FindAboutTermsContactCommentsHelp

maturity

ITSM's fixation with capability maturity

The ITSM community seems to have some fixation with assessing capability maturity, or worse still process management maturity. These are only indirect predictors for what matters: risk and cost-benefits.

Process maturity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for improving service.

Yesterday we looked at how CMM-type maturity is not a measure of how well you are delivering service. CMM only measures sophistication of management, and actually only sophistication of empirical management. The corollary is that maturity assessments are not a measure of whether an improvement exercise was successful, not if the objective was to improve quality of service.

But wait! there's more! Mature management-by-numbers of process is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for improving service.

Practice maturity is a measure of management not performance

Explaining the basic CMM 5-level model today I was reminded of a common misunderstanding about maturity: it measures how sophisticated or smart or advanced you are at managing a practice or process; it doesn't measure how well you are doing it.

OGC gives us an ITIL V3 maturity assessment standard, but they won't publish

A recent blog set me thinking. Since OGC have now set a standard for assessing software products against ITIL processes, that should also form the basis of ITIL maturity assessment too. All we await is OGC publishing the standard. I bet they don't.

Setting the target goal for service management initiatives

When we want to know how to, say, measure a service desk, we can find quite exact guidance everywhere. But it seems to me the depth and specificity (specifity? specificness?) and usefulness of advice is inversely proportional to the importance of the question. Consider the most important question we need answered in a service management initiative.

Syndicate content