I just read this post from the ITIL Wizard (http://www.itskeptic.org/node/1861) and first I have to say, I love the humor when it comes to all the acronyms (or are they abbreviations?). The article does touch on a very common theme I notice in my own work place and that’s the escalation of Requests through Incidents. So the article is more related to Changes and Incidents and here I’m comparing Requests to Incidents, but aren’t Requests just low risk, preauthorized Changes with established processes anyway? A common point of confusion at my place of work is when it comes to change in security privileges. Since this is a hospital someone not having the proper security rights means they can’t do their job, and in a hospital that can be a very serious issue and it’s this seriousness that causes the Request to be put into an Incident. Another common scenario is when a Request isn’t fully completed before the Request Record is closed. This usually results in the user contacting the Service Desk, an Incident being created and then someone else going to finish the work that should have been completed before the Request was even closed. So why are these extraneous Incidents opened? I can pretty much sum it up with the simple idea that if we’re using two processes to complete something that in theory should only require one, then the processes aren’t built to meet the needs of the business. To keep it simple; extra work means we’re inefficient. Hmmm……
Comments