Staying with our Ad hoc retailer the second typical report is that
relating capacity management to other main ITSM processes.
Across the top are the three main sub-processes, resource/component,
service and business capacity management.
Down the side is a list of all the related activities.
In each cell there is a standard description of typical
relationships and their manifestations.
Again, traffic-light colors are used to indicate where
there are issues and risks with appropriate local edits to each description.
Grey or black is used to indicate comments that are not
significant at this site.
Red is clearly used for major issues.
Orange is used for issues that are of concern.
Off-yellow is used for areas where things are “on the
edge” of becoming an issue.
In this case there are some significant areas in red –
though some risks have been left in grey as the site has made conscious
decisions as to their lack of local relevance.
A third report shows the data flows across ITSM processes
with the effectiveness of interfaces between capacity management and other
processes.
The first column describes what is expected from other
processes to capacity management.
The second column shows what is expected from capacity
management to other processes.
This is then addressed for availability management, then
change management, configuration management, continuity, financial, incident,
problem and so on.
These initial reports allow a preliminary view of the
capacity management process to be discussed early in the project. This initial deliverable is a useful test of
the water to make sure that there are no surprises later.
At this sample site, an amalgam of real sites,
development rules the roost and projects are well coordinated. The IT infrastructure is viewed largely as an
event management facility to ensure availability. Performance targets are few and are
essentially deadlines for batch completion overnight.
Initial findings in the Capacity Management Process were:
Monitoring and event
management is in place
Performance and Capacity Management less
so
Largely living of
previous ‘fat’ in headroom
Essentially now
re-active based on fire fighting
Ad hoc reactions to meet
specific project needs
SDLC development driven
rather than ITIL
No infrastructure or IT
service delivery view
Project driven rather
than process (need both)
Application oriented
rather than service
Silo oriented, kingdoms,
frontiers, lack of liason
Little capacity or
performance detail in Project Initiation Charter(PIC)
PIC tends to be sized
only for new projects
Little workload review
of growth or business need
SLA tracking and
reporting mostly on availability
Total service and server
views missing
The main concerns, identified in the interview process,
were the lack of communication or awareness of other platforms or
processes. A silo oriented set of
fiefdoms ruled each domain.
Sometimes such observations are already well known to
those who asked for the project, but not always, so presentation of this
initial tester often yields an interesting meeting.
Next week I’ll look in further detail at the tools and Capacity Management Process
deliverables and how well they are used to meet their needs…..don't forget to sign up for our webinar 'IT Capacity Management 101'
http://www.metron-athene.com/services/training/webinars/index.html
Adam Grummitt
Distinguished Engineer