audit itil v3 recommandation

1

AIRBUS OIVWITIL Assessment

ITIL recommendation

Versions : Version 1.609/03/2007(Updated version after the assessment of the Spanish Natco)

Author : Antoine GendronSenior [email protected]

March 2007

www.unilog.comwww.unilog-management.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 2

IntroductionModification of the document

Main modifications which have been implemented in the document after the meeting of the 2 February 2007 are the following :

Subject Modifications Commentary Page

GeneralSynthesis of the Natco Gaps Recommendations to apply the Natco gaps 53

General Detail of all actions to reach the level 5 SynthesisLast page of each process and page 51

GeneralMore detailed explanation when Airbus failed to a maturity level (Mandatory questions, bad scoring)

First and last page of each process

General Remedy to be replaced by "Service Management tool" All the document

General

Proposition of an action plan for the main recommendations :- Which recommendations ?- Who, When, How ?

To be done with OIVW responsibles (F. Schyn, T. Chaput...). All activities have to be listed for each recommendations : it would be a new job to get a detailed action plan.

Global action plan (page 54, 55)

General Clarification of the ScopeFirst page of all processes

Incident Management CAD-CAM : example to be deleted 16

Problem Management Responsibilities of Problem Management to be detailed

Problem Management could be implemented within OIVW and a level 2 pilot scope : responsibilities could be detailed for this pilot scope. 23

Problem Management WPM3 : There is a PM procedure. WPM3 has to be modified. 25

Configuration Management

WCONF6 : to be explained (link with databases).Explain the scope of the CMDB to be ITIL compliant : Relationships between CIs to be detailed. 31


IntroductionModification of the document

Main modifications which have been implemented in the document after the meeting of the 2 February 2007 are the following :

Subject Modifications Commentary Page

Change ManagementThere is a change coordinator for German scope (Marek Wulf). 38

Change Management How should be managed the transnational CAB ? 39

Change Management How to manage standard changes? A list of standard changes should be define for the OIVW scope 39

Change Management Change calendar : to be substituted by change schedule 39

Change ManagementProcess to be checked : there is a change management procedure

Procedure sent by Guillaume Legros the 7/02/2007 40

Service Level Management

RSLM1 : The team which manages the Service Catalog is not enough coordinated with the Service Level Manager (eg : Manager of Helpdesk Service Line for OIVW) 48

Service Level Management RSLM2 : which added value for OIVW ? Recommendation deleted Service Level Management

RSLM3 : Airbus does not have “end to end Service Management". 49


IntroductionGoal of the meeting

Goal of the meeting

The goal of the meeting is to introduce the recommendation stage of the OIVW ITIL assessment.

The first stage, AS IS assessment, has been introduced the 16th January 2007.

The recommendations have been introduced the 2nd February 2007.


Introduction

Recommendations are analyzed in the following ways :

Quick Wins or not

Levers to implement the recommendation :

Gains of the recommendation :

LEVERS

Communication change

Training change

Organization change (new position)

System change

Document formalization

Quality Cost


Service Desk AS IS Assessment

Service Desk Assessment

Maturity Level : 4.5 / 5

The scoring for Service Desk is the following :

Maximum attainable scoreAirbus score

OIVW Service Desk organization has passed ITIL level 4.5 and does not fail to mandatory questions.

OIVW is going to pass the level 5 “Customer Interface” when the customer’s surveys will be in a production phase and no more in a pilot phase.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

1.0

Pre

-Req

uis

ites

1.5

Man

agem

ent

Inte

nt

2.0

Pro

cess

Cap

abil

ity

2.5

In

tern

alIn

teg

rati

on

3.0

Pro

du

cts

3.5

Qu

alit

yC

on

tro

l

4.0

Man

agem

ent

Info

rmat

ion

4.5

Ext

ern

alIn

terg

rati

on

5.0

Cu

sto

mer

Inte

rfac

e

Service Desk Results

(Points)

Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Service Desk:

The scope is the IT Service Desk managed by OIVW.


Service Desk AS IS Assessment

Service Desk Assessment (Synthesis)Maturity Level : 4.5 / 5

Main strengths : SSD1 : Service Desk Organization : OIVW

team, T. System teams (150 members)

SSD5 : Quality criteria: Technical Handbook, trainings, Magic and Memento tool

SSD7 : Weekly and monthly reports

SSD8 : Cooperation between OIVW, T. Systems and the Users (ISR) : Service planning, user and ISR committees

Main weaknesses: WSD2 : No full Single Point of Contact : number

"8811" for the travel and business expenses support, logging of Service Request by ISR

WSD3 : User information not well updated in the Magic database

Natco’s gaps : Different helpdesks in Germany (Engineering Helpdesk, dedicated helpdesk in some factory units)


Service Desk Recommendations

Topic : There is not a real Single Point of Contact.

WSD1 : Some users do not know enough the Service Desk scope because they contact the Service Desk for subjects out of Service Desk activities. For example, some users of the French Natco call the Service Desk when they have a Service Request, while they should contact their ISR Risk : Waste of time and Dissatisfaction for the customers

WSD2 : There is not really a Single Point Of Contact. For example, there are ways available to call directly some level 2 Support teams like OCBS. There are also direct numbers for specific services like travel or business expenses support. Service Requests are also directly logged by the ISR : there is no direct Service Desk involvement for the Service Request management. Risk : Airbus employees do not always know which number they have to call when an incident occurs or when they have a Service Request (IT service, travel, business expenses, …)

Topics for improvement Recommendation

RSD1 : Implementation of a Single Point of Contact for the Service Desk

All IT incidents or Service Requests should be into the scope of the Service Desk.

The user should call the Service Desk when an incident occurs or because of a Service Request. It would better that the number to be dialed would be the same one for all type of incidents or Service requests.

There would be also a way to allow the user to log the Incident or the Service Request into the Service Management* database (with a WEB client). These tickets logged by users would be firstly assessed by the Service Desk.

Gain : The gain would be a simplification of the Service Desk procedure for the user. There would be also an industrialization of the recording of Service Requests.

* BMC Remedy tool is going to replace BMC Magic tool. So, the term used is the “Service Management” database or tool.

LEVERS


Training change


System change


Scheme next page

Quality



Illustration of the RSD1 recommendation :

AS IS Recommendation

User

ISR

Service Request Service

Request

IncidentIncident

Dedicated HD(Specific

Services, factory unit)

Service Desk

Level 2

User Service Desk

ISR

Level 2

LEVERS


Training change


System change


Service Request

Incident



Topic : User forms are not well updated

WSD3 : Service Desk agents notice sometimes that user forms are not well updated in the Magic Database (eg : user’s phone, location or department). But they have no rights to update users forms into the Magic tool or the Airbus directory tool (AEDS).Some Airbus users are also not recorded in the Magic tool : 5-7 % of incidents are recorded with unknown users. Risk : User forms are not well updated into Airbus databases


RSD2 : Optimization of the updating of user forms. two solutions are proposed :

First solution : Users can already directly update the user form in the Airbus Directory (desk, phone, location…). Service Desk should explain to users that it is important to be done.

Second solution : The rights to update the use form of the Service Management database could be given to the Service Desk agents. The agents could update the Service Management database which would be interfaced with the Airbus Directory. This solution would need :

To have an interface from the Service Management tool to the Airbus Directory. This interface should be coordinated with the current interface from the Airbus Directory to the Service Management tool.

The quality of the updating of User forms by Service Desk agents should be verified by AEDS administrators.

Gain : The gain would be to have forms better up to date and to have less tickets with “unknown users”. An other gain would be a better satisfaction of users : users don’t like not to be in the Directory when they call the Service Desk.

Quality

LEVERS


Training change


System change




Service Desk recommendations (synthesis)

The scoring for Service Desk was 4.5 / 5 :

OIVW organization is going to pass the level 5 “Customer Interface” when the customer’s surveys will be in a production phase and no more in a pilot phase.

Service Desk recommendations are the following :

Recommendation Quick Wins Gain Scope


No Quality Airbus

RSD2 : Optimization of the updating of user forms.

Yes Quality Airbus


Incident Management AS IS Assessment

Incident Management Assessment


The scoring for Incident Management is the following :


OIVW Incident Management process has passed ITIL level 4.5 and does not fail to mandatory questions.

OIVW is going to pass the level 5 “Customer Interface” when the customer’s surveys will be in a production phase and no more in a pilot phase.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1.0

Pre

-Re

qu

isit

es

1.5

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Inte

nt

2.0

Pro

ce

ss

Ca

pa

bili

ty

2.5

Inte

rna

lIn

terg

rati

on

3.0

Pro

du

cts

3.5

Qu

alit

y C

on

tro

l

4.0

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Info

rma

tio

n

4.5

Ex

tern

al

Inte

gra

tio

n

5.0

Cu

sto

me

rIn

terf

ac

e

(Points)

Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Incident Management :

The Incident Management scope is all IT incidents (Hardware, Software, Application) managed by OIVW for all the Natco (CE, FR, GE, SP, UK).


Incident Management AS IS Assessment

Incident Management Assessment (Synthesis)Maturity Level : 4.5 / 5

Main strengths : SIM1 : Recording of incidents into a Service

Management database : Magic database

SIM2 : Regular meetings with the business representatives (ISR)

SIM4 : Customer information: automatic mails, Web interface

SIM6 : Incident tracking function

Main weaknesses: WIM1 : VIP incidents recorded in a specific database

(AMI database)

WIM2 : More than 1000 level 2 and 3 resolver groups

WIM3 : No preventive alarm : before going over the SLA’s agreed lead time

WIM4 : No systematic OLA between the SD and the non OIVW level 2 resolver groups

Natco’s gaps : There is no specific management for VIP incidents in the Spanish Natco.


Incident ManagementRecommendations

Topic : VIP incidents are logged in the AMI database

WIM1 : VIP incidents are not recorded into the Magic database : VIP incidents are managed by a dedicated team which logs incidents into the AMI database (Access database). Risk : the information about all incidents is not shared by all Service Desk and resolver groups members.


Quick wins

RIM1 : Logging of all incidents in the same database

VIP incidents should be logged in the same database as other incidents (Service Management database).

If Incidents are logged by level 2 teams (eg : OCBS Support), this incidents have also to be logged into the Service Management database.

Gain : It would allow to share the information by all Service Desk and resolver groups members. Quality

LEVERS


Training change


System change





Topic : More than 1000 level 2 and 3 resolver groups

WIM2 : There are more than 1000 level 2 and 3 resolver groups. Risk : It is difficult for the Service Desk to assign the ticket to the relevant resolver group. There are also additional costs for Airbus to manage so many level 2 and 3 resolver groups.

RIM2 : Optimization of the organization of level 2,3 resolver groups

Airbus IT organization would be optimized with the gathering of the level 2 groups : these support groups could be gathered with a tool and business criteria (eg : SAP/Supply Chain like Supairworld, SAP/HR…) or with technologic criteria (Network competence center, Unix Competence Center….).

Gain : The gain for the Service Desk would be to assign tickets easier to the relevant level 2 group. The global gain for Airbus is a cost reduction.

Cost

LEVERS


Training change


System change


Scheme next page


Incident Management Recommendations

Illustration of the RIM2 recommendation

Gathering of Level 2

groups


Service Desk

ticket

Level 2 Level 3

ticket

Service Desk

ticket

Level 2 Level 3

ticket

LEVERS


Training change


System change




Topic : No automatic preventive alarm

WIM3 : There is no automatic preventive alarm into the Magic tool : Magic tool send a mail when the lead time agreed in the SLA is over and not before Risk : The lead time agreed in the SLA is more difficult to be respected


Quick wins

RIM3 : Customization of the Service Management tool

It would be important to customize the Service Management tool in the best way to support ITIL processes. For example, it would be interesting to implement alerts to support the respect of SLA’s lead time. It would be necessary to :

Make the specification of the Service Management tool modification

Customize the Service Management tool (if possible)

Gain : Better respect of the lead time of the SLAsQuality

LEVERS


Training change


System change





Topic : No systematic OLA between SD and the non OIVW level 2 group

WIM4 : There is no systematic OLA between the SD and the non OIVW level 2 resolver groups

Risk : The coordination between SD and non OIVW level 2 groups is not always efficient and some incidents are not resolved as quickly as possible

NB : There is also no OLA between level 2 and level 3 resolver groups

RIM4 : Implementation of an OLA with the Strategic level 2 resolver groups

Firstly, the list of strategic level 2 resolver group (Network-Tel, Portal, ERP…) should be defined.

Then the Operational Level Agreement between the Service Desk and each resolver group should be built.This agreement would define some criteria between the Service Desk and the strategic level 2 groups : it would allow to support the SLA between the Service Desk and the business.For example, a criterion of the OLA between the Service Desk and the specific level 2 group could be to forward tickets from the Service Desk to the level 2 group with a delay of max x minutes (when the ticket need an involvement of the level 2). This OLA should allow to support the SLA between IT department and the business : for example, to resolve 85 % percent of ticket in the agreed lead time (the lead time depends on the Incident category).

Gain : Achievement of the SLA and satisfaction of the users

Quality

LEVERS


Training change


System change




Incident Management recommendations (synthesis)

The scoring for Incident Management Desk is 4.5 / 5 :

OIVW organization is going to pass the level 5 “Customer Interface” when the customer’s surveys will be in a production phase and no more in a pilot phase.

Incident Management recommendations are the following :

Recommendation Quick Wins Gain Scope


Yes Quality OIVW


No Cost Airbus


Yes Quality OIVW

RIM4 : Implementation of an OLA with the Strategic level 2 resolver group

No Quality Airbus


Problem Management AS IS Assessment

Problem Management Assessment

Maturity Level : 1 / 5

The scoring for Problem management is the following :


OIVW Problem Management process has passed ITIL level 1 and failed to level 1.5 because OIVW organization does not have a dedicated Problem Management organization with a problem manager.

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

1.0

Pre

-Req

uis

ites

1.5

Man

agem

ent

Inte

nt

2.0

Pro

cess

Cap

abili

ty

2.5

Inte

rnal

Inte

gra

tio

n

3.0

Pro

du

cts

3.5

Qu

alit

y C

on

tro

l

4.0

Man

agem

ent

Info

rmat

ion

4.5

Ext

ern

al In

teg

rati

on

5.0

Cu

sto

mer

Inte

rfac

e

Problem Management Results

(Points)

Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Problem Management :

The Problem Management scope is all IT problems (Hardware, Software, Application) managed by OIVW for all the Natco (CE, FR, GE, SP, UK).


AS IS AssessmentIncident Management


Input

Pro

ble

m M

an

ag

em

en

t (A

ll N

atc

os

)

Level 1.5 Level 2,3Level 0,1 Output

Many similar incidents without

problem recorded

Resolution of the problem

Closure of the problem

No Resolution of the problem

Resolution of the

problem

Logging of a problem


yes

No

yes


yes

Incident resolved butunderlying cause

unresolved



Problem Management Assessment (Synthesis)Maturity Level : 1 / 5

Main strengths :

SPM1 : Reactive Problem Management aspect : assignment of problems to resolver groups and management of Incidents with common symptoms

SPM6 : Raising of Request For Change on a problem analysis

Main weaknesses:

WPM1 : No proactive Problem Management : no logging of problems before incident occurs

WPM2 : No dedicated budget and team for Problem Management activities

WPM3 : There is not an enough deployed procedure for analysing significant, recurring and unresolved incidents and identifying underlying problems.

Natco’s gaps : No transnational Problem Management : the same problem may be logged in each Natco (eg: network or applicative

server down)


Problem Management Recommendations

Topic : No real Problem Management organization

WPM2 : There is no staff really dedicated to the Problem Management.

Risk : The risk is to have a poor Problem Management without sufficient employee involvement.

WPM4 : There is no global coordination of problems : there is no official Problem Manager

Risk : Problems are not sufficiently managed.


RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management organization. The members of this organization could be the following :

General Problem Manager : a general Problem Manager could manage all the Problem Management process, track unresolved problems and manage the Problem Management reporting.

Local Problem Manager : a local Problem Manager could be nominated for each team : a dedicated local problem manager for the level 1 team, for the 1.5 team and for each strategic level 2 teams (eg : OCBS support…). The local Problem Manager would verify all problems logged by the agents of his group and assign the problems to another group if necessary : all problems would be flagged in the Service Management tool (“verified” or “not verified” by the Local Problem Manager).

Agents : only practiced agents could log Problems into the Service Management database. These agents should be members of level 1, 1.5, 2 or 3 teams. The name of the agent who would have logged the problem into the database should be saved in an historic field.

Gain : to have an organization to manage the problemsQuality

LEVERS


Training change


System change


Scheme next page


Problem ManagementRecommendations

Illustration of the RPM1 recommendation


No Problem Management Organization

General ProblemManager

Level 2 Level 3

LocalProblemManager

Level 1ProblemManager

Service Desk

Level 1.5ProblemManager

LocalProblemManager

Level 2 teams

LEVERS


Training change


System change


Level 3 teams

Level 1teams

Level 1.5teams



Topic : No suitable Problem Management process

WPM1 : Potential problems are assessed and identified but they are not recorded into a database : there is no proactive Problem Management with a logging of proactive problems into a database.

Risk : the risk is that more incidents are going to occur.

WPM3 : There is a procedure but this procedure is not enough deployed for analysing significant, recurring and unresolved incidents and identifying underlying problems. Risk : More incidents can occur if the problems are not identified


RPM2 : Implementation of a Problem Management process

It would be necessary to define the type of problem tobe managed and the Problem Management procedures.There are two types of problem :

Reactive problems : Analysing Incidents as theyOccur. The process could be the following : A reactive problem would be logged by a practiced agent(member of level 1, 1.5, 2, 3 resolution group) when aninvestigation is necessary for one or more incidents.Level 2 or level 3 team members would identify the rootcause and a method of resolving the problem with aWorkaround : a Known Error would be logged into theKnown Error Database.Local Problem Manager of the level 2 or level 3 teams couldalso log a RFC (Request For Change) in the aim of resolving the Known Error. The Local Problem Managerwould log the RFC into the Service Management tool.When the Known Error would be resolved (with or without achange), the Known Error and the linked problem would beclosed.

Proactive problems : Analysing Incidents over differingtime periods and logging problems before incidentsoccur.These problems would be mainly managed by level 2 andLevel 3 team members.

Gain : Reduction of the occurrence of incidentsCost

LEVERS


Training change


System change




Problem ManagementRecommendation

Input

Pro

ble

m M

an

ag

em

en

t (A

ll N

atc

os

)

Level 2 or 3Local manager

Level 1 or 1.5 agents Output

Analyzing incidents and trends

Closure of the problem

Incidents with a necessary

investigation

Level 1 or 1.5Local manager

Level 2 or 3 agents



Verification of the problem

Verification of the problem

Verification of the closure

Logging of a Known Error

RFCLogging of a RFC

?

Resolution of the problem

Yes

Forward to level 2

Investigation

Logging of a RFC

No



Problem Management recommendations (synthesis)The scoring for Problem Management Desk is 1 / 5 :

OIVW organization would pass the level 3.5 “Quality Control” with the implementation of the recommendations RPM1and RPM2 described before.

Then OIVW would pass the level 5 with :

- Level 4 (Management Information) : A full Problem Management reporting solution (analysis of problems, problems of a particular type, potential hot spots…) should be implemented.

- Level 4.5 (External integration) : The integration of Problem Management with other processes is already implemented.

- Level 5 : “Customer Interface” : Customer’s satisfaction surveys should be implemented.

Problem Management recommendations are the following :

Recommendation Quick Wins Gain ScopeRPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management

organization. No Quality Airbus


No Cost Airbus


Configuration Management AS IS Assessment

Configuration Management Assessment


The scoring for Configuration management is the following :


OIVW Configuration Management process has passed ITIL level 1.5 and failed to level 2 : Configuration item naming conventions are different in each Natco, procedures for auditing and analysing configuration Item are missing.

0

5

10

15

20

25

1.0

Pre

-Req

uis

ites

1.5

Man

agem

ent

Inte

nt

2.0

Pro

cess

Cap

abil

ity

2.5

Inte

rnal

Inte

gra

tio

n

3.0

Pro

du

cts

3.5

Qu

alit

y C

on

tro

l

4.0

Man

agem

ent

Info

rmat

ion

4.5

Ext

ern

alIn

teg

rati

on

5.0

Cu

sto

mer

Inte

rfac

e

Configuration Management Results(Points)

Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Configuration Management :

The Configuration Management scope is all Configuration items managed by OIVW for all the Natco (CE, FR, GE, SP, UK). These Configuration Items are the following: IT assets, Software, Licenses, Application, catalog of all software, catalog of PCs…


Configuration Management AS IS Assessment

Configuration Management Assessment (Synthesis)Maturity Level : 1.5 / 5

Main strengths : SCONF1 : Software and hardware databases

(Magic, AAL)

SCONF2 : Management of links between physical servers and databases in the HP scope (Managhas database)

SCONF6 : Measures taken to avoid anomalies (Magic database customization, standard for AAL scope)

SCONF7 : Identified target : 80% of inventory reliability for end 2006

SCONF8 : Management of link between configuration and major changes during the CAB meeting

Main weaknesses: WCONF3 : Poor analyzing and auditing procedure (eg:

there is no historization into the Magic tool). No physical housekeeping (Magic, AAL)

WCONF6 : Many databases but no CMDB approach : managing links between CIs and matching services with IT infrastructure

WCONF8 : Meetings with Financial management but no License management : no way to assess installation against license

Natco’s gaps : Not always the same tool in all Natcos (Software Inventory and Distribution scope : Zenworks for the German Natco

and SMS for other Natcos) Naming convention rules different in each Natco (Inventory Number) Procedures well-known but no full homogenization between Natcos (eg : German users are using a Magic wizard

which is not used by other Natcos) Hardware assets are rented to a financial company and are managed within Excel datasheets in the Spanish Natco.


Configuration Management Recommendations

Topic : Configuration Management tools and process

WCONF3 : There are poor analysing and auditing procedures : there is no historization into the Magic tool (user, status or location modification). There is also no physical housekeeping : a lot of retired assets remain in the Magic database for accountancy reasons (NB : accountancy data are managed in the SAP tool).

Risk : the Magic database is not safe and optimized

WCONF4 : There are naming convention rules different in German and French Natco : Inventory number naming convention rules are different in French Natco from German Natco in the Magic tool Risk : Insufficient transnational cooperation

WCONF6 : There are many databases but not really a database which matches services and IT infrastructure with a CMDB (Configuration Management Database) approach.

Risk : It is not possible to size up the risk of the implementation or the modification of a CI on the Information System


RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and processes to be optimized with the new Service Management tool

Change historization : Airbus could implement the logging of historical changes of CIs in the Service Management tool : historization of previous CI’s locations or users should facilitate the auditing of CI records. (not possible with Magic tool but OK with Remedy tool).

Housekeeping / archiving :Physical housekeeping and archiving could be implemented for the Service Management and AAL tools. Each year, the database should be “backuped” and then the former records should be deleted.

Common procedure :A common procedure for managing the Service Management tool should be implemented in all Natcos. This procedure would be very detailed and would encompass all CIs changes : How to log a new CI, move a CI, retire a CI….. Number naming convention rules should also be detailed in this tool.

LEVERS


Training change


System change


Following next page




RCONF1 : (following) Relationships between CIs :

A CI (Configuration Item) is an IT asset (software, hardware, documentation) : all CIs should be uniquely identified. The information to be recorded for each item would be defined and include the relationships and documentation necessary for effective Service Management. Airbus should also define which categories of CIs have to be managed.The Service Management tool should also facilitate the establishment of relationships between CIs (parent/child, service relationship…).The Service Management tool should also gather CIs data managed currently in many databases : hardware assets, hardware catalog, software installation, software licenses, software catalog. This database should also manage the relationships from CIs with other processes : Incident, Problem, SLAs…..

Customization : The Service Management tool should also be customized to allow the reading/modification of record (eg : employees forms, tickets forms, problems forms…) for each user’s profile (eg : agent, problem manager…). The updating right of each field of the database should also be customized (eg : ticket number, problem assignee…)

Common tool : OIVW should get common tools for each Natco. It would be more easy to get the same process and less expensive to be managed (eg : Distribution and inventory tools).

Gain : to have a safe and useful configuration databaseQuality



Topic : License Management

WCONF8 : License management is not carried out : there is no possibility to match software installations with software licenses. Software installations are managed in the AAL tool. Software Licenses are also managed in the AAL tool but do not encompass all IT licenses of Airbus company and is not enough updated. Risk : the risk is to buy too much or not enough licenses


RCONF2 : License Management against software installation Management to be implemented

OIVW should firstly check all Airbus departments which are managing or buying IT licenses. Then all License information would be centralized into the Service Management database.

All software installation should be centralized into the same database. Software installation are collected with the SMS tool into the Service Management tool.

A Counter should be implemented into the Service Management tool to verify if the number of licenses is matching with the number of installations for each License type.

A workflow of “Installation / Validation” should be implemented. Firstly, there would be a hierarchal validation from his department manager. Then, Only one Airbus agent would authorize technically the installation of a new software. Then, If the technical validation is OK, an other Airbus agent would buy if necessary new licenses.

Gain : Decrease of the License Management costCost

LEVERS


Training change


System change


Scheme next page


Configuration ManagementRecommendations

Illustration of the RCONF2 recommendation : Workflow of “Installation / Validation” :

Installation Request

User

Hierarchal validation

Department Manager

Technical Validation

(Non standard Installation)

Technical agent

License validation

License Manager

OK OK

Installation Non validated

Installationvalidated

Non OK Non OK Non OK

OK



Configuration Management recommendations (Synthesis)

The scoring for Configuration Management Desk is 1.5 / 5 :

OIVW organization would pass the level 5 “Customer Interface” with :

- The implementation of the recommendations RCONF1 and RCONF2 described before.

- Level 5 (Customer Interface) : Customer’s satisfaction surveys should be implemented.

Configuration Management recommendations are the following :

Recommendation Quick Wins Gain ScopeRCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and processes to be optimized with the new Service

Management tool implementation

No Quality OIVW


No Cost Airbus


Change Management AS IS Assessment

Change Management Assessment


The scoring for Change management is the following :


OIVW Change Management process has passed ITIL level 2.5 “Internal Integration” and failed to level 3 “Products” : there is no change calendar of approved changes (except in UK) and there is not enough Change Management reporting.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

1.0

Pre

-R

eq

uis

ite

s

1.5

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Inte

nt

2.0

Pro

ce

ss

Ca

pa

bili

ty

2.5

Inte

rna

lIn

teg

rati

on

3.0

Pro

du

cts

3.5

Qu

alit

y C

on

tro

l

4.0

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Info

rma

tio

n

4.5

Ex

tern

al

Inte

gra

tio

n

5.0

Cu

sto

me

rIn

terf

ac

e

Change Management Results(Points)

Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Change Management :

The Change Management scope encompasses all changes which are OIVW changes : Asset changes, Software changes. OIVW is also CAB member : all the process of change managed by the CAB is also assessed (RFC, CAB validation).


AS IS AssessmentIncident Management Change Management

AS IS Assessment (FR, GE)

Input

Ch

an

ge

ma

na

ge

men

t (F

R, G

E)

CABRequester Output

Change with : -Breaking risk of the Service Delivery- Severe impact

RFC accepted

Logging of a RFC into

Magic

Assessment of the RFC

CAB Decision

Presentation of the RFC to

the CAB

RFC refused

Pending RFC

Accepted

Pending

Updating of the RFC

Refused


AS IS AssessmentIncident Management Change Management

AS IS Assessment (UK)

Input

Ch

an

ge

Ma

nag

em

en

t (U

K)

Change coordinator CABRequester Output

Change with : Breaking risk of the

Service Delivery- Severe impact

Filling of the RFC form

Mailing of the form to the

Change coordinator

RFC Complete

?

Assess priority

Add to change

calendar

Assess impact

Service Catalog review

Log into a spreadsheet and into Magic if transnational impact

RFC accepted

Assessment of the RFC

CAB Decision

RFC refused

Accepted

Refused

Yes

No


Change Management AS IS Assessment

Change Management Assessment (Synthesis)Maturity Level : 2,5 / 5

Main strengths : SCHM1 : Change Management organization :

RFC, CAB

SCHM3 : Assigned roles and responsibilities : CAB chairman, Requesters, Change coordinator (UK, GE)

SCHM6 : Change Management tools : Magic tool, spreadsheets, eroom

Main weaknesses: WCHM2 : No Post Implementation Review

WCHM3 : No RFC assessment and priorisation before to be CAB assessed (except in UK)

WCHM4 : Change already prepared before validation by the CAB

WCHM6 : No central change calendar (except in UK)

WCHM7 : No Change Management reporting (% of RFC with agreed, % of changes with failures…)

Natco’s gaps : RFC are assessed and priorised before to be presented to the CAB only in UK

There are only Change calendars in UK

All Requests for Change are not recorded into the Magic database for the UK scope

Process is not the same for each Natco : ISR log RFC in the French and German Natcos within the Magic tool. Requesters send a form to the change coordinator in the UK Natco.

Requests for Change are firstly logged and assessed in a Lotus Notes tool before to be logged by T. Systems agents into the Magic tool (Spanish Natco).

There is no CAB in the Spanish Natco.


Change Management Recommendations

Topic : Change Management activities

WCHM2 : There is no Post Implementation Review when a change has been done.

Risk : The right implementation of the change is not assessed.

WCHM3 : The change is not assessed and priorised before his presentation to the CAB (Except in UK Natco).

Risk : The CAB has to agree too many changes.

WCHM4 : Many changes are already prepared and ready to be implemented before to be presented to the CAB.

Risk : All the job of change preparation is lost if the CAB refuse the change.

WCHM6 : There is no change schedule of approved changes (except in UK).

Risk : The risk is to have a conflict between two changes during their implementation.

WCHM7 : There are no Change Management reporting (% of RFC with agreed, % of changes with failures…)

Risk : It is not possible to assess the performance of the Change Management process.

Topics for improvement Recommendation RCHM1 : Change Management process to be

implemented A Change Manager (Change Coordinator) should be

designated for each Natco. Request For Change should be recorded into the

Service Management tool for each Natco. Request for Change should be assessed, classified and priorised by the Change Manager before to be sent to the CAB (Change Advisory Board). Standard changes would be verified by the Change Manager and not sent to the CAB : a list of “standard changes” should be defined within OIVW organization. Other changes would be sent to the CAB.

Changes should not be prepared before being validated by the CAB. The CAB should decide before if a change should be prepared or not.

The CAB should also plan all changes in a schedule in order to avoid conflicts during change implementation.

Change Management reporting should also be implemented by the CAB.

CAB should make a PIR (Post Implement Review) when a change has been implemented : this PIR could allow verifying if the business need of the change is satisfied.

A change with a transNatco impact should be firstly assessed by the Natco CAB where the RFC is done. If this CAB would agree the RFC, the Change should be also agreed by a transnational CAB. Members of the transnational CAB would be the Change Manager of each Natco.

Gain : all changes would be managed with a better qualityQuality

LEVERS


Training change


System change


Scheme next page




Input

Ch

an

ge

Ma

nag

em

en

t

CAB OutputRequester

Incident, Problem

No

Filling of the RFC in the S. Management

tool

Request validatio

n ?

Client

Project

RFC refused

Change Manager

No

Priorisation (urgent, non

urgent)

Release Management

RFC accepted

Yes

Categorization (standard,

minor, important,

major)

Standard

change ?

Yes

No

Request

validation ?

Coordination and planning of the change

Change building

Implementation

Post Implementation

Review

No

Tests

Change Preparation

Yes

RFC closedCMDB updated

Implementation by the Service

Desk



Change Management recommendations (Synthesis)

The scoring for Change Management is 2.5 / 5 :

OIVW organization would pass the level 4 “Management Information” with the implementation of the recommendation RCHM1 described before.

Then OIVW would pass the level 5 with :- Level 4.5 (External integration) : The implementation of the Change Management with other processes is to be improved : with Problem Management (changes required to resolve problems / known errors), with Configuration Management (change impact assessment on configuration items) and with Service level Management (potential change impact on service level agreements)- Level 5 (Customer Interface) : Customer’s satisfaction surveys should be implemented.

Change Management recommendations are the following :

Recommendation Quick Wins Gain ScopeRCHM1 : Change Management process to be

implementedNo Quality Airbus


Release Management AS IS Assessment

Release Management Assessment

Maturity Level : 2 / 5

The scoring for Release management is the following :


OIVW Release Management process has passed ITIL level 2 and failed to level 2.5

OIVW organization has failed to the mandatory question : there are not only authorised and tested versions which are installed because too many users are PC administrator (FR : 30-35%, GE)

An other major subject is that license information is not recorded against software installation records 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

1.0

Pre

-Req

uis

ites

1.5

Man

agem

ent

Inte

nt

2.0

Pro

cess

Cap

abili

ty

2.5

Inte

rnal

Inte

gra

tio

n

3.0

Pro

du

cts

3.5

Qu

alit

y C

on

tro

l

4.0

Man

agem

ent

Info

rmat

ion

4.5

Ext

ern

al In

teg

rati

on

5.0

Cu

sto

mer

Inte

rfac

e

Release Management Results

(Points)

Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Release Management :

The Release Management scope is all releases about Configuration Items managed by OIVW. Releases which are concerned are mainly Software releases.



Release Management Assessment (Synthesis)Maturity Level : 2 / 5

Main strengths :

SRM1 : Many tools : AAL tool (application validation), SMS and Zenworks (distribution, automatic inventory)

SRM3 : Assignment of Release Management responsibilities : project leader, operational groups (building, testing, implementing releases)

SRM4 : Availability of a Definitive Software Library : shared server which contains all master copies

SRM5 : Numbering conventions for each release

Main weaknesses:

WRM2 : Too many PC administrators rights for the users (except in UK)

WRM3 : No license management

WRM4 : No back-out plan produced for each release

WRM5 : Insufficient Release Management training (AAL tool) : project leaders do not use enough all AAL functionalities

Natco’s gaps : The gap is that the automatic inventory and distribution tool is not the same in all Natcos : SMS for FR, UK, SP and

Zenworks for GE.

There are many PC administrator rights for many users for FR and GE Natco but not for UK and Spanish Natco.

SMS administrator verifies that only safe and authorised versions of software are installed : he can also uninstall the relevant software versions (only in the Spanish Natco).



Topic : Software Release Management activities

WRM2: There are not only authorised and tested versions which are installed because too many users are PC administrator in the French and German Natco (about 35% for the French Natco).

Risk : There is no good License Management and there is a security risk.

WRM4 : There is not really a back-out plan produced for each release. The N-1 version is stored and a "N-1" come back is possible.

Risk : The risk is to have a service break after an implementation

WRM5 : There is an insufficient Release Management training (AAL tool scope) : project leaders do not enough use all AAL functionalities (eg : most of project leaders can not manage the functional validation stage)

Risk : Project leaders do not use all AAL benefits


RRM1 : Release Management activities to be optimized

Only authorized and tested versions should be installed in the Airbus company. Users should not be PC administrator. A communication should be done on this subject and then PC administrator rights should be removed.

Release Management activities should be coordinated with the CAB. Changes which are not standard changes should need a CAB involvement : the CAB should authorize the implementation of a change after the test phase.

Back-out plans should be produced and tested before the implementation of each release.

Project leaders should be trained to the using of the AAL tool.

Gain : to have more industrialized Release Management activities.Quality

LEVERS


Training change


System change




Release Management recommendations (synthesis)

The scoring for Release Management is 2 / 5 :

OIVW organization would pass the level 3.5 “Quality Control” with the implementation of the recommendation RRM1 described before.

Then OIVW would pass the level 5 with :

Level 4 (Management Information) : There should be an implementation of a full Release Management reporting solution (number of major/minor releases, number of problems in the live environment attributable to new releases…) Level 4.5 (external integration) : The integration of Release Management with other processes is already implemented. Level 5 (Customer Interface) : Customer’s satisfaction surveys should be implemented.

Release Management recommendations are the following :

Recommendation Quick Wins Gain ScopeRRM1 : Release Management activities to be

optimizedNo Quality OIVW


Service Level Management AS IS Assessment

Service Level Management Assessment


The scoring for Service Level Management is the following :


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

1.0

Pre

-Req

uis

ites

1.5

Man

agem

ent

Inte

nt

2.0

Pro

cess

Cap

abili

ty

2.5

Inte

rnal

Inte

gra

tio

n

3.0

Pro

du

cts

3.5

Qu

alit

y C

on

tro

l

4.0

Man

agem

ent

Info

rmat

ion

4.5

Ext

ern

alIn

teg

rati

on

5.0

Cu

sto

mer

Inte

rfac

e

Service Level Management Results

OIVW Service Level Management process has passed ITIL level 3.5 and failed to level 4 because there is not enough SLM reporting.

(Points)

Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Service Level Management :

The Service Level Management scope is all Service Level activities which impact OIVW. The scope is mainly Service Level Agreement from OIVW with the client (Airbus business teams) and the operational agreement with subcontractors (T. Systems) or with other partner which deliver the Service for the SLA (level 2,3 resolver groups…). The OIVW Service Catalog is also in the assessment scope.


Service Level Management AS IS Assessment

Service Level Management Assessment (Synthesis)Maturity Level : 3 / 5

Main strengths : SSLM2 : SLAs, OLAs

SSLM5 : Publishing of an Intranet Service Catalog

SSLM6 : Identified key targets for service hours, availability, reliability, support, response times for SLAs

Main weaknesses:

WSLM2 : No implemented process to update the Service catalog (Mercury tool)

WSLM3 : Not enough Service Level Management Reporting to the management (eg : number of requests for new services…)

WSLM4 : Service Level Management is not a CAB member

WSLM5 : There are not enough indicators between IT and the business in the SLA.

Natco’s gaps :

There is no gap


Service Level Management Recommendations

Topic : Catalog of Service not updated

WSLM2 : the Catalog of Service is based on a Mercury tool technology. There is no process implemented to update this tool and this tool is not easy to be used for the OIVW Service catalog manager.

Moreover, the team which manages the Service Catalog is not enough coordinated with the OIVW Service Catalog Manager.

Risk : the Catalog of Service tool is not enough updated (Mercury tool).


RSLM1 : Catalog of service to be managed

A procedure should be defined to update the Mercury ITG tool.

This procedure should be presented to all catalog manager during a training session.

OIVW should implement a review of the ITG tool to verify if the catalog is well updated with all services modification.

Gain : to have a Service Catalog up to date.Quality

LEVERS


Training change


System change




Topic : No “end to end” Service Management indicator

WSLM5 : There is no “end to end” indicator between IT and the business.

AS IS Indicators in the Help Desk Service Line are the following :

First Call Resolution : 80% of incidents solved by the Service Desk < 20 mn for level 1 and < 30 mn for level 1.5

First level Resolution : > 90% incidents solved by the Service Desk level 1.

Phone Call answered in less than 30 s Phone call hang up : < 6% of phone call

to hang up before answered User administration efficiency

These indicators are only between the Service Desk (level 0,1,1.5) and the business.

Risk : Dissatisfaction of the business


RSLM2 : Indicators to be implemented

Indicators between the business and all the support teams (Service Desk, level 2, level 3) should be defined :

An indicator of incident resolving should be shared by the Service Desk, the level 2 and the level 3 groups. This indicator could be : “resolution of x% of incidents in the agreed lead time of the SLA”

OIVW should define OLAs with strategic level 2 groups (Network-Tel, Portal,…) in order to reach the SLA.

Gain : better satisfaction of the business and better coordination with level 2 and level 3 groups.

Quality

LEVERS


Training change


System change




Service Level Management recommendations (Synthesis)

The scoring for Service Level Management is 3.5 / 5 :

OIVW organization would pass the level 5 “Customer interface” with :

- Level 4 (Management reporting) : A SLM reporting solution should be implemented (number of requests for new/changed services, monitoring charts…)- Level 4.5 (External Integration) : The implementation of the Service Level Management with other processes is to be improved : with Change Management (impact of changes to SLAs), with Financial Management (negotiation of SLAs), with Incident management (implementation of SLAs in the Service Desk tool).- Level 5 (Customer Interface) : Customer’s satisfaction surveys should be implemented.

Service Level Management recommendations are the following :

Recommendation Quick wins Gain ScopeRSLM1 : Catalog of service to be managed No Quality Airbus

RSLM2 : Indicator to be implemented No Quality Airbus


Presentation of our findingsSynthesis of the level to target

Synthesis of the level to target : ITIL Process AS IS

level

Intermediate

target

How to reach the intermediate Target ? How to reach the level 5 ?

Service Desk4.5 5 - Level 5 : Customer surveys should be in a production

phaseIdem intermediate target

Incident Management

4.5 5 - Level 5 : Customer surveys should be in a production phase

Idem intermediate target

Problem Management

1 3.5 - RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management organization

- RPM2 : Implementation of a Problem Management process

- Level 4 : Implementation of a Problem Management reporting solution

- Level 4.5 : already implemented

- Level 5 : Customer’s satisfaction surveys to be implemented


1.5 5 - RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and processes to be optimized

- RCONF2 : License Management to be implemented



Change Management

2.5 4 - RCHM1 : Change Management process to be implemented

- Level 4.5 : External Integration with other processes like Problem Management, Configuration Management, Service Level Management should be implemented


Release Management

2 3.5 - RRM1 : Release Management activities to be optimized - Level 4 : Implementation of a Release Management reporting solution

- Level 4.5 : already implemented



3.5 5 - Level 4 : Implementation of a Service Level Management reporting solution

- Level 4.5 : External Integration : Change Management, Financial Management, Incident Management




Presentation of our findingsSynthesis

The ITIL assessment of the audited processes is the following:

Incident

ManagementChange

Management

Problem

Management

Service Level

Management

January 2007

Service Desk Release

Management

Configuration

Management

Lvl1 : Chaos

Lvl2 : Reactive

Lvl.3 : Proactive

Lvl.4 : Service

Lvl.5 : Value

Target (end 2007)


Presentation of our findingsSynthesis of the Natco Gaps

Synthesis of the Natco Gaps and the main failures of the transnational organization :ITIL Process Natco Gaps / Failures of the transnational organization Recommendations to apply Natco gapsService Desk Different helpdesks in Germany (Engineering Helpdesk, dedicated helpdesk

in some factory units)RSD1 : Implementation of a Single Point of Contact for the Service Desk

Incident Management

No Gap /

Problem Management

No transnational Problem Management : the same problem may be logged in each Natco (eg: network or applicative server down)

RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management organization



Not always the same tool in all Natcos (Software Inventory and Distribution scope : Zenworks for the German Natco and SMS for other Natcos)

RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and processes to be optimized with the new Service Management tool implementation (Common tool)

Naming convention rules different in each Natco (Inventory Number)Procedures well-known but no full homogenization between Natcos (eg : German users are using a Magic wizard which is not used by other Natcos)

RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and processes to be optimized with the new Service Management tool implementation (Common procedure)

Change Management

RFC are assessed and priorised before to be presented to the CAB only in UKThere are only Change schedules in UKAll Requests for Change are not recorded in the Magic database for the UK scopeProcess is not the same for each Natco : ISR log RFC in the French and German Natcos within the Magic tool. Requesters send a form to the change coordinator in the UK Natco.There is no transnational CAB

RCHM1 : Change Management process to be implemented

Release Management

There are many PC administrator rights for many users for FR and GE Natco but not for UK Natco



No Gap /


Presentation of our findingsPreparation of an action plan (1/2)

A global action plan should be built. Then a detailed action plan should be built for each recommendation : all actions of each recommendations would be defined.

Process Recommendation Quick wins

Gain Scope Priority

(High, Medium, Low)

Actors Scheduled Date

Workload Commentary

Service

Desk


No Standardization Airbus

Service

Desk

RSD2 : Optimization of the updating of user forms.

Yes Quality Airbus

Incident

Management


Yes Quality OIVW

Incident

Management


No Cost Airbus

Incident

Management


Yes Quality OIVW

Incident

Management

RIM4 : Implementation of an OLA with the Strategic level 2 resolver group

No Quality Airbus

Problem

Management

RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management organization

No Quality Airbus Could be implemented firstly within OIVW and a pilot level 2 organization

Problem

Management


No Cost Airbus Idem RPM1


Presentation of our findings Preparation of an action plan (2/2)

Process Recommendation Quick wins

Gain Scope Priority

(High, Medium, Low)

Actors Scheduled Date

Workload Commentary

Configuration

Management

RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and processes to be optimized with the new Service Management tool implementation

No Quality

OIVW

Configuration

Management


No Cost Airbus

Change

Management

RCHM1 : Change Management process to be implemented

No Quality

Airbus

Release Management


No Quality

OIVW

Service Level

Management

RSLM1 : Catalog of service to be managed

No Quality

Airbus

Service Level

Management

RSLM2 : Indicator to be implemented

No Quality

Airbus


OIVW ITIL Assessment

© AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

This document and all information contained herein is the sole property of AIRBUS S.A.S.. No intellectual property rights are granted by the delivery of this document or the disclosure of its content. This document shall not be reproduced or disclosed to a third party without the express written consent of AIRBUS S.A.S. This document and its content shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied.

The statements made herein do not constitute an offer. They are based on the mentioned assumptions and are expressed in good faith. Where the supporting grounds for these statements are not shown, AIRBUS S.A.S. will be pleased to explain the basis thereof.

AIRBUS, its logo, A300, A310, A318, A319, A320, A321, A330, A340, A350, A380, A400M are registered trademarks.

audit itil v3 recommandation

Documents

oivw itil assessmentwww

oivw responsibles

service level manager

service management toolall

service level managementrslm1

itil compliant

detailedproblem management

change managementhow