The IMF Blog

Archive for December, 2009

2010 Upcoming IMF Events

December 30th, 2009

The IMF is looking forward to 2010. We have many events planned to provide valuable information on issues that will affect IT organizations in the coming year.

For more information on The IMF and our events, visit our website.

Senior Executive Roundtable: New economy, new strategies, new technologies- What’s next? Clearwater Beach, FL

January 25-26, 2010 I Click here to view the Agenda

Topics for this forum include:

Technology Driven Innovation- Lessons Learned from the Trenches
Matt Manzella, Director of Strategy & Innovation Services at Allstate

IT Cost Data for your Strategic Plan
Caleb Masland, Managing Director at The Information Management Forum (IMF)

Building Alignment in the Financial Services Industry
Mark Pearson, Senior Vice President and Chief Architect, SunTrust

Operationalizing Strategy
Chris Corrado, Senior Vice President of Technology Products at Asurion

IT Transformation Panel Discussion
Charly Paelinck, Vice President of IT Development at Harrah’s Entertainment
Vic Syracuse, Vice President of Production Services at Cox Communications
Phil Folz, Senior Vice President and Controller at Chubb & Son

Click here to view summaries detailing each topic.

Upcoming January Web Forums:

Best practices in Vendor Management

Thu Jan 7, 2010
2:00 pm – 3:00 pm Eastern US Time Zone

Click here to register

There was a time when vendor management was simply contract negotiations and finding the best price for the best solution. With the emphasis on running core operations in many companies the role of vendor manager has evolved into a critical role in managing strategic assets of the organization….

Building and Maintaining a Successful Virtual Team
Thu Jan 14, 2010
2:00 pm – 3:00 pm Eastern US Time Zone

Click here to register

Dr. Michael Hitson, whose academic work and research centers on team leadership within virtual environments, offers a presentation centered on leadership process and methodology within virtual teams who are oftentimes transitory in member orientation.

Growth of Enterprise Architecture at Cox Communications
Thu Jan 21, 2010
2:00 pm – 3:00 pm Eastern US Time Zone

Click here to register

For over forty years, Cox Communications operated without an Enterprise Architecture Group. In May 2009, the first Enterprise Architecture Group was created as part of a larger reorganization which merged the former Engineering and Information Technology Groups into a single Technology Division …

No comments »

Posted in IMF Updates

Tags: IMF Forums IMF Web Forums Information Management Forum

Service Catalog Tool Implementation: Tips and Lessons Learned

December 30th, 2009

An IMF Connect was initiated by a member company that recently purchased a Service Catalog tool, and was in the early phase of implementation. The discussion focused on the implementation of a service catalog tool, as well as the surrounding issues of Service and Product Management that are critical to the long-term success of an organization that wishes to operate the IT organization like an efficient and value-added business.

These tips are relatively general to Service Management with a Service Catalog tool, such that any organization can make use of them regardless of the specific tool or tools in use for the Service Catalog.

· TIP: Sign up for the user groups (if they are available) for your Service Catalog tool—there is a wealth of information available from other companies that can be gathered here at minimal cost (time).

· Lesson Learned: Don’t assume that the service taxonomy will be correct on the first attempt or will be usable as your business changes—you will always need to revise this. Expect taxonomy revision to be a part of the process, and build it into your business case/model.

- A combination of internally developed (by service managers and end users) and externally developed (with the input of the Service Catalog tool vendor) taxonomies appears to be the most successful.

- Be aware that end users may not be completely happy with the 1st taxonomy because, out of necessity, it will most likely be created using terms that the operational service managers understand—there is a need to understand the client perspective when creating your taxonomy to ensure that end users will be able to adopt the framework that is eventually delivered.

· Lesson Learned: The more entitlement that you build into the Service Catalog system, the more it can cause problems. Going too deep with Roles Based Access Controls in this space can drive administrative overhead and therefore diminishing returns. Many companies now have a rule to only add entitlements if there is an existing database field that they can query on.

· TIP: Custom coding can be a waste of time—the more you do, the harder it may be to migrate to the next version or release from your tool vendor. Depending on the tool vendor, much of what an organization spends time completing internally may be included in the next release, and releases are frequent. In any event, keep this to a minimum if possible and be proactive in encouraging your vendor to include functionality changes in upcoming releases.

· TIP: Traction/institutionalization of the tool is improved by letting other groups have services as a part of it (i.e. not simply technology services). This drives acceptance in other company areas beyond IT.

· TIP: Reporting varies widely by toolset, and reliance on the reporting framework of the Service Catalog tool may cause more confusion than good. Successful companies often import the raw information from the Service Catalog tool into their reporting toolset of choice. This helps internally with people being familiar with the reporting (from a service manager standpoint).

· Lesson Learned: Backups are critical for upgrades—several companies have experienced losses in data when completing an upgrade, which were either saved by good backups or created headaches down the road.

Has your organization had any experience with service catalog tool implementation? Share with us on Twitter @ITInfoForum.

This Connect is featured in the 2009 IMF Annual Connect Report. Click here to download a copy. (Members must be logged in to download.)

Visit our sister company, Global Information Partners to learn more about our IT communication and finance services including service catalog formulation.

No comments »

Posted in Strategy

Tags: Global Information Partners product management Service Catalog service management

Billing model changes from mainframe enterprise license vendors

December 29th, 2009

An IMF member indicated that their mainframe software vendor was pitching a new licensing model based on users or tasks instead of the traditional MIPS model and wanted to know if other organizations had been impacted by this same type of approach. Their organization also wanted to know how they should approach negotiations with the vendor for upcoming license renewals. This situation illustrates the potential for a number of changes throughout the IT landscape that may be responses to the current economic climate in which vendors may try to change the billing process in order to create more favorable situations for themselves. As a result, it is necessary for IT organizations to be cautious and take an active role in the negotiations process. Though new billing models may appear beneficial at first glance, there can be significant costs impacts in the long run.

The new licensing model would deter any previous company development or integration practices that focused on creating functionality (tasks) for a large population (users) at a minimum MIPS usage. If the licensing model suddenly changed, not only could the cost increase immediately and over time, but the organization would have to be reengineered from the inside out to deliver services within the necessary license requirements. This could carry with it a significant impact to the bottom line of the IT organization, most likely for the worse.

In any case, when a vendor proposes a significant change in course from a billing perspective, companies need to focus on several key factors. If the vendor-client relationship is strong, these issues should be more of a dialogue, from which an amicable and mutually beneficial solution can be reached:

· The vendor should be willing to provide case study information, if available, that illustrates how the billing methodology change has impacted other (preferably similar volumetrically) clients. If the vendor is wholly unwilling to provide information of this sort, this should be a major red flag that they are expecting a significant cost increase to the client. If this information is not available in case study form, the vendor should be willing to provide an expectation/scenario of billing under the new model (and be willing to stand behind the expected numbers down the road).

· The vendor should be willing to engage in conversations with development and delivery teams within the client organization to assess how the new billing methodology will impact commercial assumptions about internal processes. If the vendor is unwilling to participate in these discussions, both IT and business leaders within the client organization should carefully assess how the billing change will impact their assumptions about development and delivery.

· The vendor should have compelling reasons for the billing methodology change, which should focus on benefits to both the vendor and client organizations. This should go beyond a statement that the vendor wasn’t making enough money under the old model, unless a lack of change will cause the vendor company to fold entirely.

In any case, the ability to understand the commercial and technological impacts of any billing change is central to success. Organizations that are able to focus on the right issues can come out of these changes with a stronger relationship with their vendor, potentials for cost savings, and a better understanding of the impact of vendor products on their internal processes.

This summary can be found in the IMF 2009 Annual Connect Report. Click here to download a copy. (Members must be logged in)