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

5 Management Intent Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Service Desk: The scope is the IT Service Desk managed by OIVW.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 4.Service Desk AS IS Assessment  Service Desk Assessment The scoring for Service Desk is the following : Maturity Level : 4.0 Products 2.0 Pre-Requisites 1. Maximum attainable score Airbus score www. 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 External Intergration 2.5 Internal Integration 6 .5 / 5 OIVW Service Desk organization has passed ITIL level 4.5 Quality Control 4.5 and does not fail to mandatory questions.0 Management Information 5.unilog-management. Service Desk Results (Points) 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 3.0 Customer Interface 3.0 Process Capability 1.com www.unilog.

unilog-management. Systems and the Users (ISR) : Service planning. dedicated helpdesk in some factory units) www. T.com www.Service Desk AS IS Assessment  Service Desk Assessment (Synthesis) Main strengths :     SSD1 : Service Desk Organization : OIVW team.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 7 . System teams (150 members) SSD5 : Quality criteria: Technical Handbook. Magic and Memento tool SSD7 : Weekly and monthly reports SSD8 : Cooperation between OIVW.unilog. T. trainings.5 / 5 Main weaknesses: WSD2 : No full Single Point of Contact : number "8811" for the travel and business expenses support. 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. user and ISR committees  Maturity Level : 4.

there are ways available to call directly some level 2 Support teams like OCBS. These tickets logged by users would be firstly assessed by the Service Desk. For example.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 8 .  WSD1 : Some users do not know enough the Service Desk scope because they contact the Service Desk for subjects out of Service Desk activities. 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. Service Requests are also directly logged by the ISR : there is no direct Service Desk involvement for the Service Request management. There are also direct numbers for specific services like travel or business expenses support. the term used is the “Service Management” database or tool. some users of the French Natco call the Service Desk when they have a Service Request.unilog. For example. The user should call the Service Desk when an incident occurs or because of 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. So. 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). It would better that the number to be dialed would be the same one for all type of incidents or Service requests. 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 would be also an industrialization of the recording of Service Requests.com www. business expenses.unilog-management.Service Desk Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : There is not a real Single Point of Contact. …)  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. * BMC Remedy tool is going to replace BMC Magic tool. travel. Service Desk procedure for the user.

Service Desk Recommendations Illustration of the RSD1 recommendation : AS IS Recommendation ISR Service Request Service Request ISR Service Request Dedicated HD (Specific Services. 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.unilog-management.com position) System change AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 9 .com www.unilog.

com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 10 . location…).  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”. But they have no rights to update users forms into the Magic tool or the Airbus directory tool (AEDS).unilog.  The quality of the updating of User forms by Service Desk agents should be verified by AEDS administrators. Second solution : The rights to update the use form of the Service Management database could be given to the Service Desk agents. www. This solution would need :  To have an interface from the Service Management tool to the Airbus Directory.unilog-management.Service Desk Recommendations Topics for improvement Topic : User forms are not well updated Recommendation  RSD2 : Optimization of the updating of user forms. This interface should be coordinated with the current interface from the Airbus Directory to the Service Management tool.  WSD3 : Service Desk agents notice sometimes that user forms are not well updated in the Magic Database (eg : user’s phone. location or department). 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. The agents could update the Service Management database which would be interfaced with the Airbus Directory. phone. two solutions are proposed :  First solution : Users can already directly update the user form in the Airbus Directory (desk. Some Airbus users are also not recorded in the Magic tool : 5-7 % of incidents are recorded with unknown users.com www. Service Desk should explain to users that it is important to be done.

com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 11 .Service Desk Recommendations  Service Desk recommendations (synthesis) The scoring for Service Desk was 4. 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.com www.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.unilog. Quick Wins No Yes Gain Quality Quality Scope Airbus Airbus www.unilog-management.

0 Management Information 5.0 Process Capability 2.Incident Management AS IS Assessment  Incident Management Assessment The scoring for Incident Management is the following : Maturity Level : 4.5 and does not fail to mandatory questions.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 4. FR. UK).5 External Integration 1. Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Incident Management : The Incident Management scope is all IT incidents (Hardware.5 Quality Control 1.0 Products 12 .unilog.0 Customer Interface 2. Application) managed by OIVW for all the Natco (CE. 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. Software.5 Internal Intergration 3.unilog-management.com www.0 Pre-Requisites 4. 15 10 5 0 3. GE. SP.5 Management Intent Maximum attainable score Airbus score www.5 / 5 20 (Points) 30 25 OIVW Incident Management process has passed ITIL level 4.

www.com www. Web interface SIM6 : Incident tracking function     Maturity Level : 4.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 13 .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.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.unilog.unilog-management.

 Risk : the information about all incidents is not shared by all Service Desk and resolver groups members.unilog. Quality   LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new  Document  formalization position) System change www.  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).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).unilog-management. this incidents have also to be logged into the Service Management database.com www. Gain : It would allow to share the information by all Service Desk and resolver groups members.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 14 . If Incidents are logged by level 2 teams (eg : OCBS Support).

 WIM2 : There are more than 1000 level 2 and 3 resolver groups. There are also additional costs for Airbus to manage so many level 2 and 3 resolver groups.unilog-management.).  Risk : It is difficult for the Service Desk to assign the ticket to the relevant resolver group.com www.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT . SAP/HR…) or with technologic criteria (Network competence center. Gain : The gain for the Service Desk would be to assign tickets easier to the relevant level 2 group. The global gain for Airbus is a cost reduction. Unix Competence Center….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.unilog.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.  Cost LEVERS Communication change  Training change Organization change (new  Document formalization position) System change Scheme next page  15 www.

unilog-management.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 16 .com www.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.

unilog-management.com position) System change AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 17 .unilog. 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.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. it would be interesting to implement alerts to support the respect of SLA’s lead time. For example.

For example. to resolve 85 % percent of ticket in the agreed lead time (the lead time depends on the Incident category).com www. Then the Operational Level Agreement between the Service Desk and each resolver group should be built.unilog.unilog-management.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. 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.  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. 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).com position) System change Quality  Gain : Achievement of the SLA and satisfaction of the users AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 18 . the list of strategic level 2 resolver group (Network-Tel. Portal. ERP…) should be defined. This OLA should allow to support the SLA between IT department and the business : for example.

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-management.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.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 19 .unilog.com www. Incident Management recommendations are the following : Recommendation RIM1 : Logging of all incidents in the same database RIM2 : Optimization of the organization of level 2.Incident Management Recommendations  Incident Management recommendations (synthesis) The scoring for Incident Management Desk is 4.

unilog-management.5 Quality Control 3.5 External Integration 2.5 Internal Integration 1.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 5.unilog.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 1.0 Pre-Requisites The Problem Management scope is all IT problems (Hardware.0 Process Capability 1. Software. Application) managed by OIVW for all the Natco (CE.0 Management Information 4.0 Customer Interface Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Problem Management : 0 20 .com www.5 Management Intent 2. Problem Management Results (Points) 1 8 1 5 1 2 9 6 3 3. GE. FR.5 because OIVW organization does not have a dedicated Problem Management organization with a problem manager.0 Products 4. SP. Maximum attainable score Airbus score www. UK).

1 Level 1.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 21 .unilog-management.5 Level 2.AS IS Assessment Problem Management Incident Management AS IS Assessment Input Level 0.com www.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.

com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 22 .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.unilog.    Natco’s gaps :  No transnational Problem Management : the same problem may be logged in each Natco (eg: network or applicative server down) www.com www.

WPM4 : There is no global coordination of problems : there is no official Problem Manager  Risk : Problems are not sufficiently managed.5 team and for each strategic level 2 teams (eg : OCBS support…). These agents should be members of level 1.unilog-management.unilog.5. 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.  Gain : to have an organization to manage the problems  WPM2 : There is no staff really dedicated to the Problem Management.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). Agents : only practiced agents could log Problems into the Service Management database. for the 1. 1.  Risk : The risk is to have a poor Problem Management without sufficient employee involvement. The members of this organization could be the following :  General Problem Manager : a general Problem Manager could manage all the Problem Management process.com www.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 23 .   LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new  Document  formalization position) System change  Quality Scheme next page  www. Local Problem Manager : a local Problem Manager could be nominated for each team : a dedicated local problem manager for the level 1 team. 2 or 3 teams.

Problem Management Recommendations Illustration of the RPM1 recommendation AS IS Recommendation General Problem Manager No Problem Management Organization Service Desk Level 2 Level 1.unilog.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 24 .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 1.5 teams Level 2 teams Level 3 teams  Document  formalization position) System change www.unilog-management.

2.5. WPM3 : There is a procedure but this procedure is not enough deployed for analysing significant. 3 resolution group) when an investigation is necessary for one or more incidents. There are two types of problem :  Reactive problems : Analysing Incidents as they Occur.unilog-management. The process could be the following : A reactive problem would be logged by a practiced agent (member of level 1. These problems would be mainly managed by level 2 and Level 3 team members.  Proactive problems : Analysing Incidents over differing time periods and logging problems before incidents occur.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 25 . 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.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.  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.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. recurring and unresolved incidents and identifying underlying problems. When the Known Error would be resolved (with or without a change). the Known Error and the linked problem would be closed. 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.com www. 1.  Risk : the risk is that more incidents are going to occur. The Local Problem Manager would log the RFC into the Service Management tool.

AS IS Assessment Problem Management Incident Management Recommendation Input Level 1 or 1.com www.unilog-management.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.unilog.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 26 .5 Level 1 or 1.

Level 5 : “Customer Interface” : Customer’s satisfaction surveys should be implemented. RPM2 : Implementation of a Problem Management process Quick Wins No No Gain Quality Cost Scope Airbus Airbus www.5 “Quality Control” with the implementation of the recommendations RPM1and RPM2 described before.unilog-management. Problem Management recommendations are the following : Recommendation RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management organization.Level 4 (Management Information) : A full Problem Management reporting solution (analysis of problems. problems of a particular type.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 27 . potential hot spots…) should be implemented.unilog. Then OIVW would pass the level 5 with : .Level 4.5 (External integration) : The integration of Problem Management with other processes is already implemented. .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. .

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.5 and failed to level 2 : Configuration item naming conventions are different in each Natco. Application.0 Products 2.unilog-management.com www. catalog of all software.0 Management Information 5. procedures for auditing and analysing configuration Item are missing. SP. UK).0 Pre-Requisites 3. catalog of PCs… Maximum attainable score Airbus score www.5 / 5 OIVW Configuration Management process has passed ITIL level 1. Software. GE.5 Internal Integration 4.5 Quality Control 1.Configuration Management AS IS Assessment  Configuration Management Assessment The scoring for Configuration management is the following : Maturity Level : 1.5 External Integration 28 . Licenses.unilog. FR.0 Customer Interface 2.com 5 0 3. These Configuration Items are the following: IT assets.0 Process Capability 1.5 Management Intent AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 4.

com .5 / 5  Configuration Management Assessment (Synthesis) Main strengths :   SCONF1 : Software and hardware databases (Magic. No physical housekeeping (Magic.Configuration Management AS IS Assessment Maturity Level : 1. AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 29 www.com www.unilog-management. 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. 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. 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).unilog.

status or location modification).com www.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. This procedure would be very detailed and would encompass all CIs changes : How to log a new CI. the database should be “backuped” and then the former records should be deleted.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 30 . Number naming convention rules should also be detailed in this tool. Common procedure : A common procedure for managing the Service Management tool should be implemented in all Natcos. (not possible with Magic tool but OK with Remedy tool). move a CI.unilog.  WCONF3 : There are poor analysing and auditing procedures : there is no historization into the Magic tool (user. 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. Each year.  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. Housekeeping / archiving : Physical housekeeping and archiving could be implemented for the Service Management and AAL tools..  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. retire a CI….

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

 WCONF8 : License management is not carried out : there is no possibility to match software installations with software licenses. Then. Software installation are collected with the SMS tool into the Service Management tool.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. If the technical validation is OK.com www. All software installation should be centralized into the same database. Firstly. an other Airbus agent would buy if necessary new licenses. there would be a hierarchal validation from his department manager. Then. Software Licenses are also managed in the AAL tool but do not encompass all IT licenses of Airbus company and is not enough updated.unilog-management. 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.  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. Only one Airbus agent would authorize technically the installation of a new software.unilog. Software installations are managed in the AAL tool. A workflow of “Installation / Validation” should be implemented. Then all License information would be centralized into the Service Management database.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 32 .

unilog.com www.unilog-management.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.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 33 .

Level 5 (Customer Interface) : Customer’s satisfaction surveys should be implemented.5 / 5 : OIVW organization would pass the level 5 “Customer Interface” with : .unilog.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 34 . 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.com www.unilog-management. .The implementation of the recommendations RCONF1 and RCONF2 described before.Configuration Management Recommendations  Configuration Management recommendations (Synthesis) The scoring for Configuration Management Desk is 1.

5 / 5 OIVW Change Management process has passed ITIL level 2. OIVW is also CAB member : all the process of change managed by the CAB is also assessed (RFC.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. Maximum attainable score Airbus score www.0 Products 2.5 Internal Integration 3.5 Quality Control 4.5 External Integration 1.0 PreRequisites 1.unilog-management.com www.0 Management Information 5. Software changes.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 Customer Interface 2.unilog.0 Process Capability 35 .com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 4.5 Management Intent Scope of the ITIL assessment for the Change Management : The Change Management scope encompasses all changes which are OIVW changes : Asset changes. 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 3. CAB validation).

GE) Input Change with : -Breaking risk of the Service Delivery .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.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 36 .AS IS Assessment Change Management Incident Management AS IS Assessment (FR.com www.unilog-management.

com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 37 .unilog-management.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 .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.com www.unilog.

AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 38 www. Systems agents into the Magic tool (Spanish Natco). GE) SCHM6 : Change Management tools : Magic tool.com www.Change Management AS IS Assessment  Change Management Assessment (Synthesis) Main strengths :   SCHM1 : Change Management organization : RFC. spreadsheets. Change coordinator (UK.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. CAB SCHM3 : Assigned roles and responsibilities : CAB chairman.com . Requesters. There is no CAB in the Spanish Natco. eroom      Maturity Level : 2.unilog-management. Requests for Change are firstly logged and assessed in a Lotus Notes tool before to be logged by T.unilog. Requesters send a form to the change coordinator in the UK Natco. % 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.

WCHM7 : There are no Change Management reporting (% of RFC with agreed. The CAB should decide before if a change should be prepared or not.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. The CAB should also plan all changes in a schedule in order to avoid conflicts during change implementation.unilog-management. WCHM6 : There is no change schedule of approved changes (except in UK). the Change should be also agreed by a transnational CAB. should also be LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new      Document  formalization position) System change  Scheme next page  www. WCHM3 : The change is not assessed and priorised before his presentation to the CAB (Except in UK Natco). WCHM4 : Many changes are already prepared and ready to be implemented before to be presented to the CAB. Request for Change should be assessed. classified and priorised by the Change Manager before to be sent to the CAB (Change Advisory Board). If this CAB would agree the RFC. Changes should not be prepared before being validated by the CAB. % of changes with failures…) Risk : It is not possible to assess the performance of the Change Management process. Members of the transnational CAB would be the Change Manager of each Natco. 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. Risk : The risk is to have a conflict between two changes during their implementation.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. Change Management reporting implemented by the CAB. Risk : The right implementation of the change is not assessed. Risk : The CAB has to agree too many changes. A change with a transNatco impact should be firstly assessed by the Natco CAB where the RFC is done. AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 39 . Risk : All the job of change preparation is lost if the CAB refuse the change.unilog. Other changes would be sent to the CAB. Request For Change should be recorded into the Service Management tool for each Natco. A Change Manager (Change Coordinator) should be designated for each Natco.com www.

Management tool Priorisation (urgent. minor.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 40 .AS IS Assessment Change Management Incident Management Recommendations Input Requester Change Manager No Request validatio n? Yes Incident.com www.unilog-management. 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.unilog. important. non urgent) No Change building CAB Release Management Output RFC refused Change Preparation Tests RFC accepted Project Categorization (standard. Problem No Reques t validati on ? Yes Client Filling of the RFC in the S.

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

Releases which are concerned are mainly Software releases.unilog-management.unilog.0 Products 4.0 Customer Interface AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 42 .0 Process Capability 1.0 Management Information 4. Maximum attainable score Airbus score www.com Release Management Results (Points) 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 3.com www. 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.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 2.5 Quality Control 3.5 Internal Integration 1.0 Pre-Requisites 5.5 Management Intent 2.5 External Integration 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%.

SP and Zenworks for GE.unilog.Release Management AS IS Assessment Maturity Level : 2 / 5  Release Management Assessment (Synthesis) Main strengths :  SRM1 : Many tools : AAL tool (application validation). automatic inventory) SRM3 : Assignment of Release Management responsibilities : project leader.com www. operational groups (building. There are many PC administrator rights for many users for FR and GE Natco but not for UK and Spanish Natco. UK. testing. 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.com . 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). AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 43 www.unilog-management. SMS and Zenworks (distribution.

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). Project leaders should be trained to the using of the AAL tool. Changes which are not standard changes should need a CAB involvement : the CAB should authorize the implementation of a change after the test phase. be be on be    Document  formalization position) System change Release Management activities should be coordinated with the CAB. Users should not PC administrator. 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.  Gain : to have more industrialized Release Management activities.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 44 .unilog. A communication should be done this subject and then PC administrator rights should removed.unilog-management. Back-out plans should be produced and tested before the implementation of each release. 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.com www.   Quality www.

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

Systems) or with other partner which deliver the Service for the SLA (level 2.5 / 5 OIVW Service Level Management process has passed ITIL level 3.com 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 3.unilog.0 Products 4.5 Quality Control 3.0 Customer Interface 2.unilog-management.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 : 3.0 Management Information 5. The scope is mainly Service Level Agreement from OIVW with the client (Airbus business teams) and the operational agreement with subcontractors (T.5 External Integration 2.5 Management Intent 1. The OIVW Service Catalog is also in the assessment scope. 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 Internal Integration 1.3 resolver groups…).com www.5 and failed to level 4 because there is not enough SLM reporting. Maximum attainable score Airbus score www.0 Pre-Requisites 4.0 Process Capability AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 46 .

Service Level Management AS IS Assessment Maturity Level : 3 / 5  Service Level Management Assessment (Synthesis) Main strengths :   SSLM2 : SLAs.     Natco’s gaps : There is no gap www. support. availability.unilog. reliability.com www.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 47 . 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. OLAs SSLM5 : Publishing of an Intranet Service Catalog SSLM6 : Identified key targets for service hours.unilog-management.

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

level 3) should be defined :  An indicator of incident resolving should be shared by the Service Desk.  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 0.1.   WSLM5 : There is no “end to end” indicator between IT and the business. 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. Risk : Dissatisfaction of the business  Quality LEVERS Communication  change  Training change Organization  change (new   Document  formalization www.unilog-management.1.5) and the business.5  First level Resolution : > 90% incidents solved by the Service Desk level 1.…) in order to reach the SLA. 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.unilog. the level 2 and the level 3 groups.  Gain : better satisfaction of the business and better coordination with level 2 and level 3 groups.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. level 2.com position) System change AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 49 . Portal.com www.

monitoring charts…) .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).Service Level Management Recommendations  Service Level Management recommendations (Synthesis) The scoring for Service Level Management is 3.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 50 .Level 4 (Management reporting) : A SLM reporting solution should be implemented (number of requests for new/changed services.com www.5 / 5 : OIVW organization would pass the level 5 “Customer interface” with : . 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. with Financial Management (negotiation of SLAs). with Incident management (implementation of SLAs in the Service Desk tool).Level 5 (Customer Interface) : Customer’s satisfaction surveys should be implemented.unilog.unilog-management. .Level 4.

5 : External Integration : Change Management.5 : already implemented .Level 5 : Customer’s satisfaction surveys to be implemented .Level 4 : Implementation of a Release Management reporting solution .5 5 .5 4.Level 4 : Implementation of a Service Level Management Idem intermediate target reporting solution .RCONF2 : License Management to be implemented .RRM1 : Release Management activities to be optimized . Financial Management.5 : already implemented . Service Level Management should be implemented .unilog-management.5 Service Level Management 3.5 4 .Level 5 : Customer’s satisfaction surveys to be implemented Idem intermediate target processes to be optimized . Configuration Management.com www.Level 4.Level 4.RPM2 : Implementation of a Problem Management process .RCONF1 : Configuration Management tools and reporting solution .5 1 Interm How to reach the intermediate Target ? ediate target 5 . Incident Management .Level 5 : Customer’s satisfaction surveys to be implemented .com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 51 .Level 5 : Customer’s satisfaction surveys to be implemented .Level 4 : Implementation of a Problem Management Configuration Management 1.5 : External Integration with other processes like www.RPM1 : Implementation of a Problem Management organization .5 phase .Presentation of our findings Synthesis of the level to target Synthesis of the level to target : ITIL Process AS IS level 4.5 5 Problem Management.Level 5 : Customer’s satisfaction surveys to be implemented Change Management 2.Level 4.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 .RCHM1 : Change Management process to be implemented Release Management 2 3.Level 5 : Customer surveys should be in a production 5 3.Level 4.unilog.

5 : Value Lvl.unilog-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.com www.unilog.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 52 .Presentation of our findings Synthesis January 2007 The ITIL assessment of the audited processes is the following : Target (end 2007) Lvl.

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 www.unilog. 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. Requesters send a form to the change coordinator in the UK Natco. 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 AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 53 .unilog-management.

Medium.com www.unilog-management. Process Recommendation Quick Gain wins Scope Priority Actors (High.Presentation of our findings Preparation of an action plan (1/2) A global action plan should be built.unilog. 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 Cost Airbus AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 54 . Then a detailed action plan should be built for each recommendation : all actions of each recommendations would be defined.

Medium. 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.unilog-management.com www.Presentation of our findings Preparation of an action plan (2/2) Process Recommendation Quick Gain wins Scope Priority (High.unilog.com AIRBUS _ OIVW ITIL ASSESSMENT 55 .

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