<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.itskeptic.org"  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>The IT Skeptic - Comments for &quot;the distinction between organisational change and administrative production change&quot;</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/1113</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;the distinction between organisational change and administrative production change&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Its the same for everything</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/1113#comment-3467</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The same model of all proecss frameworks applies for Change.. You can classify it as appropriateness.. Whether it be governance, project management, software development or service management.. The size and business risk of any implementation determines the level of process.. Change is no different.. Change Acceptance Process (CAP) which considers most of the &quot;people&quot; aspects you seem to highlight in your &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/node/1111&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;previous post&lt;/a&gt; is required at the higher end of the size/risk continuum..&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Change is one big discipline.. ITIL applies it as it feels appropriate to SM but we should create artificial buckets of difference.. If you want to know about change, you need to also look outside ITIL.. Same applies to Incident Management, Change Management, CfM etc.. etc.. etc..&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;$0.02&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brad Vaughan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.sun.com/buraddo&quot; title=&quot;http://blogs.sun.com/buraddo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blogs.sun.com/buraddo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>buraddo</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 3467 at http://www.itskeptic.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
