$50 Billion Will Fix It

It's really difficult to look at world events passively. Any one who has ever run a project or driven improvement in an organization will see similarities and will have an opinion. As much as I hate to breach the subject of politics, there is a great deal for service managers and executives to learn from current events. The news media this morning is carrying a story about Hillary Clinton who signed a pledge for the next president to commit $50 billion to address the world wide problem of AIDS ( Clinton Signs AIDS Financing Pledge ). To be clear, I am not advocating one political party over another nor am I against eradicating AIDS. I am, however, very concerned that the good and reasonable knowledge we have learned about corporate and enterprise change and improvement is not being applied to decision making that potentially impacts our taxes, health or our standing in the world.

Several facts about the above article in the New York Times caught my attention:

• Ms. Clinton may have signed the pledge reactively or defensively to avoid a demonstration by activists in Philadelphia;
• The Clinton campaign released a statement that Ms. Clinton will be providing a formal AIDS policy that she will release in the "near future;"
• Candidate Bill Richardson signed the pledge;
  
• Candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama did not sign the pledge but do have AIDS plans which align with some of the pledge goals.

Let's apply these observations to an enterprise-wide improvement project. Ask any project manager which is best: to set the scope, objectives and goals first, gather the facts, design the key elements of a project plan and then seek funding to support the project's objectives, or to set a target budget first and then figure out how to "spend the money."

Put another way, which is likely to be more successful: a project plan with clear goals and objectives that seeks appropriate funding to support those objectives or a funding target that seeks a plan? In my experience, throwing money at a problem only creates more problems. This is particularly evident when we give in to political expediency to deal with complex issues.

"Touching" Your Customers

Many years ago we had a unique opportunity to work with the senior management of a communications company as well as their IT management and support staff in the same week. So what, might you ask, was so unique about that? Well, the dynamics of the engagement provided the freedom to relay feedback from support and operations to management and vice versa without damaging relationships or risking the jobs of those candid and honest individuals. The outcome came as a shock to corporate management: the company was totally out of touch with both its customers and its staff. Decisions were made in isolation without visibility to the downstream or, for that matter, even upstream impact.

This project came to mind when I distributed an article recently to my advisory team, "Taking a Whack Against Comcast," which relates a disturbing story reminiscent of the Michael Douglas 1993 movie, "Falling Down". The response to my email broadcast was interesting. One respondent shared their experience with a cell phone company over the past TWO YEARS trying to get an incorrect, yet recurring charge, off their monthly invoice. Another said they were transferring all their communications, email, cable and telephone, to another service because they were "tired of the poor customer service" practiced by their current provider. I have personal experience with a rented international mobile phone from my cell phone provider that never worked the entire time I was in Europe. And I'm certain all of us can relate to the frustration of dealing with phone trees, recorded messages and web interfaces that fall short of anything remotely resembling customer service.

That is why I found an article in Monday's "Investor's Business Daily" interesting. If you are a subscriber, look on Page A8 for the article on Netflix, "Wooing Customers With Call Centers." If ever there was an explanation of how customer service can be used to differentiate a business from its competition, this is it. The article starts off with a simple, direct and impactful sentence: "Humans matter." In short, here is the essence of the message:

• Netflix and Blockbuster are in direct combat in a highly competitive industry;
• Netflix must differentiate itself from its competition;
• Netflix has opened a new call center to deal with customer issues, acting on a desire to be aggressive in reducing "customer churn";
• Other industries, financial service firms in particular, have worked to improve their call center operations;
  
• Implementing automated call and email handling exclusively as a cost control mechanism has negatively impacted satisfaction;
• Call center outsourcing has impacted service quality (Dell);
• Netflix consulted best practices in call handling to differentiate their call center operations.
  

Many organizations implement technology solutions under the guise of enhancing customer service. Customers recognize this as a shallow ruse of concealing the real motivation: to cut costs. As Michael Osier, VP of IT operations at Netflix said: “Customer satisfaction comes down to treating people the way you want to be treated.”

Wow! What a concept!

ITIL V3 Benefit

A lot of speculation and considerable confusion surrounds the ITIL Refresh. I feel this is good because discussion promotes understanding. A friend of mine sent me a Computer World article discussing some of these changes, "ITIL Starts Making Sense in v3" which provides a very good perspective on the value of the changes to the ITIL framework. The ideas expressed are excellent and right on target. Another set of insights on each of the books comes from the ITSM International Portal. If you're interested, follow the thread of updates through all the books. I'll not restate what these authors have already expressed.

But there is a danger here that concerns many of my peers. Now, before I list these concerns, let me say, AGAIN, that the ITIL Refresh was long, long overdue. And it helps tremendously in clarifying some of the ambiguity and in emphasizing the interdependence of the services as critically related components in a cyclical, service-centric framework. I am not certain that my concerns, which are shared by others in the industry, could have been addressed fully and appropriately in the framework. Regardless of what I say or how I say it though, some will interpret my comments as criticism and resistance to the refresh. That is not the case.

The concern is not the structure of the revision but the apparent lack of understanding of some of the content that is presented. For example, the book I reviewed prior to publication gave, well there's no other way to say it, "lip service" to long-standing principles of quality. Herein lies the danger: there is "just enough" information provided in the texts to make someone potentially dangerous. Based on my review and documented critique, "some" of the materials addressed core concepts that lie outside the immediate domain of ITIL. That is fine. But these concepts were simply resurrected, referenced and reiterated, ad infinitum with no convincing indication that the authors actually had first-hand, practical experience using the concepts. It is my fear that because there is no depth, no richness based on first-hand experience, the concepts will:
1. Fall on deaf ears;
2. Be dismissed as too inconvenient or complex to apply to an ITSM implementation;
3. Be applied with minimal understanding of the intended consequences.

Any outcome can only hurt ITIL in the long run. Inexperienced certified ITIL "experts" may adopt the same shallow attitude and rush forward with "all the right words" and none of the practical application insight. I saw it happen when only V2 was available. I suspect there is even a greater likelihood today; particularly if the emphasis is on "upgrading" your certification and "complying" with the framework for the sake of compliance rather than understanding the concepts to a depth of competence that will promote a solid implementation.

A solid implementation requires considerable "soul searching" and extensive decision-making. Many organizations cannot or will not:

• Do what is necessary to understand why they're implementing ITSM;
• Face up to the truth from their customers;
• Follow-through with a solid program implementation framework based on the principles of quality;
• Make the hard decisions;
  
• Have the patience to "stick with it."

Lacking the depth of understanding of the quality principles underlying ITIL, an implementor has little foundation to maintain course once it's started. Of course, that only positions many of us to come in and fix the damage after a failed implementation. That is, if the client organization hasn't already tired of the struggle.

ITIL V3 an Upgrade(?)

Two articles from the Bill Gates world of upgrades crossed my screen last week:

Giving up on Vista? Here's how to downgrade to XP

and

Microsoft gives OEMs five more months to install XP.

There seems to be an underground forming as a resistance to the Vista upgrade. And even Microsoft realizes they can't force it down the throats of enterprise IT as fast as they might wish. The timing of of these articles is interesting because just this week I've answered a lot of questions about the ITIL V3. Some people, service managers in particular, are worried. Others are wondering. Wondering what, you ask? Just wondering...

• Do we need to restructure our implementation plan?
• Do we need to retrain everyone?
• Do we need to bother upgrading at all? Why can't we just continue on the path we've already started?
• If I'm certified, what does this mean to me?
  

I'll save response to these issues for another post. What I will address is the undercurrent that seems to be taking shape in the ITSM world. These questions indicate there is a lot of confusion about the ITIL refresh. And the questions, prompted by frustration, are coming from some who just started structuring their service management program in line with ITIL. I am worried that the ambiguity is not helping promote the ITIL framework. I am worried that the acceptance ITIL has gained in the past five years will stall. I am worried that those of us working in the gap between IT and corporate quality see the gap only widening. I am worried about an undercurrent of resistance to the refresh will expand into a full-blown underground.

This refresh was long overdue. The organizational structure, which we have been advocating even before ITIL was widely recognized in the United States, has been addressed. The service life cycle, which again most experienced quality professionals have been recommending for years, has also been addressed. The focus on service is admirable. The evolutionary changes vividly demonstrate that ITIL is a living, breathing framework that will mature as needs dictate.

What concerns many professionals is ITIL V3 will be seen as an upgrade rather than the evolutionary improvement intended. Training, certifications and even the nomenclature, Version 3, reinforce that perception. The ambiguity that surrounds how an individual or organization can "evolve" to V3 risks fomenting a backlash of resistance that may well begin to resemble the anit-Bill movement.