Leverage My Synergy: I dare you
Our support division wants to purchase a new help desk ticketing system. Today, these systems are called “service desk management systems” and they come with lots of fancy tools and they all swear they comply with ITIL, or the IT Infrastructure Library, a masterful compilation of best practices whittled down to its essence, which apparently requires 30 volumes (though rumor has it the latest version has only 5 volumes and that you really only need two of them).
Midway through the vendor demos, staff began asking why we want to get a new system, anyway. So today our support manager sent a lengthy email that was so long, so boring, so full of leveraging our synergy, that I wanted to run screaming down the hall to her office to ask why she possibly thought that was an effective communication. Later today, I got an email from my boss that used our strategic plan as a justification for some relatively minor office moves. NOT EVERYTHING IS A STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE!
I’m tired of vendor-speak about service management databases. I’m tired of hearing about ITIL and its promise that if we can just make everything into a process with a workflow we will somehow all provide better services. I’m tired of reading things like “because fostering a climate to improve student retention is a strategic goal, we decided to remove the vending machine on the second floor and replace it with a mini-fridge.”
I know process is good. I know best practices are good. I know workflow happens. I know that sometimes we do need to leverage our synergies. But, to borrow a phrase from my new fabulous golfing world, can’t we just play it as it lays? Why do we need to make everything so hard to understand?
So, what will I do? I’m actually going to print out the help desk email and review it line by line with the author. She will freak because I doubt anyone’s ever reviewed her mail with this much attention. She will then be paralyzed with fear the next time she goes to write an email, and she may ask for help. This is okay. In a while, though, her writing will improve, and so will our culture. That’s my prediction. I’ll even ante up for it (see comments to yesterday’s post).
kdghty said:
Jun 12, 08 at 8:37 pm“…staff began asking why we want to get a new system, anyway…”
facing this ourselves and, really, why? do people think if we call the help desk a service center it will change the clientèle’s perception of the support staff? we’re not perceived as helpful, so let’s shoot for serviceable?
yeah, i’m cranky, but not averse to change. but change for change’s sake isn’t forward motion. it’s just a lot of wobbling around on one foot, showing off.
not your situation, i know – but it was close enough to inspire a smallish rant.
rufusb said:
Jun 13, 08 at 12:10 pmI have been in charge of my group for almost 2 years after taking over from someone who had been here 15 years. There was definitely a need for a culture change and I have just now started to see it. Slowly. Ever so slowly. From my perspective what we needed to do was simplify. Simplify our services. Simplify our processes. This means FEWER services done better and FEWER processes which are easier to follow.
I think there is a perception that services/systems that are more complicated are better or more sophisticated. They aren’t.
admin said:
Jun 13, 08 at 1:35 pmI agree, Rufus. And, K, if we can’t explain why we need a new system then how are we going to know if the new system is successful, right? I just told my staff the story of when I tried to inflict Remedy at my place of former employment and a certain cranky staff member refused… which was the right thing to do.
K, I’m inspired that it’s taken 2 years to see the change. I will be patient and chip away at this granite monolith so slowy they will barely see it happen.
Like the military, right? Keep it simple.
pkscout said:
Jun 13, 08 at 4:07 pmI’ve significantly slowed down the number of staff initiated product demos by showing everyone the budget. ‘-)
Seriously, I think I’m running into some of the same things you are. Part of the staff wants change, any change, and others don’t want you to change the color of pens we buy. Using strategic language is probably just a way to hide behind one side of the argument or the other. I’m just trying to get folks to focus on things that will yield some metrics (so we can tell where we’re spending our time) or provide better information to end users.
At least when I’m not fending off the president’s admin…
jaeger said:
Jun 14, 08 at 8:59 pmWhats wrong with the existing system? Anything? Or just the desire to see if there really is something better out there?
Have the requirements changed? Has the user population grown to exceed the old systems comfort zone? Is the help desk (service whatever) changed what it does in some way?
Does management (either at your CTO level or some other level) want to be able to run more reports / generate pretty graphs?
Whats the software / hardware budget for this?
Or might this software system change just be a good excuse to break with some old processes / habits?
How are you serving your core competencies and are you executing on stakeholder buyin?
kdghty said:
Jun 15, 08 at 12:32 pmslightly off-topic, but still pertinent-ish:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7453584.stm
admin said:
Jun 16, 08 at 8:43 pmKdghty: thx for the link. I’ve gathered a few others on business jargon and will discuss at our directors’ meeting tomorrow.
Jaeger: our current ticketing software is woefully unstable and unsupportable. We really do need another ticketing system. And, if we’re going to install new software, we might as well change some of our processes while we’re at it…and, if we’re changing processes, we might as well seek out ITIL compliance. We have a good sized budget for this. The problem is, as I can see it, the scope creep is more like scope leap, and so we’re focusing too much on the process jargon of ITIL and not enough on a: what does the new software do and b: how does it do it and c: will this make our work easier or just allow us to hide all our communication issues in a bunch of workflow processes and service level agreements between our “silos.” We will see.