but I do think you hit the nail right on there when you talk about every company having implemented ITIL, MOF differently (If they even have implemented any one of these forms) within the organization.
This is a great problem. Not only for one organization, but what about those partners from Microsoft who provide SM services? These organizations have no technical link with their customers. This creates keeping assets up to date and loads of other problems to another level.
Once again I am sure there are ways around this problem but still it does hit the point. How far are they willing to go?
All these options and differences create a huge problem for SM (and it's developers). I am sure MP's and several developing company's will create greate solutions to meet the demands of the future but I don't think it will encase everything.

I also think that you need to wonder if you want it all in one product. Would one interface not be good enough?

I would love to take this offline and discuss this more with you, see if we can not get more out of the product before it's release.
My information is in my user profile just drop me a line.

Thanks Mike was great feedback.

Darren

17. března 2009 7:53

0

You've got mail, Darren.

-Mike

23. března 2009 20:33

0

darylrue said:

1) Does this product support or does it plan to support project portfolio management?
2) With change management do you have the ability for power users to create change templates (checklists of sorts) that ensure repeatable solid process flows with tasks that need to be completed first before others will be released or notified / assigned.
3) Can tasks be integrated with outlook?
4) Is this planned to be validated for ITIL via pink elephant? Which of the 14 ITIL areas that Pink validates are being targetted initially and which ones will be next?

Hi Daryl,

I extracted some questions from your post and would like to answer them. So ...
1) No, it doesn't - at least directly. We are going to integrate SCSM with Microsoft Project Server instead (no specific dates yet)
2) Yes, a Change Request Template defines the change model by incorporating a number of review (approval) and manual (workorder) activities. That set of activities maps to the process diagram for a specific category of changes (standard, minor, major, emergency ....). Every time when a user creates a new change request, he/she selects a template, and a new CR will contain all activities defined in the template. This is how we make that process repeatable.
3) As for now - no, they are not. THis is one of the additional integration options we are looking at.
4) No, we don't have such plans in the V1 timeframe. How important is that for you?

Regards,
Vladimir Bakhmetyev [MSFT]

23. března 2009 21:08

0

Darrenf said:

Hello Mike,

I see you keep referencing to ITIL but SCSM will be MOF oriented. Even though both have lots of areas where they touch.
Talked to the people who set up MOF and found out that the idea was to have MOF and ITIL coincide more but the ITIL group started to ask unrealistic licensing fees.
This caused Microsoft to step away from the ITIL and focus more on MOF.
I prefer MOF, especially the latest version is a great improvement. But will this be a problem for you?
We work with lots of organizations who have ITIL incorporated within the organization. How do you look towards this?
Let me know am curious.

Thanks,
Darren

Hello Darren and Mike,

Actually in our design we are mixing four frameworks: MOF V4, MOF V3, ITIL v3 and ITIL v2. Any of them is not "prescriptive" enough from the tool's design prospective.
And from the tool's prospective, they are quite similar - we should have the similar set of features for supporting any framework from that list.

The only significant difference is in terminology. Where possible, out of the box we primarily use MOF's terms and definitions. If MOF doesn't explain something, we are switching to ITIL V3/V2.

Regards,
Vladimir Bakhmetyev [MSFT]
ITIL v3 Expert, MOF Trainer :-)

19. srpna 2009 20:13

0

Guys,
How can I be MOF Trainer?

19. srpna 2009 20:20

Přispěvatel

0

Hi,

If you become a MCT, Microsoft Certified Trainer, you could deliver courses like 50011A - MOF Essentials (http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/course.aspx?ID =50011A&locale=en-us) and 50012A - MOF Changing Quadrant (http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/course.aspx?ID =50012A&Locale=en-us)

More info about MCT at h ttp://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/certification/mct.aspx

--

Anders Bengtsson
Microsoft MVP - Operations Manager

Microsoft MCT
www.contoso.se

19. srpna 2009 20:37

0

Or ask there: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/forums/en/MOF4/threads/

Vladimir Bakhmetyev [MSFT]

19. srpna 2009 21:06

0

So, MOF trainer = MCT that deliver MOF courses? I don't need a specifc training to be MOF Trainer ? :)

This course are about MOF 3.0, don't have new MOF courses?

19. srpna 2009 21:09

0

Please ask in the MOF forum - they know it for sure :-)

Vladimir Bakhmetyev [MSFT]

19. srpna 2009 21:34

0

Sorry Vlad, I aks this here because I see in your signatur "MOF Trainer" and I think that you cold help.
Sorry again.

23. září 2009 12:48

0

Hello Vladimir
One way to make sure SM will be complaint, to all the needs, all the organisations have, is to make sure it reaches a level
where it resopnds to ISO 20000. There will be many benefits. E.g. you can be certain the tool will meet almost any demands.
The discussion of what "Best Practice" has been foundation for the companys process will not be relevant, etc.

However i think the success of SM lays in the scope of what processes it will support. To create one tool that can satisfy more than lets say MOF v4 and/or ITIL v2 is a mission impossible. Realistic scope, in my opinion, would be be to cover Service Transition and Service Operation, talking ITIL v3 terms.

I really want SM to be a good tool because the reception will be enormously. And since i work with developning and implementing IT Service processes, many companys now will start to does so with SM as the enabler.

Regards
Jens Johansson

22. prosince 2009 21:11

0

I know that the licensing model has not been released as of yet, but I have a question about change management. In the future will all users who are in the approval processes need to be licensed as reps/agents, or will approvers be able to have other limited access to the system? Often in cases a BU manager or a someone from the IT executive mgmt team will need to make an approval to clear something in the system, but don't require any other access.

Thanks
Brad

Enterprise Applications Specialist

7. ledna 2010 19:58

Vlastník

0

Hi Brad - we'll have details available on the licensing model soon.

Travis Wright Senior Program Manager Lead Microsoft

11. ledna 2010 18:19

0

Hy All,

I need to create a ServiceDesk and I´m looking for tools to auxiliate it. I have a software implemented by us to manage requests that should be rewrite. I´m using MOF 4 to describe the processes.
Studing Service Manager I saw that this software have a incident feature but ServiceDesk is more than this. MOF describe that all requests are classified in 4 categories (Information, Service Fullfilment, New Service or Incident resolution). I found only request to Incident resolutions in SCSM. How about another categories?
Do I need to use another tool to register all requests (service desk) or can I change Service Manager Incident Management adding a category field to use a Incident Management like a Service Desk?

What are you suggest?

Thanks.

Rodrigo Muniz

10. června 2010 13:53

0

Hi Rodrigo,

This is a common problem with basic ITSM tools, and unfortunately SCSM (in its current form) isn't much help. In its current release SCSM has no functionality for recording or processing Service Requests. You can use the Incident and Change module for Service Requests, although it's not a very good solution. See my recent communication with Travis here. http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/systemcenterservicemanager/thread/fec60ab4-1aea-4c05-8bf4-a2caa269861c. And the future doesn't sound promising, apparently they are working on Release Management before Request Management!

I'm really keen to implement SCSM because we are using the other SC products and the out-of-the-box integration looks great! If I can get my head around the authoring tool, I might have a go at creating a Request Management module myself.

If you are just starting out there are lots of other tools out there, check out; Track-It, AdventNet, Service-Now.com or BMC Service Desk Express.

Good luck with the Service Desk, starting from scratch can be a very rewarding experience.

ITIL, MOF and SCSM

Všechny reakce

Produkty

Materiály

Řešení

Aktualizace

Zkušební verze

Související weby

Školení

Certifikace

Další materiály

Podpora produktů

Odkazy na podporu