|
This site is now retired. It is only a static archive. Some functions may not work any more.
Review submitted by rob on September 4, 2008 - 23:57. [nid:647]
|
|
Benchmark: Real ITSM 1.1 Service Reaction RATS Reckoning: | 60% from 21 | |
Limit all Real financial planning to a MPFP of one year or less: Yes
Harry never planned anything except the occasional auto theft
|
Bonus: Use MS-Excel: No
Harry can't use a computer let alone Excel
|
Under-utilise all key resources - maintain emergency capacity: Yes
Harry is certainly "under utilised": reads the paper most of the day
|
Prohibit all optimisation, efficiency or consolidation activities: Yes
Harry never optimised anything
|
Document only a very few procedures and enforce none of them: Yes
|
|
All reports and metrics provide only enough information to support the allocation of blame, and contain sufficient time-lag to p: 80%
No reports = no information
|
|
Staff know just enough about core systems: Yes
Harry knows just about nothing
|
No replication of last remaining person who understands a legacy system: 50%
|
Stamp out grass-roots initiatives: Yes
|
Create initiatives only in response to an executive directive and invest the minimum necessary to prevent punishment: Yes
|
Prohibit continual improvement: Yes
Harry never improved anything except his lock-picks
|
Either push decisions up to somebody who is sufficiently high in the organisation to neither care nor understand, or make a coll: Yes
|
Treat services as assets and value them by the funding and revenues these services bring to the IT organisation: No
|
|
All services provide sufficient value to the implementing staff: 70%
in general yes but some cars sell for less than they could just to get rid of them
|
Define a suitably narrow criterion for permissible services: 50%
|
Have a Service Cataract that lists the available services in terms of their dependencies: No
|
|
Maximise futility and variability of services: Yes
|
About the reviewer
Real Schmick Consulting Services
|
|