As we look at each of these levels, consider how being
at each of these levels as an organization can impact the perception of you as
the Capacity Manager.
Level 1 –
Initial
•
No process activity
•
Regular capacity breaches and outages
•
Minimal funding
•
No documentation or governance
•
All CM activities are reactive
•
Small pockets of CM – only in technical silos
•
A mixture of platform-specific tools, no CM focus
Processes are undocumented and in a state of dynamic
and chaotic manner. They tend to be
driven in an ad hoc, uncontrolled, and reactive manner. Processes at this level tend to be unstable.
Organizations at Level 1 tend to not have dedicated
Capacity Managers or teams dedicated to Capacity and Performance. If you ask who manages capacity in the
organization, you’ll typically hear that the administrators look at that (and
everything else) and that there aren’t capacity problems often because “they buy
a lot of hardware and make sure problems don’t happen.”
But problems happen anyway, since throwing hardware at
problems doesn’t prevent all of them.
Level 2 –
Repeatable
•
Some acknowledgment of CM – technical silos actively
managing capacity
•
No objectives set, all activities still ad hoc
•
Some process definition, focus is still reactive
•
Pockets of people doing some CM
•
Some key metrics captured, individual data sources
•
Still very component focused
Some processes are repeatable, possibly with
consistent results. Discipline is
unlikely to be rigorous, but where it exists it may help to ensure existing
processes are maintained during stressful periods.
There are organizations at this level that have
Capacity Managers. These tend to be
those organizations who have one person managing thousands of hardware
components, usually with inadequate tools, data, and information. Capacity Managers in these organizations are
frequently thought of as firefighters and are as likely to be thought of as
ineffective as effective, depending on the current day’s crisis.
Level 3 –
Defined
•
Capacity Management exists but communication interfaces
are undefined
•
Objectives set and basic capacity plans produced
•
Processes are defined and documented
•
Key deliverables are being produced – usually manually
•
Roles and responsibilities are defined
•
Component level data is being captured and stored
centrally
•
Reports are being generated automatically
•
Component Capacity Management being done well –
organization at a minimum is looking at Service Capacity Management
Sets of defined and documented standard processes are
established and subject to some degree of improvement over time.
Organizations that have reached this level are doing a
pretty good job of Capacity Management from a technical perspective.
However, in today’s age of cost-cutting, I’d argue
that this isn’t enough to guarantee that you’ll be considered vital to the
future success of the business. I’ve
seen entire Capacity Management groups dissolved only for the organization to
realize a year later how crucial they are.
That’s too late for you, the Capacity Manager.
The key point above to consider is the first one –
Capacity Management has to actively consider and make an effort to put in place
communication interfaces with various processes and teams:
•
Administrators
•
Storage
•
Business analysts
•
IT management
•
Business management
•
Other ITSM processes (Incident, Problem, Change, SLM,
etc.)
Level 4 –
Managed
•
Capacity Management has been fully implemented and
integrated with the business and IT
•
Business objectives are defined (and being met)
•
The process is proactively focused
•
Process, activities, and communication interfaces are
now documented
•
IT is using defined Capacity Management processes and
activities
•
Capacity Management spans all IT with champions
ensuring benefits are understood and being realized
•
Component and service level tools being used
•
Data stored in a CMIS
•
Service Capacity Management has been implemented and
is actively used
Using process metrics, management can effectively
control processes and identify ways to adjust and adapt the process to
particular projects without losses of quality.
Ideally, this is a great goal for an organization and
the Capacity Manager. Having a fully
implemented Capacity Management process with a proactive focus with
communication interfaces defined and actively used means the Capacity Manager
and the team/process is considered a vital part of IT and the business.
Level 5 –
Optimized
•
Capacity Management now embedded in the business and
culture
•
Awareness of Capacity Management company-wide
•
All Capacity Management objectives aligned with the
business objectives
•
Key capacity metrics included in all SLAs with all
reactive/proactive elements understood
•
An experienced and well-trained group supports the Capacity
Management process, including a process owner, manager, and capacity champions
•
All communications / interfaces are defined with
relevant information automatically exchanged
•
A strategic solution has been implemented – includes component,
service, and business data
•
Data captured is being analyzed and correlated using a
CMIS
The focus is on continual improvement through both
incremental and innovative changes / improvements.
Few organizations actually reach this level of
maturity, but there are a few things here that the individual Capacity Manager
can strive to implement.
The two key things here, in my opinion, are
company-wide awareness of Capacity Management as well as the automatic exchange
of information between teams, people, processes, and between IT and the
business.
If Capacity Management is providing value to the rest
of the business automatically, then that frees the Capacity Manager to provide
even more value to the business in other areas, such as finding new interfaces
/ avenues to provide information or even improving the level of knowledge about
specific IT services or the technologies that underpin those services.
Don't forget to fill out and submit our survey to find out where your organization is on the Capacity Management Maturity Scale
Rich Fronheiser
Chief Marketing Officer
No comments:
Post a Comment