The re-structuring of the information technology infrastructure library (ITIL) implementation using knowledge management framework
The Authors
Mirghani S. Mohamed, New York Institute of Technology, Adliya, Bahrain
Vincent M. Ribière, Institute for Knowledge and Innovation, Bangkok University, Bangkok, Thailand
Kevin J. O'Sullivan, New York Institute of Technology, New York, USA
Mona A. Mohamed, New York Institute of Technology, Adliya, Bahrain
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide reinforcement for ITIL V 2.0 implementation process through knowledge management principles embedded in enterprise management-engineering framework (EMEF).
Design/methodology/approach – EMEF has been amended to include knowledge management (KM) activities that are imperative for a melioration of ITIL implementation. The framework of four domains has been documented in detail. Additionally, the three major amendments of structure, architecture, and context have been suggested for a configuration management database (CMDB) to comply with KM principles.
Findings – There are strong indications that implementing ITIL by following the system-thinking approach may add and sustain competitive advantage. This may be achieved through the leveraging of knowledge, improvement of core competencies, and fostering a customer-consciousness approach. The apprehension of knowledge continuum components, and the differentiation between knowledge types, are critical for fortifying the ITIL process path and supporting the decision-making process throughout ITIL implementation. The four layers of the integrative management domain will significantly contribute to the tuning of operational misalignment between IT and business, and the betterment of the employee and processes effectiveness. The similarities found between ontology objects and CMDB configuration items will raise CMDB information to a higher level of conceptualization.
Originality/value – This paper will be valuable for ITIL customers, decision makers, and implementers by providing a more complete framework allowing organizations to attain effectiveness, efficiency and innovation throughout ITIL implementation.
Article Type:
Technical paper
Keyword(s):
Knowledge management; Customer service management; Configuration management; Communication technologies.
Journal:
VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems
Volume:
38
Number:
3
Year:
2008
pp:
315-333
Copyright ©
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN:
0305-5728
Introduction
The information technology infrastructure library (ITIL) is the undisputed global de facto framework for IT service management (ITSM). Berkhout et al. (2001) state that ITIL is a set of published practices based on BSI Code of Practice for IT service management (PD0005). The ITIL framework was developed, and is owned by the British Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and supported and updated by the International IT Service Management Forum (itSMF).
ITIL V 2.0 delivers and supports a set of ten interrelated IT services management (ITSM) processes and one function. It exemplifies the roadmap and the description of ITSM practices, which are comprehensively covered in the services support and delivery sections of the library set. ITIL is an evolving and complex framework with many intermingling factors and confounding effects that postulate the leveraging of intensive knowledge. Therefore, the intromission of knowledge management (KM) principles into ITIL framework is imperative, not only for its efficiency, but also for its success in the first place. Many research results indicate that KM is effectual in “un-siloing” the boundaries of compartmentalization in organizations (Mohamed et al., 2004; Swan and Bowers, 1998; Offsey, 1997; Ward, 2000). This fact is a prerequisite for service management to excel in case of continuous service improvement programs (CSIP). In fact, the authors believe that all IT services frameworks and KM processes are inextricably interrelated. Mohamed et al. (2004) report that traditional organizations with heavy internal competition, rigid functional silos, and undue compartmentalization exhibit sub-optimal performance by inhibiting critical knowledge flows. The authors proposed a systematic approach for combining the principles of KM and cross-functional teaming in ways that purposefully enhance knowledge flows and result in significant improvements in organizational performance as measured by cost, time, and quality.
ITIL framework does not offer clear-cut implementation techniques. The implementation mechanism is left for the implementer to decide upon. This is unquestionably a congenial scheme for IT community, especially when it comes to freedom of choice and exemption for creativity and innovation as many investigators reported that KM plays a major role in innovation (Gurteen, 1998; Brand, 1998; Carneiro, 2000; Rapley, 1997; Swan et al., 1999). Additionally, the framework recommends no standards for the sequence of the ten integral processes. By introducing such flexibility in ITSM, ITIL implementation becomes a good candidate for the leverage of strategic knowledge. For instance, factors such as the organization culture and the rate of the knowledge absorption determine the process implementation sequence and overlap. In effect, the real advantage comes from the good absorptive capacity of knowledge coupled with action that create new knowledge. Furthermore, the inherited information exchange and the coordination between the processes also influence the implementation sequence. For example, it is recommended that configuration management, change management, and release management be planned and implemented in parallel (Bartlett et al. 2001). However, chronological sequence implementation might be more appropriate in environments with limited resources.
This article is an attempt to reinforce the implementation of ITIL processes using KM principles through the enterprise management-engineering framework (EMEF). The crux of this framework, is that KM principles (Stankosky and Baldanza, 2000), systems thinking (Senge, 1990) and the ITIL processes (Bartlett et al., 2001; Berkhout et al., 2001) are interdependent and underpinned by integrative management.
Enterprise management-engineering framework elements
EMEF relies on system thinking and integrates KM strategies with classic systems engineering and integrative management. The framework was first developed by Professor Stankosky and modified in this (Stankosky and Baldanza, 2000) to enhance the likelihood of ITIL implementation success. The framework bridges the gap between human communication and ITIL processes integration. EMEF is divided into four consecutive domains, namely, input, process, integrative management, and output as depicted in Figure 1.
Input
The input domain comprises of a combination of KM elements, major ITIL processes inputs and enterprise status quo analysis. KM elements consist of the enterprise goals, strategic vision, measurable goals and KM four pillars.
As a preparatory phase for the implementation, a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis should be conducted. In this case, SWOT will cite the existing service maturity level and shall be conducted based on intellectual assets preparedness for carrying out CSIP. The SWOT matrix assesses the status quo of the KM processes and its relevancy to the existing CISP practices. These elements include, but are not limited to organizational culture, KM strategy, learning, institutional memory, collaborative techniques and technology and experts contributions. SWOT can be carried out in phases depending on the need for each process or cluster of processes under consideration.
The SWOT analysis phase is followed by developing a holistic vision of KM to satisfy the business and IT alignment requirements. In fact, this is one of the major roles played by KM processes in furtherance of CSIP vision through communication, coordination and cooperation.
Within the limitations of EMEF realm, it is safe to postulate that ITIL processes will themselves work as knowledge brokers through their authoritative databases i.e. configuration management database (CMDB), availability management database (AMDB), capacity management database (CDB), as examples. This phase is accomplished through activities such as knowledge synthesis, capturing, sharing, and reuse. process maturity framework (PMF) can be implied at early stages to identify the processes maturity levels. It has been described by Lloyd et al. (2002) that PMF can be used to assist maturity of the services processes; it is a modification for a concept originally developed by IBM and Harvard School of Business. PMF outcome is an indicator of what level of knowledge needed for the implementation.
The ITIL approach to service management is fundamentally based on the processes interrelationships and synchronization. Nevertheless, the framework put little emphasis on the role played by KM activities such as discovery, capturing, assimilation, sharing and utilization in support of its own various processes. The process relationships, as related to major KM activities, are depicted in Figure 2.
ITSM and the KM pillars
Professor Michael Stankosky of the George Washington University formulated a KM conceptual framework that consists of four pillars, namely, organization, leadership, technology and learning (Stankosky and Baldanza, 2000) (Figure 3). The proportionality in which each of these pillars contributes to the organization KM strategy depends on the vision and the objectives of that organization, but all of these pillars must exist for KM initiative to be successful in the long term. Each of these pillars has specific contribution to ITIL implementation process.
Leadership
The leadership of the organization or business unit must share a lucid vision about CSIP as it has responsibility for taking advantage of the competitive value gained from ITIL implementation. Commitment to process quality improvement and cost reduction must be prioritized with clear strategy. ITIL implementation needs both formal institutional and informal community leadership for comprehensive motivation and sustainability. In both cases, the leadership can mobilize the intellectual capacity of the organization, at different levels of management, and provide the necessary funds for training staff and rewarding success. None of ITIL processes can be deployed without the authorization and the serious commitment of the organization leadership. Choppin (1997) reported that the success within any organization depends on the leadership's attitude towards learning.
Organization
The ultimate objectives of an organization becoming ITIL-compliant is to create synergy between all processes to improve IT services quality and to bring about cost reduction. These are somewhat conflicting objectives and cannot be satisfied without gaining competitive advantage by leveraging knowledge through collaboration, cooperation, and innovation. These activities will result in removing barriers where IT units are isolated in their classic pathogenic compartmentalization, with autonomous groups of networks, systems, applications, and operations. This is true especially in case of larger organizations, where the silos have more probability to exist and the effects more prominent. Paradoxically, ITIL envisions the organization as a conduit for processes continuum across all disciplines. This provides a good mechanism for avoiding sub-optimization of these processes and their effect on business across the whole organization. However, ITIL comes up short regarding the inter-disciplines relationship of different organizations to communicate, cooperate, and share knowledge. In ITIL, this kind of relationship is mentioned only in the reciprocal arrangement of IT Service Continuity Management, where two organizations support each other, at technology level, when the unexpected happens.
For efficient ITIL implementation, the organization must reconstruct itself or more effectively re-engineer itself to propagate accountabilities and share responsibilities. EMEF calls for a shift in the strategic focus to change the organization structure parallel to the changes in service processes. This is achieved through empowering middle management and processes owners to take decentralized decisions through their relevant teams without going back to upper management. Generally, ITIL calls for a dynamic flat “boundaryless” organization with well-defined and integrated processes that satisfy specific business goals. However, it provides no clear strategy for an organization with a culture of resistance to change or to promote involvement and ownership in staff that resist change. These major modifications require organizational involvement and real cultural change that takes time, but cannot be achieved through mere policies or rigid processes.
Technology
The adoption of technology in ITIL implementation is critical, largely because it minimizes manual labor, promotes collaboration, reduces errors, speeds both escalations and resolutions, and conglomerates data for better analysis and pattern recognition. In addition, technology helps in automation of the processes, which aids in transparency between both individuals and the processes themselves. This communication happens through batching, notification, escalation and automated workflows.
The relationship between KM and technology is stated by Mohamed et al. (2006) as the key to achieving harmony between KM and IT is to understand the very basic principles: there are things that computer and technology do well, and there are things that humans do well. Many of the failures of IT and KM, and much of the tension between the two, are the result of repeated attempts to force one paradigm to operate within the realm of the other.
Learning
Owing to the evolving nature and the continued growth in services needed by business, ITIL value added is more salient in a learning organizational environment. Institutional learning involves understanding the context of ITIL vocabulary and the dynamics of the interrelationship between the service delivery and service support processes. Establishing new relationships between people, coalescing intellectual capacity and building new skills is more important than the relationship between ITIL processes themselves. Integrating the processes without incorporating human relations in a pragmatic way may jeopardize and eventually fail an ITIL implementation. A solution to this may be achieved through cross-functional teams building, stakeholder mapping, and communities of practice (CoP) formation from support staff, customers, and suppliers. The representation of different processes in the cross-functional team must be considered. Learning and communication activities may reduce the standard response time required for problem resolution or carrying out authorized changes. For instance, should a major incident record become escalated to problem management i.e. the resolution time exceeds the negotiated service level agreement (SLA) time, then that functional escalation should trigger the following KM practices:
- Involvement of organized specialized groups to identify the root cause.
- The process itself should be considered as a learning experience.
- The customers must be informed about the solution, which should be made available and accessible to them.
- The final solution must run through quality assurance, be approved, published and communicated or broadcasted to all staff to avoid re-inventing the wheel in the future.
For ITIL training to be more effective, the authors recommend the development of core competence through training which should be decided upon according to the location of the staff in the authority matrix. This authority matrix is based on the model of accountability, responsibility, consulted, or informed (ARCI) matrix.
Process and activities
This domain consists of the implementation of integrated functions, processes, and sub-processes of KM and ITIL. The authors believe that the interdependency between these processes may result in effectiveness of the ITSM, but may fall short from reaching efficiency in ITSM deployment. The difference between effectiveness and efficiency is described by Berkhout et al. (2001) as “if the products conform to the set norm, the process can be considered effective. If the activities carried out with a minimum effort, the process can also be considered efficient.”
This domain consists of intellectual asset as mechanism that delivers strategic and operational knowledge. In ITSM, intellectual asset can be described as knowledge with a particular business value attributed to the specific implementation process being followed. An example for this is the experiential scope that harmonizes the old silo processes with the new systemic process, and minimizes the likelihood of operational risk. It is worth noting that the harnessing of these processes to work within specific environment occurs through understanding and leveraging the relevant knowledge about the old and the new environment ingredients. Accordingly, the capital investment should put emphasis on the intellectual capital and the core competencies, more than any other asset in the enterprise.
Various teaming structures such as cross-function teams (CFT), change advisory board (CAB), communities of practice (CoP), expert spaces (ES) and network externalities (NE) are critical in nurturing and sharing of knowledge for ITIL implementation. Mohamed et al. (2004) state that CFT involves collaboration of people from various functions, divisions, and entities that result in a blend of individual backgrounds, behavioral patterns, awareness and tacit knowledge. Over time, this integration will strategically push the organization in the direction of holistic system thinking in which people envision the whole interacting system rather than focusing on isolated elements that are under their control.
Integrative management
This domain integrates the standard management aspects of ITIL implementation and KM processes elements. The objective of the integrative management (IM) is not only to amalgamate all processes management aspects, but also to sustain the integration of these processes through sound management techniques. The major components of this domain can be conceptualized in four sub-domains.
Framework hybridization
Framework hybridization represents the coalescing and leveraging of knowledge from different frameworks for effectiveness, efficiency and innovation during and after the implementation process. ITSM is a multi-faceted venturesome undertaking; therefore, ITIL alone will not be the utopian panacea for the entire ITSM. ITIL provides standard practices for planning and executing an ITSM program to improve quality, reduce cost, and mitigate risk. Many other frameworks are complementary to ITIL with a very different focus. For example, control objectives for information and related technology (CobiT) is a de facto control and performance measure framework apt for regulatory compliance and IT governance. Six Sigma is appropriate for minimizing variability through monitoring and measuring improvement in environments where the process reaches certain levels of maturity. This maturity level can be gauged using capability maturity model integration (CMMi) for a well-established ITIL sub-processes such as ITSM benchmarking and service improvement program (SIP).
Technologies and techniques
This sub-domain consists of the enabling technologies such as CMDB, portals, expertise locators, expert spaces and content management. CMDB is a federated hub for configuration information and it can be described as the heart of ITIL framework. Some ITIL practitioners described it as “the ultimate source of truth”. All ITIL processes rely on CMDB to furnish them with trustworthy configuration item (CI) information, relationships, and interdependencies. CMDB is different from other databases as described by Colville (2006) that CMDB must possess four criteria, namely, reconciliation, federation, mapping and visualization, and synchronization. The authors believe that CMDB maturity in the market has not, as yet, been reached as these four criteria are rarely addressed by any of the current CMDB in the market. On the other hand, the integration of the communication tools such as the combination of automatic call distribution (ACD) with interactive voice response (IVR) and expertise locators or expertise space may add a tremendous value for process efficiency.
This layer also consists of unique teaming techniques such as the technical observation post (TOP) as an availability management activity. A TOP is a gathering of IT services specialists from different areas to brainstorm and exchange ideas to resolve a complex availability issue. TOP represents the collaborative learning processes that results from live observation and real-time data synergy.
Developing a relationship with the business result in better feedback, which is necessary for any improvement program. This relationship may be achieved through business relationship management (BRM), which is one of the links through which the transfer of tacit knowledge can be facilitated from business to IT. BRM is not only useful during the implementation phase, but also critical to keep momentum of the CSIP initiative through collaborative support and maintenance.
Quality improvement and metrics
The enhanced aspects of the service level management (SLM) depend on service improvement program (SIP), which represents a gradual transfer of tacit knowledge between the stakeholders for improved service quality. Consequently, the program requires both the development of documentation and the training of staff to understand services such as problem and availability management. SIP may be considered as a learning organization activity, which eventually leads to innovation and paradigm shifts in service management in general. Similarly, the post implementation review (PIR) can be seen as a KM and information assurance processes that triggers constructive dialogue after a change, where alternative solutions and improvements are documented in CMDB for future references.
Feedback
Within EMEF, feedback occurs at two distinct levels:
-
Human level. Soliciting feedback from customers through customer satisfaction survey (CSS) is an iterative process for knowledge refinement, which plays an important role in understanding complex systems. As suggested by Bourne and Walker (2005) feedback can also be solicited from other stakeholders through stakeholders maps. Feedback, especially uninvited, is an essential for double-loop thinking process. Feedback based on customer experience and process improvement is considered as a cyclical relationship within the model. For instance, improving SLAs needs intensive communication and shared understanding of the service status beyond the data obtained from the service desk. This in turn, requires an authentic partnership with the customer expressed in the service level requirements (SLRs). These SLRs form the gateways to provide liaison with customers and open communication channels that can be managed through BRM.
IT department may have completely different goals directed towards keeping all systems and networks up and running. However, this may have no significance to the business department that has key indicators such as response time, integrated processes, and ease of use of its applications. Where there is no effective communication between IT and business, the two departments might have different understanding for the same objectives of a particular ITSM process. As an example, a change record closure by IT has no meaning for business if the business process is continually interrupted by the exact same reason for change. Furthermore, five nines availability (0.99999 availability) may not make the customer delighted, if the service is not available at transactional levels. The communication between business and IT necessitates not only, a common vocabulary, but also a common understanding, which can be facilitated through proven KM programs.
-
Process level. Feedback at the process level can occur at three distinct strata, namely, between ITIL processes and business processes (inter-departmental relationship), between ITIL processes (inter-processes relationship), and within single ITIL process (intra-processes relationship). The feedback and the exchange of information between ITIL and business processes is governed by the strength of the relationship between IT and business department.
One principal outcome of this relationship is reflected in the key performance indicators (PKIs) as a measure for ITIL process success. These KPIs reflect the status of the critical success factors (CSFs) for each process. In turn, these CSFs express the goals and the requirements of business (Figure 4). Hence, the misconception of goals between IT and business may put the implementation at risk. One of the most prominent knowledge gaps between IT and business departments are in the understanding of the real indicators that fulfill the goals. The gap can be narrowed only, if the “tacicity” level of business knowledge is communicated to the IT department. This can be best accomplished through face-to-face meetings, dialogues and establishments of real partnerships.
Some activities in ITIL processes cannot be correctly performed without full understanding of what they mean in the context of business terms. As an example, IT cannot conduct business impact analysis (BIA) for performing a change, unless the business department shares the knowledge about the effect of that particular change with IT department.
The feedback between ITIL processes is what ITIL practitioners refer to as the “process path”. The process path traverses different groups that participates in the solution (Figure 5). Exchange of information inference structures such as pattern recognition, modeling, forecasting and reporting, all are forms of such feedback. The success of knowledge sharing between silos of IT disciplines and ITIL processes depends on knowledge absorption rate between groups for different processes. For instance, it might be easier to share knowledge between the service desk and customer relations, but the same rate of understanding might not be achievable between IT services, financials and networking group.
Many interrelationships exist between activities within each ITIL process. In some cases, some activities determine the success of others. For instance in change management the information posted in forward schedule of change (FSC) determines the form of projected service availability (PSA), which should be communicated to business. The resultant PSA should not violate what has been documented in SLA, but at the same time, it may result in future SLA amendments, which ultimately affect the FSC construction (Figure 6).
Output
The output domain is a vector sum of the integrative management and the integrated processes activities as supported by the KM program. The components of this vector are service quality, effectiveness, efficiency, risk, costs, and returns-on-investment (ROI). The contribution of KM to each of these components can be summarized as follows.
Service quality
- Sharing of domestic and exotic knowledge to improve quality of service and business operations (Colyer, 1997; Harris and Harrington, 2000; Choppin, 1995; Mills and Moshavi, 1999; Fung, 1998).
- Focusing on customer-oriented culture melioration through organization structure, change for better processes through effective communications and feedback at all levels. Zsidisin et al. (2000) stated that accurate and timely communications are the cornerstone of service quality.
- Contributing to processes such as incident management through direct and timely access to clients, expertise, and information through KM tools. Mills and Moshavi (1999) report that “managing client participation can add value to the delivery of quality services”.
- Use of KM modeling and forecast tools for proactive problem management and change management. This will not only improve service quality through predictability, but also save staff time to work on other services agenda for even more enhanced service quality improvements.
- Creating a learning organization, which can be a central thrust for quality improvement. Sohal and Morrison (1995) concluded that TQM is a vehicle for organizational learning.
Effectiveness and efficiency
- Facilitating the access to specific information and supporting documents when needed, through content management, knowledge base, document management etc. this will result in more accurate and faster access to known errors, solutions, problems, etc.
- Adding context to the implementation environment through capture and utilization of tacit knowledge (Hackley, 1999). Furthermore, capturing of tacit knowledge assist in aligning KM practices with ITIL processes.
- Ameliorating awareness and education enterprise-wide, which reduces the number of incidents and help in providing more accurate information to the service desk.
- Contributing to PIR, auditing, processes health checks and post-mortem. In addition, these activities are more successful in flat organizational environments, which make the process less bureaucratic with opened feedback channels. In addition, EMEF transfer ITIL implementation goals from process level to enterprise level, which ultimately results in stable and predictable organization.
- Alleviating access difficulties to experts through subscription to expert spaces, expertise locators, semantic links, CoP, etc. This will also improve staff utilization and efficiency.
- Contributing to incident classification, matching and self-service at the service desk level. This may minimize the adverse business impact of the incidents and shorten incident life cycle.
- Improving the process speed, accuracy through the links between CMDB and KM tools. This will also result in better solutions and faster turnaround of incidents and requests.
Risk and cost
- Improving management effectiveness by integrative management through mitigating risk and minimizing uncertainties using just-in-time knowledge and information sharing. Galbraith (1973) defined uncertainty as “the difference between the amount of information required to do a task and the amount of information already possessed by the organization”.
- Carrying out activities such as business impact analysis (BIA) properly through various knowledge tools and processes, including customer communication, will minimize the risk of changes on production environment.
- Extracting the level of risk for any configuration item (CI) from visual mapping of CMDB, which is associated with the business process criticality derived from different KM ancillary systems within the business environment.
- Improving self-service through KM systems with knowledge-base validation capabilities. Which will reduce cost per service call and minimize workload.
- Retaining staff knowledge through good documentation assure minimal disruption through expertise, reduce cost per call and reduce maintenance and technical support costs.
Innovation
- Nurturing and sharing of tacit knowledge through network externalities (NE), CFTs, CoPs, CAB meetings that provide sustainable innovation, which is quintessential to success
- Improving ITIL teaming concept through building synergy from communities of practice, centers of competence and cross-functional teams (Adams and Freeman, 2000; Hildreth et al., 2000; O'Sullivan and Azeem, 2007).
CMDB as a KM-compliant tool
There are no standards or even recommendations for CMDB structural design in ITIL framework. The current focus of generic CMDB is the CIs specifications and their mapped relationship. CMDB could perform much better, if amended according to KM principles. However, for CMDB to be KM-compliant, certain structural, architectural and contextual requirements must be met.
Structural
The structure of CMDB is determined by both CIs leveling and the relationship between CIs. However, if these two objects not planned properly, CMDB might suffer from either lack of information or information overload and both may lead to information entropy. In fact, these problems originate from the complexity in determining the CI level, which is expressed by the size and the quality of the predefined metadata. As stated by Shannon and Weaver (1963/1949) the fundamental notion in information theory is centered around entropy, which is a measure of uncertainty and randomness. The importance of understanding the concept of entropy is vital for various activities such as information flows, uncertainty in decision-making process and knowledge transformation in CMDB. Furthermore, diverse sources of information, as in the case of federated CMDB either increase the probability of information entropy or create information asymmetry. Information asymmetry is common when information and knowledge shared between different parties lead to incorrect decisions.
The CI level is the degree of details in describing the CI profile. It is a delicate balance between enough information that satisfies business requirements, and adequate information needed for CIs control. Caution must be taken when developing CMDB to prevent it becoming a source of Information overload and/or a cause of knowledge de-contextualization i.e. knowledge dilution. The tradeoff between control and identification determines not only the number of CI's attributes, but also dictates the search mechanism. Therefore, the solution is far from technical – a negotiation with the customers and other ITIL process owners is required.
The type and number of CIs stored in the CMDB is also imperative in determining its structure. There are no ITIL restrictions in determining the number or the type of CIs. These parameters are vindicated by the rule of thumb stated by Berkhout et al. (2001) as “if the cost of the organization of retaining CI information is greater than the current or potential value, do not retain it”.
Mapping the relationships between CIs of different types such as application and hardware, and constructing interfaces via topological maps are critical for mitigating the risk during disaster or service disruption. However, mapping the relationship without dependency is almost dysfunctional. Hence, business services need to be synchronized with loosely coupled processes databases. These databases are incident reporting (IR), capacity management database (CDB), availability management database (AMDB), definitive software library (DSL), definitive hardware store (DHS) and other ancillary databases. Many other objects such as service catalogue need to be linked to customer profiles, expert spaces and costing models.
Quality of data is very critical for the CMDB role in CSIP. For instance, good incident reporting, as related to best practices effort, depend on the quality of data that determines the time for resolving a matching incident in the future i.e. avoid reinventing the wheel. Good data quality for configuration baselines and resolutions can be assured and deposited in CMDB for future reference. Besides accuracy, there is high need for quality data as related to urgency and forecast for processes such as Capacity Management. If data in CMDB is erroneous, inaccurate, and/or incomplete, it will lead to status of uncertainty. Eibl (1994) attributed uncertainty to the missing or incomplete information, that not only leads to errors in decision making, but it also tends to prevent important decisions from being taken.
Architectural
To amend the CMDB architecture, the knowledge continuum must be defined and its components must be clearly labeled. In the ITSM arena, data, information and knowledge are used interchangeably. Ironically, the distinction between them has a prominent position on how ITIL can harness knowledge for service quality improvements. In addition, the distinction between the three components of the continuum is highly related to their leverage in the decision-making process. The progression from data to information, then to knowledge results from adding context and value to the content.
In general, CMDB is not intended to store daily data from network and system monitoring tools, and that is what adds to the complexity of the transformation process within the realm of the knowledge continuum. Data is a discrete unit with no or very little meaning unless subjected to analysis with techniques such as descriptive statistics, trend or patterns analysis, and simulation modeling.
Information, on the other hand, to some extent can be communicated via CMDB, but with some context loss due to codification. The added “contextuality” to the data raises it to information levels as expressed by Davenport and Prusak (1998) that “information is data transformed by the value-adding processes of contextualization, categorization, calculation, correction and condensation”. Knowledge for decision-making results from more inferences, creative insight and “actionability” on information. In an effort to modeling contextual learning Järvinen and Poikela (2001) considered it as critical success factor for resolving complexities in knowledge and learning processes.
Because CMDB stores explicit knowledge, it may play a minor role in synthesis and sharing of knowledge. As many researchers stated that 80 percent of knowledge that is used in everyday work is tacit, KM philosophy deems knowledge as people embodied activity and mostly governed by their culture. Knowledge sharing is a natural outcome of interpersonal relationships, formal and informal networks.
Most process documentation and indexing represent explicit knowledge activities. For instance, in problem management the data phase exemplifies the data from different components of the system where the incident occurs. The information phase is reached when the data is classified. Unknown errors that are not resolved will remain information. Finally knowledge phase is realized when the problem root causes are determined, known error recognized, the workaround is identified and the RFC is raised. The resultant knowledge should be used as preventive measure to stop the incident recurrence.
When tacit knowledge is documented into explicit knowledge, there is always a loss of context i.e. knowledge de-contextualization or dilution. SLAs, operational level agreements (OLAs) and underpinning contracts (UCs) documents appear at the end as an artifact of explicit knowledge. However, originally they were not that straightforward. Behind these documents, an intensive negotiation evolves involving a great deal of tacit knowledge exchange between the parties that are reciprocally benefited from the partnership. Hence, the feedback from the customers and users is a very important mechanism because it compensate for some of the knowledge lost during the paraphrase of dialogue during negotiations into documented agreements.
Contextual
From the above discussion, CMDB must implement a rigorous approach to add context to its capabilities. This will help in reducing the human intervention required in processes workflow. For example during the course of the incident management and problem management, the processes call for human intervention to incorporate creative insight into the decision making process. Problem classification in terms of category, impact, urgency, and priority is not enough. There is a high need for component relationships as suggested by Berkhout et al. (2001). However, this relationship is not complete unless some contextual connections are also incorporated.
One of classification process main objectives is to establish a common vocabulary across a specific domain. This will assist in coordination and cooperation of the processes because all participants understand the language and their role in each process. One of the factors of transferring such understanding is the human linguistic, Von Krogh and Roos (1995) report that “ the currency of knowledge development is language; language and knowledge go hand in hand”.
Ontology can be used to describe the service management domain through conceptualization and representation of vocabulary to provide a common language for knowledge sharing. More specifically, when the design of CMDB uses ontology, even if the CI name is changed, its ontology will remain the same because it is the concept that matters. This may actually help in the standardization of the naming convention for building better relationships between CIs and their associated components.
Ontology adds semantic relationships between CIs and processes. Berkhout et al. (2001) categorized the CIs relationships as when CI is part of another CI, or connected to another CI or uses another CI. The elucidation of these relationships in CMDB and the extraction of the cumulative and confounding meanings are critical for ITSM.
Chandrasekaran et al. (1999) numerate the general characteristics of ontology. These properties are very similar to the existence of CIs in CMDB, which are depicted in Table I. Incorporation of ontology into CMDB will add a third dimension not only to the meaning of CIs relationships, but also to understanding of how IT makes use of such conceptualization to align itself with business.
CMDB has been automated in many infrastructure management systems to collect configuration data from different assets. The existence of CMDB may present the chimera that all the required information is available in the repository. However, the crux of the issue is the degree of “findability” for these data within the existing federated database. The usage of well-designed knowledge base with proper “findability” will lead to significant savings. It is well known that “findability” can be improved through indexing and hierarchical classification. However, better “findability” can be reached through appropriate metadata and ontology.
The bottom line
Due to the increasing dependency of business on IT, the time of merely ITSM for the sake of superior technology has passed. The convergence of IT and business visions call for better collaboration, cooperation, and coordination for knowledge sharing. In fact, ITIL implementation should be viewed as a reflection of such dramatic shift. This convergence requires the IT department to shed its self-centered attitude, build mutual symbiotic relationships with business and participate in culture of trust and sharing. Technology cannot replace people and information does not change cultures, but knowledge does.
ITIL has two opposing goals, namely, increasing IT services quality and decreasing IT services costs. Apparently, these goals cannot be achieved through betterment of tangible assets. The only viable substitute is the leverage of relevant intellectual asset that comes from within the organization itself.
This calls for ITIL practitioners to embark on KM initiative at the first stages of ITIL implementation. The arrangements of KM activities through EMEF provides ITIL practitioners with a pragmatic roadmap of not implementing only ITIL, but also to keep the momentum and nurture the innovation for ITSM improvement.
Mirghani S. Mohamed
Vincent M. Ribiere
Kevin J. O'Sullivan
Figure 1Enterprise management-engineering framework
Figure 2Cognitive map of major knowledge management processes: discovery (D), capturing (C), assimilation (A), sharing (S) and utilization (U), as applied to the interrelated ITIL processes
Figure 3Knowledge management four pillars
Figure 4Feedback and the transformation of knowledge between ITIL and business components (inter-departmental relationship)
Figure 5Process path, information exchange and knowledge transformation between ITIL processes (inter-processes relationship)
Figure 6Feedback and Information exchange some activities within change management (intra-process relationship)
Table IAnalogy between ontology objects conceptualization as suggested by Chandrasekaran et al. (1999) and the CMDB configuration items
References
Adams, C., Freeman, C. (2000), "Communities of practice: bridging technology and knowledge assessment", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No.1, pp.38-44.
Bartlett, J., Hinley, D., Johnson, B., Johnston, D., Keeling, C., Lioyd, V., Macdonald, I., Mather, J., Mclaughlin, G., Rudd, C., Wheeldon, D., Young, R. (2001), Best Practices for Service Delivery, The Stationery Office, London, .
Berkhout, M., Harrow, R., Johnson, B., Lacy, S., Lioyd, V., Page, D., Goethem, M.V., Bent, H.V.D., Welter, G. (2001), Best Practices for Service Support, TSO, The Stationery Office, London, .
Bourne, L., Walker, D. (2005), "Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence", Management Decision, Vol. 43 No.5, pp.649-60.
Brand, A. (1998), "Knowledge management and innovation at 3M", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 2 No.1, pp.17-22.
Carneiro, A. (2000), "How does knowledge management influence innovation and competitiveness?", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No.2, pp.87-98.
Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, R.J., Benjamins, V.R. (1999), "What are ontologies, and why do we need them?", IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 14 No.1, pp.20-5.
Choppin, J. (1995), "Total quality management – what isn't it?", Managing Service Quality, Vol. 5 No.1, pp.47-9.
Choppin, J. (1997), "The learning organization", Managing Service Quality, Vol. 7 No.6, pp.269-73.
Colville, R.J. (2006), CMDB or Configuration Database: Know the Difference, Gardner Press, New York, NY, .
Colyer, L. (1997), "Avis – where employees take ownership of customer service", Managing Service Quality, Vol. 7 No.1, pp.19-26.
Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, .
Eibl, P.G. (1994), "Design and use of digitized road networks in international road transport", Logistics Information Management, Vol. 7 No.4, pp.40-6.
Fung, M. (1998), "A learning team approach for service organizations to achieve TQM and beat the competition", Managing Service Quality, Vol. 8 No.5, pp.367-74.
Galbraith, J.R. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, .
Gurteen, D. (1998), "Knowledge, creativity and innovation", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 2 No.1, pp.5-13.
Hackley, C.E. (1999), "Tacit knowledge and the epistemology of expertise in strategic marketing management", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 No.7/8, pp.720-36.
Harris, M., Harrington, J. (2000), "Service quality in the knowledge age – huge opportunities for the twenty-first century", Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 4 No.4, pp.31-6.
Hildreth, P., Kimble, C., Wright, P. (2000), "Communities of practice in the distributed international environment", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No.1, pp.27-38.
Järvinen, A., Poikela, E. (2001), "Modelling reflective and contextual learning at work", Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 13 No.7/8, pp.282-90.
Lloyd, V., Peters, L., Rupchock, K., Wilkinson, P. (2002), Best Practices for Planning to Implement Service Management, TSO, London, .
Mills, P.K., Moshavi, D.S. (1999), "Professional concern: managing knowledge-based service relationships", International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 10 No.1, pp.48-67.
Mohamed, M., Stankosky, M., Murray, A. (2004), "Applying knowledge management principles to enhance cross-functional team performance", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No.3, pp.127-42.
Mohamed, M., Stankosky, M., Murray, A. (2006), "Knowledge management and information technology: can they work in perfect harmony", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No.3, pp.103-16.
O'Sullivan, K.J., Azeem, S.W. (2007), "An analysis of collaborative group structure technology facilitation from a knowledge management perspective", The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No.2, .
Offsey, S. (1997), "Knowledge management: linking people to knowledge for bottom line results", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No.2, pp.113-22.
Rapley, K. (1997), "Accounting for the value generated from innovation", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No.2, pp.157-60.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization, Doubleday/Currency, New York, NY, .
Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W. (1963/1949), The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, .
Sohal, A., Morrison, M. (1995), "TQM and the learning organization", Managing Service Quality, Vol. 5 No.6, pp.32-4.
Stankosky, M.A., Baldanza, C. (2000), Knowledge Management: An Evolutionary Architecture Toward Enterprise Engineering, International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), Reston, VA, .
Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., Hislop, D. (1999), "Knowledge management and innovation: networks and networking", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No.4, pp.262-75.
Swan, J.E., Bowers, M.R. (1998), "Services quality and satisfaction", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No.1, pp.59-72.
Von Krogh, G., Roos, J. (1995), Organizational Epistemology, St Martin's Press, New York, NY, .
Ward, A. (2000), "Getting strategic value from constellations of communities", Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 28 No.2, pp.4-9.
Zsidisin, G.A., Jun, M., Adams, L.L. (2000), "Relationship between information technology and service quality in the dual – the direction supply chain: a case study approach", International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 11 No.4, pp.312-28.
About the authors
Mirghani S. Mohamed is an assistant professor with the school of management, New York Institute of Technology (NYIT), teaching information systems technology. Before he joined NYIT he was the Associate Director for Technology Operations and Engineering at The George Washington University, DC. He also serves as the Director of the Knowledge Management (KM) Technology Center, KM Institute at the same university. He holds an MSc and PhD in Agronomy/Statistics, MSc in Computer Science and DSc in Systems Engineering and Engineering Management with emphasis on Knowledge Management. In addition, Dr Mohamed is an Oracle Certified Professional and has a wealth of operational experience in ICT Roadmapping, Technology Operations, Change Management, Content Management, and Technology Strategic and Capacity Planning. Dr Mohamed supervised many community building, communication and collaboration technologies in the areas of technology operations, financial systems and KM. He worked as a technical lead for deployments of complex ERP and many other enterprise-wide systems. Dr Mohamed has worked in many socio-technical projects with the intention to narrow the digital divide and to deliver and share the knowledge with the poor. During his work with INSTORMIL CRSP Dr Mohamed was involved in various regional and national sustainable development and humanitarian efforts in Sudan. Mirghani S. Mohamed is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: mirghani@nyit.edu
Vincent M. Ribiere is an Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Bangkok University after teaching for the past ten years at American University (Washington, DC) and later on at the New York Institute of Technology (NYIT) in New York and in the Kingdom of Bahrain. He is the Managing Director of the South Asian branch of the Institute for Knowledge and Innovation (IKI) of Thailand hosted by Bangkok University (http://iki.bu.ac.th) and he is the Director for Asian activities at the Institute for Knowledge and Innovation at the George Washington University, in Washington, DC, USA (www.gwu.edu/∼iki). Vincent received his Doctorate of Science in Knowledge Management from the George Washington University, and a PhD. in Management Sciences from the Paul Cézanne University, in Aix en Provence, France. Vincent teaches, conducts research and consults in the area of knowledge management and information systems. Over recent years, he has presented various research papers at different international conferences on knowledge management, organizational culture, information systems and quality as well as publishing in various refereed journals and books.
Kevin J. O'Sullivan is an Associate Professor of Management and Department Chair for Management and Marketing at New York Institute of Technology. He has over 16 years of experience IT experience in multinational firms and consulting both in the private and public sector in American, Middle Eastern, European and Far Eastern cultures. Dr O'Sullivan has delivered professional seminars to global Fortune 100 organizations on subjects such as global collaboration, knowledge management, information security and multinational information systems. His research interests include knowledge management, intellectual capital, security and information visualization. He has been published in journals such as the Journal of Knowledge Management, The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management and the International Journal of Knowledge Management among others as well the recently published book Strategic Knowledge Management in Multinational Organizations, IDG Publishing.
Mona A. Mohamed is based at New York Institute of Technology, Adliya, Bahrain.