I guess the problem relies on the fact that in ITIL v2 Release Mgmt  was below 
Change Mgmt, and in ITIL v3 it's the other way around....
I would have to verify this in ITIL v2 literature, which in my case is 
somewhere gathering dust :-)

On the web, I found this quite interesting:

http://www.itlibrary.org/index.php?page=Release_Management

Release Mgmt mission statement:

"Implement changes to IT services taking a holistic (people, process, 
technology) view which considers all aspects of a change including planning, 
designing, building, testing, training, communications and deployment 
activities."

http://www.itlibrary.org/index.php?page=Change_Management

Change Mgmt mission statement:

"Coordinate and control all changes to IT services to minimize adverse impacts 
of those changes to business operations and the users of IT services."

So in this sense, BMC has adopted the proper naming of the module, i.e. Release 
Mgmt. Still, I would have preferred something like Change Project Mgmt, since 
that immediately denotes a function/process that has a controlling/managing 
nature....and implementors would not have to butt heads with ITIL v2 experts 
out there, on terminology.

Guillaume

________________________________
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [arsl...@arslist.org] on 
behalf of Rick Cook [remedyr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 11:30 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Change Management question

** So you guys can imagine my dilemma - I have one group of very experienced, 
respected and trained people (you guys) telling me something that is 180 
degrees apart from what another group of experienced, respected, and trained 
people (my ITIL experts) are telling me.  And how the tool is set up, although 
it supports what you guys are saying, is deemed to be somewhat irrelevant by 
the other guys.

Welcome to ITIL, huh?

Rick

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:06 AM, strauss 
<stra...@unt.edu<mailto:stra...@unt.edu>> wrote:
**
As near as I can tell, Change Management is the process for continuous 
improvement (or evolution) through corrective changes to a service, and works 
at the component level of the services (CIs, assets, processes).  Release and 
Deployment Management is more the process for quality assurance of all existing 
and planned services - with a more strategic approach.

A few quotes from references on Change and Release Management might help, since 
the ITIL v3 diagrams and texts generally seem to place Change Management and 
Release Management adjacent to each other under Service Transition:

Van Bon, Jan, ed.  Foundations of IT Service Management Based on ITIL V3 (2007):
“Changes can be bundled into a release.”  P.238.

Klosterboer, Larry, Implementing ITIL Change and Release Management (2009):
“Release management is like an orchestra conductor, and change management is 
like the musicians.” P.6
“Change management provides a disciplined approach to implementing IT changes. 
Decommissioning a service, upgrading an infrastructure component, and adopting 
a new delivery process are all examples of changes that should be tracked by 
the change management discipline.  Each change is considered in isolation and 
flows through a set of steps, including identification, documentation, 
assessment, authorization, execution, and evaluation.” P.6-7.
“Release management provides a strategic approach to implementing an IT 
service.” P.7.
“…an IT service is a set of components and service assets that work together to 
provide a unique benefit to the organization.  Before ITIL V3, many 
organizations used the term “IT system” instead of “IT service.”  “System” 
places the focus on IT components, whereas “service” emphasizes value to the 
organization. P.7.
“Service transition consists of the short-term view of change management and 
the long-term view of release management.” P.7.

So, Release Management is Strategic, and Change Management is Operational.  
IMHO, the ITIL V3 model has now added so many overlapping functions to the V2 
model, probably to meet new oversight requirements, that it is no longer 
comprehendible.  It’s no wonder that the software vendors are finding it hard 
to instantiate the ITIL defined “processes” into coherent application modules.  
 I hate to say it, but ITIL is probably overdue for a complete redesign, with 
consolidation and simplification as its goals.

Christopher Strauss, Ph.D.
Call Tracking Administration Manager
University of North Texas Computing & IT Center
http://itsm.unt.edu/
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>] On Behalf Of Rick Cook
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 7:03 AM

To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>
Subject: Re: Change Management question

** I was talking to our local ITIL folks about this this morning, and their 
opinion was that BMC constructed the Release/Change relationship backward - 
that Change should be above Release.  I have heard others say the opposite, so 
maybe that's true, maybe not, and there was agreement about there being 
sufficient wiggle room that a company could use it either way, but that got me 
wondering why BMC did it the way they did it.


Then it hit me.  If they put Release between Change and Task, it would have 
broken up the Change module.  So they put it on top of Change.  The problem 
with that is that the way they have constructed the relationships limits the 
customer's ability to use it in a Change --> Release scenario, due to the fact 
that while Releases can be related to RFCs, they cannot be dependent upon them 
- the Parent/Child scenario only works when Release is on top.  That makes the 
process of monitoring completion of all Releases under a Change a manual one.  
It also makes Tasks almost unusable.  That's not a major problem for us due to 
some other process and tooling issues, but it will be for many.

So against my better judgment, and with the understanding that it is not 
optimal from a scaling and efficiency perspective, I feel that we will end up 
using a Master RFC controlling one or more Releases, which would then 
optionally control one or more subordinate Changes.  I will submit an RFE to 
BMC to enhance the relationship options, but I don't see them changing that any 
time soon.

Rick


_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"

Reply via email to