| 個人檔案Omar's Blog on Systems M...相片部落格清單 |  工具  說明 |
|
|
1月22日 SCSM: All quiet at the Service Manager front?It has been a while since Microsoft has released any information about System Center Service Manager. The product team of Ken van Hyning and Stefan Negritolu (ITIL integration lead) had released their first (and only) public beta in june 2007. I have been told that there has been 'a reset with the project' and more information will follow @ MMS 2008. Understandably, there was no much more elaboration on the reasons for this situation.
At MMS 2007 it looked like if the SM team (and I do hope that MSFT does not change the product name
 ) had their stuff together. but I remember the discussion at the thursday session (it was about the database) where the 'techies' were confronted with the 'process' people. After a quite well executed presentation, a young lady came up to the Microphone and asked: "What do you consider to be the configuration database?" - The presenters looked startled and there was applause from the audience...In basic: SCSM will use (or would? Let's go on in present tense) a single database for storing process information (eg. the call logged from the SD rep, RfC's, Asset information) and it's own operational information (e.g. workflows how to get from a software request to automaticly deploy the software using SC ConfigMan). The core of the question was: who owns the process information an can it - from a formal standpoint - be contained in one database? This caviat could become a mayor issue if you want to implement SCSM in an ITIL compliant organization.
Ownership will be a principal discussion. In ITIL, the process (Change Management Asset Management etc. - and it's information) is owned by the relevant manager. Operational procedures are mostly executed by administrators or 'officers'. These people are in charge of controlling and verifying are are often non-technical specialists or back-office personel. ITIL is quite strong on the part of separating procedure and IT-operations. This implies that no single database can be used to store both.
Another aspect is the fact that the data that is generated , is becoming 'business information'. The cumulative information from the processes (e.g. a Change process answers in general "Who-When-Where-What-How Much?), can give some insight on the financial 'household' of the IT department. Especially good asset management and release management can be money savers. Imagine Clickmaster J. owning your asset information and all accompanied cost-center information? I don't think so!
Of course the techies came up with technical solutions as database partitioning and a security context but that is not the answer. You can delegate control over an OU to Clickmaster J. but that does not mean that he is really responsible. Formally, at the end the AD admin is. And that is what ITIL is essentially all about: Formality to sustain that open view on IT operations and avoid actions that might knock-out the core business of your organization.
Let's wait untill MMS 2008 to see if the SM team will 'take the pain to gain' and if they will adress this issue. |
|
|
