You are on page 1of 56

AIRBUS OIVW ITIL Assessment

ITIL recommendation
Versions : Version 1.6 09/03/2007 (Updated version after the assessment of the Spanish Natco)

March 2007

Author : Antoine Gendron Senior Consultant antoinegendron@yahoo.fr 1

Introduction Modification of the document
Main modifications which have been implemented in the document after the meeting of the 2 February 2007 are the following :
Subject General General General General Modifications Synthesis of the Natco Gaps Recommendations to apply the Natco gaps Detail of all actions to reach the level 5 More detailed explanation when Airbus failed to a maturity level (Mandatory questions, bad scoring) Remedy to be replaced by "Service Management tool" Synthesis Commentary Page 53 Last page of each process and page 51 First and last page of each process All the document

General General Incident Management

Proposition of an action plan for the main recommendations : - Which recommendations ? - Who, When, How ? Clarification of the Scope CAD-CAM : example to be deleted

To be done with OIVW responsibles (F. Schyn, T. Chaput...). All activities have to be listed for each recommendations : it would be a new job to get a detailed action plan.

Global action plan (page 54, 55) First page of all processes 16

Problem Management Problem Management Configuration Management

Responsibilities of Problem Management to be detailed WPM3 : There is a PM procedure. WPM3 has to be modified. WCONF6 : to be explained (link with databases). Explain the scope of the CMDB to be ITIL compliant : Relationships between CIs to be detailed.

Problem Management could be implemented within OIVW and a level 2 pilot scope : responsibilities could be detailed for this pilot scope.

23 25 31

www.unilog-management.com www.unilog.com

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

2

Introduction Modification of the document
Main modifications which have been implemented in the document after the meeting of the 2 February 2007 are the following :
Subject Change Management Change Management Change Management Change Management Change Management Modifications There is a change coordinator for German scope (Marek Wulf). How should be managed the transnational CAB ? Commentary Page 38 39 39 39 40

Service Level Management Service Level Management Service Level Management

A list of standard changes should be How to manage standard changes? define for the OIVW scope Change calendar : to be substituted by change schedule Process to be checked : there is a change management Procedure sent by Guillaume Legros procedure the 7/02/2007 RSLM1 : The team which manages the Service Catalog is not enough coordinated with the Service Level Manager (eg : Manager of Helpdesk Service Line for OIVW) RSLM2 : which added value for OIVW ? RSLM3 : Airbus does not have “end to end Service Management". Recommendation deleted

48

49

www.unilog-management.com www.unilog.com

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

3

Introduction Goal of the meeting
Goal of the meeting

 The goal of the meeting is to introduce the recommendation stage of the
OIVW ITIL assessment.  The first stage, AS IS assessment, has been introduced the 16th January 2007.  The recommendations have been introduced the 2nd February 2007.

www.unilog-management.com www.unilog.com

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

4

Introduction

Recommendations are analyzed in the following ways :

 Quick Wins or not  Levers to implement the recommendation :
LEVERS
Communication  change

 Training change Organization  change (new  Document  formalization
position) System change

 Gains of the recommendation :
Quality Cost

www.unilog-management.com www.unilog.com

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT

5

OIVW is going to pass the level 5 “Customer Interface” when the customer’s surveys will be in a production phase and no more in a pilot phase.5 and does not fail to mandatory questions.5 External Intergration 2.5 / 5 OIVW Service Desk organization has passed ITIL level 4.unilog.0 Pre-Requisites 1. Maximum attainable score Airbus score www.0 Customer Interface 3.0 Process Capability 1.5 Quality Control 4.unilog-management. Service Desk Results (Points) 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 3.com www.5 Internal Integration 6 .0 Management Information 5.5 Management Intent Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Service Desk: The scope is the IT Service Desk managed by OIVW.0 Products 2.Service Desk AS IS Assessment  Service Desk Assessment The scoring for Service Desk is the following : Maturity Level : 4.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 4.

T.com www. logging of Service Request by ISR WSD3 : User information not well updated in the Magic database  Natco’s gaps :  Different helpdesks in Germany (Engineering Helpdesk. trainings. user and ISR committees  Maturity Level : 4.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 7 . T.5 / 5 Main weaknesses: WSD2 : No full Single Point of Contact : number "8811" for the travel and business expenses support. dedicated helpdesk in some factory units) www. Magic and Memento tool SSD7 : Weekly and monthly reports SSD8 : Cooperation between OIVW.Service Desk AS IS Assessment  Service Desk Assessment (Synthesis) Main strengths :     SSD1 : Service Desk Organization : OIVW team.unilog-management.unilog. System teams (150 members) SSD5 : Quality criteria: Technical Handbook. Systems and the Users (ISR) : Service planning.

com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 8 .unilog-management. It would better that the number to be dialed would be the same one for all type of incidents or Service requests. The user should call the Service Desk when an incident occurs or because of a Service Request. Service Requests are also directly logged by the ISR : there is no direct Service Desk involvement for the Service Request management.unilog.  WSD1 : Some users do not know enough the Service Desk scope because they contact the Service Desk for subjects out of Service Desk activities.Service Desk Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : There is not a real Single Point of Contact. * BMC Remedy tool is going to replace BMC Magic tool. For example. There would be also a way to allow the user to log the Incident or the Service Request into the Service Management* database (with a WEB client). There would be also an industrialization of the recording of Service Requests. while they should contact their ISR  Risk : Waste of time and Dissatisfaction for the customers WSD2 : There is not really a Single Point Of Contact. So. …)  LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new    Document  formalization position) System change  Gain : The gain would be a simplification of the Quality Scheme next page  www. For example. Service Desk procedure for the user. the term used is the “Service Management” database or tool. These tickets logged by users would be firstly assessed by the Service Desk. business expenses.com www. Recommendation  RSD1 : Implementation of a Single Point of Contact for the Service Desk  All IT incidents or Service Requests should be into the scope of the Service Desk. there are ways available to call directly some level 2 Support teams like OCBS. travel. There are also direct numbers for specific services like travel or business expenses support. some users of the French Natco call the Service Desk when they have a Service Request.  Risk : Airbus employees do not always know which number they have to call when an incident occurs or when they have a Service Request (IT service.

factory unit) User Incident User Service Desk Incident Service Desk Incident LEVERS Level 2 Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new Level 2  Document  formalization www.com www.Service Desk Recommendations Illustration of the RSD1 recommendation : AS IS Recommendation ISR Service Request Service Request ISR Service Request Dedicated HD (Specific Services.unilog-management.unilog.com position) System change AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 9 .

An other gain would be a better satisfaction of users : users don’t like not to be in the Directory when they call the Service Desk. location…). Second solution : The rights to update the use form of the Service Management database could be given to the Service Desk agents.com www.  WSD3 : Service Desk agents notice sometimes that user forms are not well updated in the Magic Database (eg : user’s phone. location or department).com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 10 . But they have no rights to update users forms into the Magic tool or the Airbus directory tool (AEDS). two solutions are proposed :  First solution : Users can already directly update the user form in the Airbus Directory (desk. This interface should be coordinated with the current interface from the Airbus Directory to the Service Management tool. The agents could update the Service Management database which would be interfaced with the Airbus Directory.unilog-management. Some Airbus users are also not recorded in the Magic tool : 5-7 % of incidents are recorded with unknown users. This solution would need :  To have an interface from the Service Management tool to the Airbus Directory.unilog. www.  Risk : User forms are not well updated into Airbus databases  LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new  Document  formalization position) System change Quality  Gain : The gain would be to have forms better up to date and to have less tickets with “unknown users”.  The quality of the updating of User forms by Service Desk agents should be verified by AEDS administrators. phone.Service Desk Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : User forms are not well updated Recommendation  RSD2 : Optimization of the updating of user forms. Service Desk should explain to users that it is important to be done.

com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 11 .com www.Service Desk Recommendations  Service Desk recommendations (synthesis) The scoring for Service Desk was 4.unilog-management.unilog.5 / 5 : OIVW organization is going to pass the level 5 “Customer Interface” when the customer’s surveys will be in a production phase and no more in a pilot phase. Quick Wins No Yes Gain Quality Quality Scope Airbus Airbus www. Service Desk recommendations are the following : Recommendation RSD1 : Implementation of a Single Point of Contact for the Service Desk RSD2 : Optimization of the updating of user forms.

5 Management Intent Maximum attainable score Airbus score www.unilog-management.0 Process Capability 2.0 Management Information 5.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 4. UK).0 Products 12 . FR. Software. SP. 15 10 5 0 3.5 Quality Control 1. OIVW is going to pass the level 5 “Customer Interface” when the customer’s surveys will be in a production phase and no more in a pilot phase.Incident Management AS IS Assessment  Incident Management Assessment The scoring for Incident Management is the following : Maturity Level : 4.com www.5 External Integration 1.5 and does not fail to mandatory questions.5 Internal Intergration 3.5 / 5 20 (Points) 30 25 OIVW Incident Management process has passed ITIL level 4.0 Customer Interface 2. GE.unilog.0 Pre-Requisites 4. Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Incident Management : The Incident Management scope is all IT incidents (Hardware. Application) managed by OIVW for all the Natco (CE.

unilog-management.Incident Management AS IS Assessment  Incident Management Assessment (Synthesis) Main strengths :     SIM1 : Recording of incidents into a Service Management database : Magic database SIM2 : Regular meetings with the business representatives (ISR) SIM4 : Customer information: automatic mails. www.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 13 .5 / 5 Main weaknesses: WIM1 : VIP incidents recorded in a specific database (AMI database) WIM2 : More than 1000 level 2 and 3 resolver groups WIM3 : No preventive alarm : before going over the SLA’s agreed lead time WIM4 : No systematic OLA between the SD and the non OIVW level 2 resolver groups Natco’s gaps :  There is no specific management for VIP incidents in the Spanish Natco.com www. Web interface SIM6 : Incident tracking function     Maturity Level : 4.unilog.

If Incidents are logged by level 2 teams (eg : OCBS Support). this incidents have also to be logged into the Service Management database. Gain : It would allow to share the information by all Service Desk and resolver groups members. Quality   LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new  Document  formalization position) System change www.com www.  Risk : the information about all incidents is not shared by all Service Desk and resolver groups members.unilog-management.Incident Management Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : VIP incidents are logged in the AMI database Recommendation  RIM1 : Logging of all incidents in the same database  VIP incidents should be logged in the same database as other incidents (Service Management database).  WIM1 : VIP incidents are not recorded into the Quick wins Magic database : VIP incidents are managed by a dedicated team which logs incidents into the AMI database (Access database).unilog.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 14 .

There are also additional costs for Airbus to manage so many level 2 and 3 resolver groups.com www.Incident Management Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : More than 1000 level 2 and 3 resolver groups Recommendation  RIM2 : Optimization of the organization of level 2. The global gain for Airbus is a cost reduction.  WIM2 : There are more than 1000 level 2 and 3 resolver groups.3 resolver groups  Airbus IT organization would be optimized with the gathering of the level 2 groups : these support groups could be gathered with a tool and business criteria (eg : SAP/Supply Chain like Supairworld. SAP/HR…) or with technologic criteria (Network competence center.).  Cost LEVERS Communication change  Training change Organization change (new  Document formalization position) System change Scheme next page  15 www.unilog. Unix Competence Center…. Gain : The gain for the Service Desk would be to assign tickets easier to the relevant level 2 group.unilog-management.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT .  Risk : It is difficult for the Service Desk to assign the ticket to the relevant resolver group.

Incident Management Recommendations Illustration of the RIM2 recommendation AS IS Level 2 Level 3 Gathering of Level 2 groups Recommendation Level 2 Level 3 Service Desk ticket ticket Service Desk ticket ticket LEVERS Communication change  Training change Organization change (new  Document formalization position) System change www.unilog-management.com www.unilog.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 16 .

Incident Management Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : No automatic preventive alarm Recommendation  RIM3 : Customization of the Service Management tool  It would be important to customize the Service Management tool in the best way to support ITIL processes.com www. For example.unilog-management. it would be interesting to implement alerts to support the respect of SLA’s lead time. It would be necessary to :  Make the specification of the Service Management tool modification  Customize the Service Management tool (if possible)  WIM3 : There is no automatic preventive alarm into the Magic tool : Magic tool send a mail when the Quick wins lead time agreed in the SLA is over and not before  Risk : The lead time agreed in the SLA is more difficult to be respected Quality  Gain : Better respect of the lead time of the SLAs LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new  Document  formalization www.unilog.com position) System change AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 17 .

Portal.unilog.com position) System change Quality  Gain : Achievement of the SLA and satisfaction of the users AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 18 .  WIM4 : There is no systematic OLA between the SD and the non OIVW level 2 resolver groups  Risk : The coordination between SD and non OIVW level 2 groups is not always efficient and some incidents are not resolved as quickly as possible  NB : There is also no OLA between level 2 and level 3 resolver groups LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new  Document  formalization www. This agreement would define some criteria between the Service Desk and the strategic level 2 groups : it would allow to support the SLA between the Service Desk and the business. Then the Operational Level Agreement between the Service Desk and each resolver group should be built.Incident Management Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : No systematic OLA between SD and the non OIVW level 2 group Recommendation  RIM4 : Implementation of an OLA with the Strategic level 2 resolver groups  Firstly.com www.unilog-management. the list of strategic level 2 resolver group (Network-Tel. ERP…) should be defined. a criterion of the OLA between the Service Desk and the specific level 2 group could be to forward tickets from the Service Desk to the level 2 group with a delay of max x minutes (when the ticket need an involvement of the level 2). For example. This OLA should allow to support the SLA between IT department and the business : for example. to resolve 85 % percent of ticket in the agreed lead time (the lead time depends on the Incident category).

com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 19 . Incident Management recommendations are the following : Recommendation RIM1 : Logging of all incidents in the same database RIM2 : Optimization of the organization of level 2.5 / 5 : OIVW organization is going to pass the level 5 “Customer Interface” when the customer’s surveys will be in a production phase and no more in a pilot phase.3 resolver groups RIM3 : Customization of the Service Management tool RIM4 : Implementation of an OLA with the Strategic level 2 resolver group Quick Wins Yes No Yes No Gain Quality Cost Quality Quality Scope OIVW Airbus OIVW Airbus www.unilog.Incident Management Recommendations  Incident Management recommendations (synthesis) The scoring for Incident Management Desk is 4.com www.unilog-management.

Maximum attainable score Airbus score www.5 because OIVW organization does not have a dedicated Problem Management organization with a problem manager. GE. UK).0 Management Information 4.0 Process Capability 1.5 External Integration 2.5 Quality Control 3. Application) managed by OIVW for all the Natco (CE. Problem Management Results (Points) 1 8 1 5 1 2 9 6 3 3.Problem Management AS IS Assessment  Problem Management Assessment The scoring for Problem management is the following : Maturity Level : 1 / 5 OIVW Problem Management process has passed ITIL level 1 and failed to level 1.unilog-management.5 Management Intent 2.0 Customer Interface Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Problem Management : 0 20 . Software.0 Pre-Requisites The Problem Management scope is all IT problems (Hardware.unilog.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 5. SP. FR.com www.0 Products 4.5 Internal Integration 1.

3 Output Incident resolved but underlying cause unresolved Many similar incidents without problem recorded Logging of a problem Logging of a problem Logging of a problem Closure of the problem Resolutio n of the problem yes No Resolutio n of the problem yes No Resolutio n of the problem yes m e l bo rP www.unilog.unilog-management.1 Level 1.5 Level 2.com www.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 21 .AS IS Assessment Problem Management Incident Management AS IS Assessment Input Level 0.

Problem Management AS IS Assessment  Problem Management Assessment (Synthesis) Main strengths :  SPM1 : Reactive Problem Management aspect : assignment of problems to resolver groups and management of Incidents with common symptoms SPM6 : Raising of Request For Change on a problem analysis  Maturity Level : 1 / 5 Main weaknesses: WPM1 : No proactive Problem Management : no logging of problems before incident occurs WPM2 : No dedicated budget and team for Problem Management activities WPM3 : There is not an enough deployed procedure for analysing significant.unilog-management. recurring and unresolved incidents and identifying underlying problems.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 22 .unilog.com www.    Natco’s gaps :  No transnational Problem Management : the same problem may be logged in each Natco (eg: network or applicative server down) www.

Local Problem Manager : a local Problem Manager could be nominated for each team : a dedicated local problem manager for the level 1 team. for the 1.  Gain : to have an organization to manage the problems  WPM2 : There is no staff really dedicated to the Problem Management. These agents should be members of level 1. The name of the agent who would have logged the problem into the database should be saved in an historic field. track unresolved problems and manage the Problem Management reporting. Agents : only practiced agents could log Problems into the Service Management database. The members of this organization could be the following :  General Problem Manager : a general Problem Manager could manage all the Problem Management process.  Risk : The risk is to have a poor Problem Management without sufficient employee involvement.5 team and for each strategic level 2 teams (eg : OCBS support…).unilog-management.   LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new  Document  formalization position) System change  Quality Scheme next page  www.Problem Management Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : No real Problem Management organization Recommendation  RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management organization. The local Problem Manager would verify all problems logged by the agents of his group and assign the problems to another group if necessary : all problems would be flagged in the Service Management tool (“verified” or “not verified” by the Local Problem Manager).5. 2 or 3 teams. 1.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 23 .unilog. WPM4 : There is no global coordination of problems : there is no official Problem Manager  Risk : Problems are not sufficiently managed.com www.

5 Problem Manager Local Problem Manager Level 3 Local Problem Manager LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new Level 1 Problem Manager Level 1 teams Level 1.unilog-management.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 24 .unilog.com www.5 teams Level 2 teams Level 3 teams  Document  formalization position) System change www.Problem Management Recommendations Illustration of the RPM1 recommendation AS IS Recommendation General Problem Manager No Problem Management Organization Service Desk Level 2 Level 1.

Problem Management Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : No suitable Problem Management process Recommendation  RPM2 : Implementation of a Problem Management process  It would be necessary to define the type of problem to be managed and the Problem Management procedures. There are two types of problem :  Reactive problems : Analysing Incidents as they Occur. 2. WPM3 : There is a procedure but this procedure is not enough deployed for analysing significant. When the Known Error would be resolved (with or without a change). These problems would be mainly managed by level 2 and Level 3 team members. Level 2 or level 3 team members would identify the root cause and a method of resolving the problem with a Workaround : a Known Error would be logged into the Known Error Database. The process could be the following : A reactive problem would be logged by a practiced agent (member of level 1.  Proactive problems : Analysing Incidents over differing time periods and logging problems before incidents occur.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 25 .5.  Risk : the risk is that more incidents are going to occur. recurring and unresolved incidents and identifying underlying problems.com www. 3 resolution group) when an investigation is necessary for one or more incidents. Local Problem Manager of the level 2 or level 3 teams could also log a RFC (Request For Change) in the aim of resolving the Known Error. the Known Error and the linked problem would be closed. 1.unilog.  Risk : More incidents can occur if the problems LEVERS are not identified  Communication  change Training  change Organization  change (new  Document  formalization position) System change Cost www.unilog-management. The Local Problem Manager would log the RFC into the Service Management tool.  Gain : Reduction of the occurrence of incidents  WPM1 : Potential problems are assessed and identified but they are not recorded into a database : there is no proactive Problem Management with a logging of proactive problems into a database.

5 Level 1 or 1.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 26 .com www.5 Local manager agents Level 2 or 3 agents Logging of a problem Level 2 or 3 Local manager Verification of the problem Output Analyzing incidents and trends Investigation Incidents with a necessary investigation Logging of a problem Verification of the problem Logging of a Known Error Forward to level 2 Logging of a RFC ? Yes Logging of a RFC RFC No m e l bo rP Resolution of the problem Verification of the closure Closure of the problem www.AS IS Assessment Problem Management Incident Management Recommendation Input Level 1 or 1.unilog.unilog-management.

Problem Management recommendations are the following : Recommendation RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management organization.Level 5 : “Customer Interface” : Customer’s satisfaction surveys should be implemented.5 (External integration) : The integration of Problem Management with other processes is already implemented.Level 4. Then OIVW would pass the level 5 with : .unilog. . RPM2 : Implementation of a Problem Management process Quick Wins No No Gain Quality Cost Scope Airbus Airbus www.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 27 .com www.Problem Management Recommendations  Problem Management recommendations (synthesis) The scoring for Problem Management Desk is 1 / 5 : OIVW organization would pass the level 3.unilog-management.Level 4 (Management Information) : A full Problem Management reporting solution (analysis of problems. . problems of a particular type.5 “Quality Control” with the implementation of the recommendations RPM1and RPM2 described before. potential hot spots…) should be implemented.

Application.unilog-management. 20 Configuration Management Results (Points) 25 15 10 Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Configuration Management : The Configuration Management scope is all Configuration items managed by OIVW for all the Natco (CE.0 Pre-Requisites 3. FR.5 / 5 OIVW Configuration Management process has passed ITIL level 1.com www. Licenses.unilog.5 External Integration 28 . These Configuration Items are the following: IT assets. SP.0 Process Capability 1.5 Quality Control 1. catalog of all software.0 Management Information 5.5 Internal Integration 4. GE. Software.5 and failed to level 2 : Configuration item naming conventions are different in each Natco. UK).com 5 0 3.0 Products 2.5 Management Intent AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 4.0 Customer Interface 2. procedures for auditing and analysing configuration Item are missing.Configuration Management AS IS Assessment  Configuration Management Assessment The scoring for Configuration management is the following : Maturity Level : 1. catalog of PCs… Maximum attainable score Airbus score www.

com www.unilog-management.unilog.5 / 5  Configuration Management Assessment (Synthesis) Main strengths :   SCONF1 : Software and hardware databases (Magic. standard for AAL scope) SCONF7 : Identified target : 80% of inventory reliability for end 2006 SCONF8 : Management of link between configuration and major changes during the CAB meeting Main weaknesses:  WCONF3 : Poor analyzing and auditing procedure (eg: there is no historization into the Magic tool).com . AAL) WCONF6 : Many databases but no CMDB approach : managing links between CIs and matching services with IT infrastructure WCONF8 : Meetings with Financial management but no License management : no way to assess installation against license      Natco’s gaps :     Not always the same tool in all Natcos (Software Inventory and Distribution scope : Zenworks for the German Natco and SMS for other Natcos) Naming convention rules different in each Natco (Inventory Number) Procedures well-known but no full homogenization between Natcos (eg : German users are using a Magic wizard which is not used by other Natcos) Hardware assets are rented to a financial company and are managed within Excel datasheets in the Spanish Natco. AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 29 www. No physical housekeeping (Magic. AAL) SCONF2 : Management of links between physical servers and databases in the HP scope (Managhas database) SCONF6 : Measures taken to avoid anomalies (Magic database customization.Configuration Management AS IS Assessment Maturity Level : 1.

unilog. status or location modification).Configuration Management Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : Configuration Management tools and process Recommendation  RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and processes to be optimized with the new Service Management tool  Change historization : Airbus could implement the logging of historical changes of CIs in the Service Management tool : historization of previous CI’s locations or users should facilitate the auditing of CI records.  Risk : the Magic database is not safe and optimized WCONF4 : There are naming convention rules different in German and French Natco : Inventory number naming convention rules are different in French Natco from German Natco in the Magic tool  Risk : Insufficient transnational cooperation  LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new   WCONF6 : There are many databases but not really a database which matches services and IT infrastructure with a CMDB (Configuration Management Database) approach. Common procedure : A common procedure for managing the Service Management tool should be implemented in all Natcos. move a CI. retire a CI….  Risk : It is not possible to size up the risk of the implementation or the modification of a CI on the Information System  Document  formalization position) System change  Following next page  www. This procedure would be very detailed and would encompass all CIs changes : How to log a new CI.  WCONF3 : There are poor analysing and auditing procedures : there is no historization into the Magic tool (user.. (not possible with Magic tool but OK with Remedy tool). There is also no physical housekeeping : a lot of retired assets remain in the Magic database for accountancy reasons (NB : accountancy data are managed in the SAP tool).unilog-management.com www. Number naming convention rules should also be detailed in this tool. the database should be “backuped” and then the former records should be deleted.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 30 . Each year. Housekeeping / archiving : Physical housekeeping and archiving could be implemented for the Service Management and AAL tools.

hardware.   Quality  Gain : to have a safe and useful configuration database www.Configuration Management Recommendations Topics for improvement   Recommendation RCONF1 : (following) Relationships between CIs : A CI (Configuration Item) is an IT asset (software..com www. hardware catalog. problems forms…) for each user’s profile (eg : agent. SLAs…. Customization : The Service Management tool should also be customized to allow the reading/modification of record (eg : employees forms. The information to be recorded for each item would be defined and include the relationships and documentation necessary for effective Service Management. problem assignee…) Common tool : OIVW should get common tools for each Natco. This database should also manage the relationships from CIs with other processes : Incident.unilog-management. problem manager…). tickets forms. documentation) : all CIs should be uniquely identified. service relationship…). software licenses. The Service Management tool should also gather CIs data managed currently in many databases : hardware assets. The Service Management tool should also facilitate the establishment of relationships between CIs (parent/child. It would be more easy to get the same process and less expensive to be managed (eg : Distribution and inventory tools). software installation. Problem.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 31 .unilog. The updating right of each field of the database should also be customized (eg : ticket number. Airbus should also define which categories of CIs have to be managed. software catalog.

If the technical validation is OK.unilog. Software installations are managed in the AAL tool. there would be a hierarchal validation from his department manager. Then.  Risk : the risk is to buy too much or not enough licenses  LEVERS    Organization  change (new Communication change Training change   Document  formalization position) System change Cost Gain : Decrease of the License Management cost  Scheme next page  www. Then.unilog-management. Then all License information would be centralized into the Service Management database. Software installation are collected with the SMS tool into the Service Management tool. A Counter should be implemented into the Service Management tool to verify if the number of licenses is matching with the number of installations for each License type.com www. Software Licenses are also managed in the AAL tool but do not encompass all IT licenses of Airbus company and is not enough updated.  WCONF8 : License management is not carried out : there is no possibility to match software installations with software licenses. an other Airbus agent would buy if necessary new licenses. All software installation should be centralized into the same database. Firstly. A workflow of “Installation / Validation” should be implemented.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 32 . Only one Airbus agent would authorize technically the installation of a new software.Configuration Management Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : License Management Recommendation  RCONF2 : License Management against software installation Management to be implemented  OIVW should firstly check all Airbus departments which are managing or buying IT licenses.

unilog-management.com www.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 33 .Configuration Management Recommendations Illustration of the RCONF2 recommendation : Workflow of “Installation / Validation” : User Department Manager Hierarchal validation Non OK Technical agent Technical Validation (Non standard Installation) Non OK License Manager License validation Non OK Installation Request OK OK OK Installation Non validated Installation validated www.unilog.

unilog-management.Configuration Management Recommendations  Configuration Management recommendations (Synthesis) The scoring for Configuration Management Desk is 1. Configuration Management recommendations are the following : Recommendation RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and processes to be optimized with the new Service Management tool implementation RCONF2 : License Management against software installation Management to be implemented Quick Wins No No Gain Quality Cost Scope OIVW Airbus www.unilog. .The implementation of the recommendations RCONF1 and RCONF2 described before.com www.5 / 5 : OIVW organization would pass the level 5 “Customer Interface” with : .com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 34 .Level 5 (Customer Interface) : Customer’s satisfaction surveys should be implemented.

5 Quality Control 4.5 Internal Integration 3.0 PreRequisites 1.5 External Integration 1.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 4.0 Customer Interface 2. OIVW is also CAB member : all the process of change managed by the CAB is also assessed (RFC.0 Management Information 5.unilog-management. 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 3.5 Management Intent Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Change Management : The Change Management scope encompasses all changes which are OIVW changes : Asset changes.com www.0 Products 2.5 “Internal Integration” and failed to level 3 “Products” : there is no change calendar of approved changes (except in UK) and there is not enough Change Management reporting.5 / 5 OIVW Change Management process has passed ITIL level 2.unilog. Software changes. CAB validation). Maximum attainable score Airbus score www.Change Management AS IS Assessment  Change Management Assessment The scoring for Change management is the following : (Points) 75 70 65 Change Management Results Maturity Level : 2.0 Process Capability 35 .

AS IS Assessment Change Management Incident Management AS IS Assessment (FR.unilog. GE) Input Change with : -Breaking risk of the Service Delivery .com www.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 36 .unilog-management.Severe impact Logging of a RFC into Magic Requester CAB Output Assessment of the RFC RFC accepted Presentation of the RFC to the CAB CAB Decision Accepted Refused Pending RFC refused me gna h C Updating of the RFC Pending RFC www.

unilog-management.com www.unilog.Severe impact Filling of the RFC form Assess priority RFC accepted Assess impact CAB Decision Accepted Mailing of the form to the Change coordinator Add to change calendar Service Catalog review Log into a spreadsheet and into Magic if transnational impact Refused RFC refused a Me gna h C www.AS IS Assessment Change Management Incident Management AS IS Assessment (UK) Input Requester Change coordinator No RFC Complete ? Yes CAB Output Assessment of the RFC Change with : Breaking risk of the Service Delivery .com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 37 .

com www. % of changes with failures…)  Natco’s gaps :       RFC are assessed and priorised before to be presented to the CAB only in UK There are only Change calendars in UK All Requests for Change are not recorded into the Magic database for the UK scope Process is not the same for each Natco : ISR log RFC in the French and German Natcos within the Magic tool. eroom      Maturity Level : 2. Systems agents into the Magic tool (Spanish Natco). There is no CAB in the Spanish Natco. AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 38 www.com .unilog-management. Requesters. spreadsheets. Change coordinator (UK. Requests for Change are firstly logged and assessed in a Lotus Notes tool before to be logged by T. Requesters send a form to the change coordinator in the UK Natco.Change Management AS IS Assessment  Change Management Assessment (Synthesis) Main strengths :   SCHM1 : Change Management organization : RFC.unilog. CAB SCHM3 : Assigned roles and responsibilities : CAB chairman. GE) SCHM6 : Change Management tools : Magic tool.5 / 5 Main weaknesses: WCHM2 : No Post Implementation Review WCHM3 : No RFC assessment and priorisation before to be CAB assessed (except in UK) WCHM4 : Change already prepared before validation by the CAB WCHM6 : No central change calendar (except in UK) WCHM7 : No Change Management reporting (% of RFC with agreed.

Changes should not be prepared before being validated by the CAB. WCHM3 : The change is not assessed and priorised before his presentation to the CAB (Except in UK Natco). % of changes with failures…) Risk : It is not possible to assess the performance of the Change Management process. Other changes would be sent to the CAB. Request for Change should be assessed. the Change should be also agreed by a transnational CAB. Request For Change should be recorded into the Service Management tool for each Natco.unilog-management. WCHM4 : Many changes are already prepared and ready to be implemented before to be presented to the CAB. Risk : The CAB has to agree too many changes. Risk : All the job of change preparation is lost if the CAB refuse the change. Standard changes would be verified by the Change Manager and not sent to the CAB : a list of “standard changes” should be defined within OIVW organization. If this CAB would agree the RFC. WCHM6 : There is no change schedule of approved changes (except in UK). The CAB should also plan all changes in a schedule in order to avoid conflicts during change implementation. Members of the transnational CAB would be the Change Manager of each Natco. The CAB should decide before if a change should be prepared or not. A change with a transNatco impact should be firstly assessed by the Natco CAB where the RFC is done.com www.com Quality Gain : all changes would be managed with a better quality CAB should make a PIR (Post Implement Review) when a change has been implemented : this PIR could allow verifying if the business need of the change is satisfied. A Change Manager (Change Coordinator) should be designated for each Natco. classified and priorised by the Change Manager before to be sent to the CAB (Change Advisory Board). AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 39 .Change Management Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : Change Management activities Recommendation  RCHM1 : Change implemented   Management process to be           WCHM2 : There is no Post Implementation Review when a change has been done. Risk : The risk is to have a conflict between two changes during their implementation. Risk : The right implementation of the change is not assessed. should also be LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new      Document  formalization position) System change  Scheme next page  www. Change Management reporting implemented by the CAB.unilog. WCHM7 : There are no Change Management reporting (% of RFC with agreed.

unilog.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 40 . major) Coordination and planning of the change Implementation a na Me gna h C Standar d change ? Yes No RFC closed CMDB updated Post Implementation Review Implementation by the Service Desk www. Problem No Reques t validati on ? Yes Client Filling of the RFC in the S. important. non urgent) No Change building CAB Release Management Output RFC refused Change Preparation Tests RFC accepted Project Categorization (standard. Management tool Priorisation (urgent.com www.unilog-management.AS IS Assessment Change Management Incident Management Recommendations Input Requester Change Manager No Request validatio n? Yes Incident. minor.

5 (External integration) : The implementation of the Change Management with other processes is to be improved : with Problem Management (changes required to resolve problems / known errors). with Configuration Management (change impact assessment on configuration items) and with Service level Management (potential change impact on service level agreements) .unilog.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 41 .Level 5 (Customer Interface) : Customer’s satisfaction surveys should be implemented. Change Management recommendations are the following : Recommendation RCHM1 : Change Management process to be implemented Quick Wins No Gain Quality Scope Airbus www.unilog-management.Level 4.5 / 5 : OIVW organization would pass the level 4 “Management Information” with the implementation of the recommendation RCHM1 described before. Then OIVW would pass the level 5 with : .com www.Change Management Recommendations  Change Management recommendations (Synthesis) The scoring for Change Management is 2.

0 Management Information 4.5 Internal Integration 1.0 Products 4.unilog.5 Management Intent 2.5 OIVW organization has failed to the mandatory question : there are not only authorised and tested versions which are installed because too many users are PC administrator (FR : 30-35%. Maximum attainable score Airbus score www.0 Pre-Requisites 5.5 External Integration 2.0 Customer Interface AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 42 .5 Quality Control 3.com www. Releases which are concerned are mainly Software releases.0 Process Capability 1.com Release Management Results (Points) 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 3.unilog-management.Release Management AS IS Assessment  Release Management Assessment The scoring for Release management is the following : Maturity Level : 2 / 5 OIVW Release Management process has passed ITIL level 2 and failed to level 2. GE) An other major subject is that license information is not recorded against software installation records Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Release Management : The Release Management scope is all releases about Configuration Items managed by OIVW.

implementing releases) SRM4 : Availability of a Definitive Software Library : shared server which contains all master copies SRM5 : Numbering conventions for each release Main weaknesses:  WRM2 : Too many PC administrators rights for the users (except in UK) WRM3 : No license management WRM4 : No back-out plan produced for each release WRM5 : Insufficient Release Management training (AAL tool) : project leaders do not use enough all AAL functionalities       Natco’s gaps :    The gap is that the automatic inventory and distribution tool is not the same in all Natcos : SMS for FR.Release Management AS IS Assessment Maturity Level : 2 / 5  Release Management Assessment (Synthesis) Main strengths :  SRM1 : Many tools : AAL tool (application validation). SMS administrator verifies that only safe and authorised versions of software are installed : he can also uninstall the relevant software versions (only in the Spanish Natco). SMS and Zenworks (distribution.unilog. There are many PC administrator rights for many users for FR and GE Natco but not for UK and Spanish Natco. operational groups (building. testing. AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 43 www. SP and Zenworks for GE.com . UK. automatic inventory) SRM3 : Assignment of Release Management responsibilities : project leader.com www.unilog-management.

unilog.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 44 . A communication should be done this subject and then PC administrator rights should removed. Changes which are not standard changes should need a CAB involvement : the CAB should authorize the implementation of a change after the test phase. Project leaders should be trained to the using of the AAL tool. WRM4 : There is not really a back-out plan produced for each release. The N-1 version is stored and a "N-1" come back is possible.Release Management AS IS Assessment Topics for improvement Topic : Software Release Management activities Recommendation  RRM1 : Release Management activities to be optimized  WRM2: There are not only authorised and tested versions which are installed because too many users are PC administrator in the French and German Natco (about 35% for the French Natco). be be on be    Document  formalization position) System change Release Management activities should be coordinated with the CAB. Risk : There is no good License Management and there is a security risk. Risk : The risk is to have a service break after an implementation WRM5 : There is an insufficient Release Management training (AAL tool scope) : project leaders do not enough use all AAL functionalities (eg : most of project leaders can not manage the functional validation stage)  Risk : Project leaders do not use all AAL benefits   LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new Only authorized and tested versions should installed in the Airbus company. Users should not PC administrator.unilog-management.  Gain : to have more industrialized Release Management activities.   Quality www. Back-out plans should be produced and tested before the implementation of each release.com www.

com www.Release Management AS IS Assessment  Release Management recommendations (synthesis) The scoring for Release Management is 2 / 5 : OIVW organization would pass the level 3. Then OIVW would pass the level 5 with : Level 4 (Management Information) : There should be an implementation of a full Release Management reporting solution (number of major/minor releases.unilog-management.5 (external integration) : The integration of Release Management with other processes is already implemented. Release Management recommendations are the following : Recommendation RRM1 : Release Management activities to be optimized Quick Wins No Gain Quality Scope OIVW www. number of problems in the live environment attributable to new releases…) Level 4. Level 5 (Customer Interface) : Customer’s satisfaction surveys should be implemented.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 45 .5 “Quality Control” with the implementation of the recommendation RRM1 described before.unilog.

0 Products 4. The OIVW Service Catalog is also in the assessment scope. The scope is mainly Service Level Agreement from OIVW with the client (Airbus business teams) and the operational agreement with subcontractors (T.0 Management Information 5.5 Quality Control 3.com 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 3. Systems) or with other partner which deliver the Service for the SLA (level 2.0 Process Capability AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 46 .3 resolver groups…).0 Pre-Requisites 4.com www. Maximum attainable score Airbus score www.5 / 5 OIVW Service Level Management process has passed ITIL level 3.unilog.5 External Integration 2.unilog-management.5 Management Intent 1.0 Customer Interface 2.Service Level Management AS IS Assessment  Service Level Management Assessment The scoring for Service Level Management is the following : (Points) Service Level Management Results Maturity Level : 3.5 Internal Integration 1. 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Service Level Management : The Service Level Management scope is all Service Level activities which impact OIVW.5 and failed to level 4 because there is not enough SLM reporting.

com www. support.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 47 .unilog. OLAs SSLM5 : Publishing of an Intranet Service Catalog SSLM6 : Identified key targets for service hours.     Natco’s gaps : There is no gap www.unilog-management.Service Level Management AS IS Assessment Maturity Level : 3 / 5  Service Level Management Assessment (Synthesis) Main strengths :   SSLM2 : SLAs. availability. reliability. response times for SLAs Main weaknesses:  WSLM2 : No implemented process to update the Service catalog (Mercury tool) WSLM3 : Not enough Service Level Management Reporting to the management (eg : number of requests for new services…) WSLM4 : Service Level Management is not a CAB member WSLM5 : There are not enough indicators between IT and the business in the SLA.

Risk : the Catalog of Service tool is not enough updated (Mercury tool).com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 48 .  WSLM2 : the Catalog of Service is based on a Mercury tool technology.unilog. Moreover. OIVW should implement a review of the ITG tool to verify if the catalog is well updated with all services modification. There is no process implemented to update this tool and this tool is not easy to be used for the OIVW Service catalog manager.com www. Quality LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new  Document  formalization position) System change www.unilog-management.  Gain : to have a Service Catalog up to date.Service Level Management Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : Catalog of Service not updated Recommendation  RSLM1 : Catalog of service to be managed    A procedure should be defined to update the Mercury ITG tool. This procedure should be presented to all catalog manager during a training session. the team which manages the Service Catalog is not enough coordinated with the OIVW Service Catalog Manager.

the level 2 and the level 3 groups.  Phone Call answered in less than 30 s  Phone call hang up : < 6% of phone call to hang up before answered  User administration efficiency These indicators are only between the Service Desk (level 0.Service Level Management Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : No “end to end” Service Management indicator Recommendation  RSLM2 : Indicators to be implemented Indicators between the business and all the support teams (Service Desk.5) and the business.5  First level Resolution : > 90% incidents solved by the Service Desk level 1.  Gain : better satisfaction of the business and better coordination with level 2 and level 3 groups. This indicator could be : “resolution of x% of incidents in the agreed lead time of the SLA” OIVW should define OLAs with strategic level 2 groups (Network-Tel.1.com position) System change AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 49 . level 2. Risk : Dissatisfaction of the business  Quality LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new   Document  formalization www.unilog.1.unilog-management.…) in order to reach the SLA. Portal. AS IS Indicators in the Help Desk Service Line are the following :  First Call Resolution : 80% of incidents solved by the Service Desk < 20 mn for level 1 and < 30 mn for level 1.   WSLM5 : There is no “end to end” indicator between IT and the business. level 3) should be defined :  An indicator of incident resolving should be shared by the Service Desk.com www.

. monitoring charts…) .unilog-management.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 50 . with Financial Management (negotiation of SLAs).Level 4 (Management reporting) : A SLM reporting solution should be implemented (number of requests for new/changed services.unilog. with Incident management (implementation of SLAs in the Service Desk tool).Level 5 (Customer Interface) : Customer’s satisfaction surveys should be implemented.Level 4. Service Level Management recommendations are the following : Recommendation RSLM1 : Catalog of service to be managed RSLM2 : Indicator to be implemented Quick wins No No Gain Quality Quality Scope Airbus Airbus www.Service Level Management Recommendations  Service Level Management recommendations (Synthesis) The scoring for Service Level Management is 3.com www.5 (External Integration) : The implementation of the Service Level Management with other processes is to be improved : with Change Management (impact of changes to SLAs).5 / 5 : OIVW organization would pass the level 5 “Customer interface” with : .

Level 5 : Customer’s satisfaction surveys to be implemented .Level 5 : Customer surveys should be in a production 5 3.Level 5 : Customer’s satisfaction surveys to be implemented .Level 4 : Implementation of a Release Management reporting solution . Service Level Management should be implemented .5 1 Interm How to reach the intermediate Target ? ediate target 5 .Presentation of our findings Synthesis of the level to target Synthesis of the level to target : ITIL Process AS IS level 4.Level 4.RRM1 : Release Management activities to be optimized .Level 5 : Customer’s satisfaction surveys to be implemented Change Management 2.Level 4 : Implementation of a Problem Management Configuration Management 1.unilog-management. Incident Management .5 4.5 4 .RCHM1 : Change Management process to be implemented Release Management 2 3.RCONF2 : License Management to be implemented .5 phase .Level 4.unilog.5 : already implemented . Configuration Management.Level 5 : Customer’s satisfaction surveys to be implemented Idem intermediate target processes to be optimized .5 : External Integration : Change Management.5 : already implemented .5 : External Integration with other processes like www.RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management organization .Level 4.com www.5 5 Problem Management.Level 5 : Customer’s satisfaction surveys to be implemented .5 5 .Level 4.5 Service Level Management 3.Level 4 : Implementation of a Service Level Management Idem intermediate target reporting solution .Level 5 : Customer surveys should be in a production phase How to reach the level 5 ? Service Desk Incident Management Problem Management Idem intermediate target Idem intermediate target .RPM2 : Implementation of a Problem Management process .RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and reporting solution .com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 51 . Financial Management.

3 : Proactive Lvl2 : Reactive Lvl1 : Chaos Service Desk Incident Management Problem Management Change Management Configuration Management Release Management Service Level Management www.4 : Service Lvl.unilog-management.5 : Value Lvl.com www.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 52 .unilog.Presentation of our findings Synthesis January 2007 The ITIL assessment of the audited processes is the following : Target (end 2007) Lvl.

unilog-management. There is no transnational CAB Release Management Service Level Management There are many PC administrator rights for many users for FR and GE Natco RRM1 : Release Management activities to be optimized but not for UK Natco No Gap / www.com www.unilog. Requesters send a form to the change coordinator in the UK Natco.Presentation of our findings Synthesis of the Natco Gaps Synthesis of the Natco Gaps and the main failures of the transnational organization : ITIL Process Service Desk Incident Management Problem Management Natco Gaps / Failures of the transnational organization Different helpdesks in Germany (Engineering Helpdesk.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 53 . dedicated helpdesk in some factory units)  No Gap Recommendations to apply Natco gaps RSD1 : Implementation of a Single Point of Contact for the Service Desk / Configuration Management No transnational Problem Management : the same problem may be logged in RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management each Natco (eg: network or applicative server down) organization RPM2 : Implementation of a Problem Management process Not always the same tool in all Natcos (Software Inventory and Distribution RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and scope : Zenworks for the German Natco and SMS for other Natcos) processes to be optimized with the new Service Management tool implementation (Common tool) Naming convention rules different in each Natco (Inventory Number) Procedures well-known but no full homogenization between Natcos (eg : German users are using a Magic wizard which is not used by other Natcos) RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and processes to be optimized with the new Service Management tool implementation (Common procedure) RCHM1 : Change Management process to be implemented Change Management RFC are assessed and priorised before to be presented to the CAB only in UK There are only Change schedules in UK All Requests for Change are not recorded in the Magic database for the UK scope Process is not the same for each Natco : ISR log RFC in the French and German Natcos within the Magic tool.

RIM1 : Logging of all incidents in the same database RIM2 : Optimization of the organization of level 2. Low) Standardization Airbus Quality Quality Cost Quality Quality Quality Airbus OIVW Airbus OIVW Airbus Airbus Could be implemented firstly within OIVW and a pilot level 2 organization Idem RPM1 Scheduled Workload Commentary Date Service Desk Service Desk Incident Management Incident Management Incident Management Incident Management Problem Management RSD1 : Implementation of a Single Point of Contact for the Service Desk RSD2 : Optimization of the updating of user forms.3 resolver groups RIM3 : Customization of the Service Management tool RIM4 : Implementation of an OLA with the Strategic level 2 resolver group RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management organization No Yes Yes No Yes No No Problem RPM2 : Implementation of No Management a Problem Management process www.com www. Then a detailed action plan should be built for each recommendation : all actions of each recommendations would be defined.Presentation of our findings Preparation of an action plan (1/2) A global action plan should be built. Medium. Process Recommendation Quick Gain wins Scope Priority Actors (High.com Cost Airbus AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 54 .unilog.unilog-management.

com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 55 . Low) Qualit OIVW y Actors Scheduled Date Workload Commentary Configuratio RCONF1 : Configuration n Management tools and Management processes to be optimized with the new Service Management tool implementation Configuratio RCONF2 : License n Management against Management software installation Management to be implemented No No Cost Airbus Change RCHM1 : Change No Management Management process to be implemented Release RRM1 : Release No Management Management activities to be optimized Service Level RSLM1 : Catalog of service Management to be managed Service Level RSLM2 : Indicator to be Management implemented No No Qualit Airbus y Qualit OIVW y Qualit Airbus y Qualit Airbus y www. Medium.Presentation of our findings Preparation of an action plan (2/2) Process Recommendation Quick Gain wins Scope Priority (High.unilog-management.unilog.com www.

A. A400M are registered trademarks.. This document and its content shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied. its logo. A318. AIRBUS S. A330. A380.A.unilog.unilog-management.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 56 . This document and all information contained herein is the sole property of AIRBUS S. All rights reserved. A310. will be pleased to explain the basis thereof. A319.A. This document shall not be reproduced or disclosed to a third party without the express written consent of AIRBUS S.S.S. AIRBUS. The statements made herein do not constitute an offer.com www. Confidential and proprietary document. A340. Where the supporting grounds for these statements are not shown. www. No intellectual property rights are granted by the delivery of this document or the disclosure of its content. They are based on the mentioned assumptions and are expressed in good faith.S. A320. A321.A.S. A300.OIVW ITIL Assessment © AIRBUS S. A350.