Implementing a University Wide IT Service … library...Implementing a University Wide IT Service Management Tool Ashton Mossop LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICES About

www.ithelpdesk.qut.edu.au

L E A R N I N G E N V I R O N M E N T S A N D T E C H N O L O G Y S E R V I C E S

Implementing a University Wide IT Service Management Tool

Ashton Mossop



About me

15 years experience in IT, primarily in Client Support. Worked for state & local government, IBM and have been in the University Sector since 2005. Interests:

• Process Improvement • User Experience • Web Design (the look & feel part) • Creative Writing • According to my staff: Making bad jokes



About QUT

Originally founded in 1849 as the Brisbane School of Arts, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) is a highly successful Australian university with an applied emphasis in courses and research. Based in Brisbane, we have 4,500 staff, 47,000 students and an annual budget of over AU$800 million. We have two major campuses and several smaller sites.



Service Providers

QUT’s Information Technology is delivered to the clients by two different areas with distinct portfolios: Information Technology Services

Learning Environments and Technology Services



QUT IT Support

Remote Support

Onsite

Central Labs

Desktop Admin

Application Support

Faculty IT

Networks Comms

Research Support

Printing

Digital Signage

Student Services

* Items shown are only a sample of the 60 teams we have



The issue

In a university environment with competing agendas, priorities, attitudes, work patterns, work styles…where to begin?





Our previous solution

• 7 year old tool designed to be ITIL v2 compatible • Could not be upgraded past the version it was on • Only worked on Windows • Was not Windows 7 compatible (Win8 on the way) • Low interest and active avoidance from service teams • Some people were very stuck in their ways • Using Problem module for “Project work” • Poor self service interface • Shoehorned incident module to do billing • General usability issues • Performance issues • Reporting issues



“A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.”

Steve Jobs “I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.”

Bill Cosby “People may not know what they do want….but they certainly know what they don’t. Just ask them…”

Ashton Mossop



Market Scan

Requirements: • All modules for all the ITIL v3 processes • Concurrent licensing model • On premises Installation • Good self service interface • Link to our identify management system for user info • Fast response time • Link to our phone system • Work on non windows computers • Mobile interface • Intuitive interface



Top 3 challenges

• Entering data quickly and easily • Finding / exporting data for reporting • Enabling end users to log jobs



Reporting

• Reporting performed outside the tool on an enterprise reporting platform

• Not everyone had permission to create reports • Required specialist knowledge to create the reports • Nobody to train you in how understand the database and

how to make the reports • Searching in the tool either difficult or simply didn’t work • Of the ~50 standard reports created by those with the

know-how, only 5 were used frequently.



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/AN

Y TE

AM

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/AN

Y TE

AM/I

NCI

DEN

T IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

ANY

TEAM

/AN

Y SU

BGRO

UP

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/AN

Y TE

AM

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/AN

Y TE

AM/S

EARC

HIN

G IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/IHS

/TEC

HSU

P IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

BLAC

KBO

ARD

SUPP

ORT

IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/HR

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/AD

HOC

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/M

ANAG

EMEN

T IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

ANY

TEAM

/ITS

IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

MAN

AGEM

ENT

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/AN

Y TE

AM

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/AN

Y TE

AM/S

EARC

HIN

G IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/TEM

PLAT

ES

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/TE

CHSU

P IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_ADM

IN/I

TSM

SU

PPO

RT

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/AN

Y TE

AM

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/AN

Y TE

AM/E

SS

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/BL

ACKB

OAR

D SU

PPO

RT

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/_D

EVEL

OPE

RS/B

LACK

BOAR

D …

IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/BLA

CKBO

ARD

…

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/_D

EVEL

OPE

RS/B

LACK

BOAR

D …

IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/BLA

CKBO

ARD

…

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/_D

EVEL

OPE

RS/H

R IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/IHS

IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/IHS

/TEC

HSU

P IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/IHS

/TEC

HSU

P IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/IHS

/TEC

HSU

P/TI

MM

IT

SM …

IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/ITS

/EIS

/CO

RPO

RATE

…

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/_D

EVEL

OPE

RS/I

TS/E

IS/C

ORP

ORA

TE …

IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/ITS

/EIS

/CO

RPO

RATE

…

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/_D

EVEL

OPE

RS/I

TS/E

IS/C

ORP

ORA

TE …

IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/ITS

/EIS

/CO

RPO

RATE

…

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/_D

EVEL

OPE

RS/I

TS/E

IS/C

ORP

ORA

TE …

IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/ITS

/EIS

/CO

RPO

RATE

…

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/_D

EVEL

OPE

RS/I

TS/E

IS/C

ORP

ORA

TE …

IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/ITS

/EIS

/CO

RPO

RATE

…

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/_D

EVEL

OPE

RS/I

TS/E

IS/C

ORP

ORA

TE …

IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/ITS

/EIS

/CO

RPO

RATE

…

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/_D

EVEL

OPE

RS/I

TS/E

IS/C

ORP

ORA

TE …

IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/ITS

/EIS

/CO

RPO

RATE

…

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/_D

EVEL

OPE

RS/I

TS/E

IS/C

ORP

ORA

TE …

IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

_DEV

ELO

PERS

/ITS

/EIS

/CO

RPO

RATE

…

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/_D

EVEL

OPE

RS/I

TS/E

IS/I

NTR

ANET

…

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/_D

EVEL

OPE

RS/L

IBSY

S/LI

BSYS

…

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/M

ANAG

EMEN

T IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

TECH

SUP

ITSM

REP

ORT

S/TE

CHSU

P IT

SM R

EPO

RTS/

TECH

SUP



0

100

200

300

400

500

600



Categorisation

• We had a 4 layer deep categorisation for Incidents which gave 578 combinations for classifying a ticket

• In an 8 month period, over 80% of the available combinations, had less than 20 tickets logged



0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Acce

ss

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t Co

mpu

ting

Supp

ort

Serv

er M

anag

emen

t Co

mpu

ting

Supp

ort

Serv

er M

anag

emen

t Au

dio

/ Visu

al S

yste

ms

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t Co

mm

unic

atio

n Sy

stem

s Co

mm

unic

atio

n Sy

stem

s Ac

cess

Au

dio

/ Visu

al S

yste

ms

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t Co

mm

unic

atio

n Sy

stem

s Co

mm

unic

atio

n Sy

stem

s Co

mm

unic

atio

n Sy

stem

s Bu

sines

s Sys

tem

s Le

arni

ng +

Tea

chin

g Sy

stem

s Bu

sines

s Sys

tem

s Bu

sines

s Sys

tem

s Se

rver

Man

agem

ent

Busin

ess S

yste

ms

Lear

ning

+ T

each

ing

Syst

ems

Busin

ess S

yste

ms

Com

mun

icat

ion

Syst

ems

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t Se

rver

Man

agem

ent

Busin

ess S

yste

ms

Busin

ess S

yste

ms

Com

mun

icat

ion

Syst

ems

Com

mun

icat

ion

Syst

ems

Lear

ning

+ T

each

ing

Syst

ems

Serv

er M

anag

emen

t Bu

sines

s Sys

tem

s Bu

sines

s Sys

tem

s Bu

sines

s Sys

tem

s Bu

sines

s Sys

tem

s Bu

sines

s Sys

tem

s Bu

sines

s Sys

tem

s Bu

sines

s Sys

tem

s Bu

sines

s Sys

tem

s Bu

sines

s Sys

tem

s Bu

sines

s Sys

tem

s Co

mm

unic

atio

n Sy

stem

s Co

mm

unic

atio

n Sy

stem

s Co

mm

unic

atio

n Sy

stem

s Co

mpu

ting

Supp

ort

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t Le

arni

ng +

Tea

chin

g Sy

stem

s Le

arni

ng +

Tea

chin

g Sy

stem

s Le

arni

ng +

Tea

chin

g Sy

stem

s Le

arni

ng +

Tea

chin

g Sy

stem

s Tr

aini

ng S

uppo

rt

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Categorisation Jan – Aug 2013



0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Acce

ss

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Serv

er M

anag

emen

t

Com

mun

icat

ion

Syst

ems

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Lear

ning

+ T

each

ing

Syst

ems

Busin

ess S

yste

ms

Lear

ning

+ T

each

ing

Syst

ems

Com

mun

icat

ion

Syst

ems

Busin

ess S

yste

ms

Serv

er M

anag

emen

t

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Lear

ning

+ T

each

ing

Syst

ems

Com

mun

icat

ion

Syst

ems

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Com

mun

icat

ion

Syst

ems

Busin

ess S

yste

ms

Com

mun

icat

ion

Syst

ems

Com

mun

icat

ion

Syst

ems

Com

mun

icat

ion

Syst

ems

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Lear

ning

+ T

each

ing

Syst

ems

Com

mun

icat

ion

Syst

ems

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Acce

ss

Serv

er M

anag

emen

t

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Acce

ss

Serv

er M

anag

emen

t

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Com

mun

icat

ion

Syst

ems

Una

ble

to C

lass

ify

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Com

putin

g Su

ppor

t

Top 80%



Categorisation

What this meant was: • we had multiple ways to classify some things and no way

to classify others • The structure was too complex • It took a while to identify how to classify a ticket







Proposed Solution

• Replace existing tool • Create a Reporting Coordinator role • Critically look at the previously provided reports and if necessary

make them more useful - most weren’t actual “reports” • Flatten the classification structure



Expected Response



Result



Our approach

• Replace our existing tool • Train the trainer approach for Analysts • Emphasis on T1 & T2 usability • Enabled our users to find the data in the tool negating a lot of the

needs for reports • Create a Request Fulfillment Process Manager role • Populate Service Catalogue with Request Offerings • Create a Reporting Coordinator role • Flatten the classification structure 4 deep down to 2.

Now only (78 possible combinations) – 11 services – 8 categories under each



0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

01-2

012

02-2

012

03-2

012

04-2

012

05-2

012

06-2

012

07-2

012

08-2

012

09-2

012

10-2

012

11-2

012

12-2

012

01-2

013

02-2

013

03-2

013

04-2

013

05-2

013

06-2

013

07-2

013

08-2

013

09-2

013

10-2

013

11-2

013

12-2

013

01-2

014

02-2

014

03-2

014

04-2

014

05-2

014

06-2

014

07-2

014

08-2

014

09-2

014

10-2

014

11-2

014

12-2

014

01-2

015

02-2

015

03-2

015

Self Service Uptake



Self Service

Incident

Service Request

Approvals

Tasks

Problem

Reporting

Change

Service Level Management

Config

Knowledge

Release

Voice

Survey Modules



Self Service

Incident

Service Request

Approvals

Tasks

Problem

Reporting

Change


Config

Knowledge

Release

Voice

Survey 2013 (Go live)



Self Service

Incident

Service Request

Approvals

Tasks

Problem

Reporting

Change


Config

Knowledge

Release

Voice

Survey 2014



Self Service

Incident

Service Request

Approvals

Tasks

Problem

Reporting

Change


Config

Knowledge

Release

Voice

Survey 2015 (planned)



Lessons learned

• Be careful not to swing too far in the opposite direction • Train the trainer only works if they “want to” • Identify what you “need” to report on before you begin

the reporting journey • Volume vs Quality: Instead of reports, opt for Business

Intelligence



After thoughts

• New tool “can” renew interest in IT Service Management

• New tool can be a good opportunity to implement process improvement

• Challenge “it’s always been done that way”



Documents

Implementing a University Wide IT Service … library...Implementing a University Wide IT Service Management Tool Ashton Mossop LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICES About