Funny that you guys are talking about SLAs on tasks. We will be building just that fairly soon (in ITSM 7).
I am not sure if it's a good idea or a workable idea. It was not my idea. But it's going to be built. I've seen companies not want to use tasks at all, especially tasks that are assigned to an area outside of the Change's assignee's. The reason: change is at the mercy of tasks being completed on time. With change and its task(s) touching on multiple ... jurisdictions ...change's sla is not going to be meaningful or fair, in that it doesn't purely measure change assignee's performance. That is unless tasks themselves have SLAs (OLA is the more appropriate term, but the difference is trivial in SLM application). That's what has been requested this time and we will build it. But, I am not sure how it's going to work in practice. As I see it, slas have two purposes. One is operational...try to get things done on time, by setting clear goals & expectations, alerting parties etc before and after etc. Second one is longer term...trend analysis, which can provide feedback on organization's and process's performance and aid with streamlining, refining for better performance in future. First one...I can see happening by simply having slas defined on tasks. However, defining tasks' slas (or OLAs) will be trickier than for change. Tasks' schedule is at the mercy of change's. Timing-wise, I can not yet see what kind of slas will make sense on tasks. Change and its tasks are intertwined at more than one points...in terms of timing of planning, implementation etc. Second one...performance analysis thru historic reporting...it can be done on tasks...but if the goal of having slas on tasks is to measure change's performance more accurately by accounting for task's performance... ...I am not sure how tasks' contribution (or lack of it) to change's sla performance can be added/subtracted so that change's (or change assignee's) performance is isolated and measured...in cases there were tasks done by parties other than change's assignee. If there were tasks assigned both within and outside change's assigned area, it gets complicated. You can get overall performance of IT organization, but not groups. Well, it's going to be built, so I will update you guys later about the mechanics of building it. Conceptually, architecturally it's fairly simple. I am talking somewhat abstractly here. I have to warn you that in the past when I have done that it has sometimes turned out that I was talking non-sense...or that I was doing pointless analysis.:) On this front as well, I can update you guys...as to how well the goals (which I am not completely clear on yet) are met. --- "Lammey, Peter A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It starting to sound like an OLA may make more sense > to apply with the > Tasks. > Since tasks are needed for the success of a Change > Request that is > managed by another group internal to IT then OLAs > should be measured > against the tasks. Not necessarily customer facing > SLAs. > > > > Thanks > Peter Lammey > ESPN MIT Technical Services & Applications > Management > 860-766-4761 > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Timothy > Powell > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 5:54 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT: Rant - SLA - Change / Task > > > ** > > D.M. Jr. (whoever you are), > > > > If you have an overall SLA (SLM) for a change > request, then there MIGHT > be a need for SLA/SLM for change tasks. In a change > request, there are > potentially numerous change tasks. These tasks could > be assigned to > various groups within an organization (think add an > employee.....you > know what I mean...."you" helped design that @work > app in the past). If > the overall responsibility for a change request > resides with Group A, > but some of the tasks reside with GroupB (and/or > GroupC, D, E, etc.), > then the overall CR could be impacted by the failure > of those subsequent > groups to perform their tasks in a timely manner. > Thus Group A might > have the need for an internal SLA/SLM with > GroupB/C/D, etc. > > Think and reply..... > > > > > > Tim > > > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug > Muller Jr > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT: Rant - SLA - Change / Task > > > > ** > > What is this confusion about? How many of the lister > reqlly require SLA > with Change Task? > > > > We can request for enhancement but is it worth it? > > > > Think and reply........................ > > > > -- > D M Jr. > > __20060125_______________________This posting was > submitted with HTML in > it___ > > __20060125_______________________This posting was > submitted with HTML in > it___ > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at > www.arslist.org > Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where > the Answers Are" > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
