Peter Brooks

Peter Brooks

Education

  • University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, BSc. 1979
  • Major Subjects; Maths & Physics

Industry Qualifications

  • ITIL V2 Manager’s Certificate in IT Service Management
  • ITIL V3 ITIL Expert Certification
  • ISO20000 Consultant’s Certificate Management
  • Fellow in Service Management (FSM)® (prISM)

 

  • Certified ISEB instructor for ITIL Foundations + Service Manager courses
  • FISM - Fellow of the Institute of IT Service Management
  • Marketing and Business Development Director itSMF International
  • Marketing Director itSMF South Africa
  • Member of itSMF South Africa Western Cape

Consulting Delivery

  • Governance
  • Policy Consulting - start up organisation
  • Service Governance
  • Business Analysis
  • OpenView Network and System Management; design and implementation.
  • Secure web implementation.
  • HP Service Desk implementation.
  • Application, System, and Network Consolidation.
  • Business Disaster Recovery process consulting, implementation and testing.
  • ITIL process management (practical consulting delivery):
Service Portfolio    Service Strategy    Service Desk
Incident Problem Configuration
Change Release Capacity
Financial Availability Service level

Specialties and interests

Specialties
ASM Adaptive Service Model
Service Governance Business Analysis
CSF Capacity
Consulting Demand
FISM ITSM
Governance HP OpenView
ISO20000 ITIL
KPI Metric Design and Implementation
Metrics Open Source
Policy Requirements
SANS15000 Security
Service Desk Teaching
Training Service Management
Interests
Dialetheism :Service governance
Physics :Philosophy
Psychiatry :Maths
Ontology

Travel

I have never been further
As08-16-2593.jpg north Helsinki Helsinki 60°10′15″N 024°56′15″E
south Dunedin Dunedin 45°52′S 170°30′E
west Sausalito Sausalito Coordinates: 37°51′33″N 122°29′07″W ]
east Rotorua Rotorua 38°08′16″S 176°15′05″E
... and higher than Title=3.050 m3.050 m
... and Title=faster than 320 kphfaster than 320 kph (on the ground)

 

 

Publications 

 

 

Adopting Service Governance

Collaborative Consulting
ISBN: 978-0113314652 ISBN: 978-0113313914
Webinar: Adopting Service Governance: Governing portfolio value for sound corporate citizenship Review in International Best Practice
Issues in corporate governance and service governance as a solution  
AXELOS interview with Peter Brooks  
Service Governance in the Cloud  

 

Publications

 

Adopting Service Governance.png
Adopting Service Governance - Governing portfolio value for sound corporate citizenship - AXELOS 2015 ISBN: 978-0113314652
Collaborative Consulting.jpg
Collaborative Consulting – TSO 2013 ISBN: 978-0113313914
  Review - Ivor Macfarlane
Integrated Requirements.jpg
An Integrated Requirements Process - Governing Cost & Risk in Business Analysis - itSMFsa 2013 ISBN: 978-1490489162
  Review - David Lowe
  Review - Karen Ferris
Metrics for Service Management.jpg
Metrics for Service Management: Designing for ITIL – VHP 2012 ISBN-13: 978-9087536480
Metrics for IT Service Management.jpg

Metrics for IT Service Management – VHP 2006 ISBN-13: 978-9077212691

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Definition of Service Governance


Service Governance describes the means of achieving effective corporate and portfolio governance, within the ‘comply or explain’ framework, by designing the service portfolio as the overarching management system that monitors & controls corporate financial performance & value delivery.

From '''Adopting Service Governance''' http://service-governance.org/index.php?title=Category:Best_Practice Service Governance - Best Practice

Website URL: http://za.linkedin.com/in/peterhmbrooks/

Whose requirements are they?

Part of getting your Service Portfolio right is having the right requirements. To have those, you need to understand your stakeholders and their requirements. Then you can use these to design the service.

It's useful to think about which stakeholder requirements are going to be most significant.

This struck me in the hotel lift this morning.

Have you noticed that there's always a lift, or nearly always, available in the hotel lobby - but you often have to wait to come down from your floor?

Which do you, as a customer, find more important - getting to your room quickly, or getting to an appointment quickly? Well, in a foreign city, if you're not used to the food, then, maybe, getting to the room is a priority, but, surely, usually, you'd like a lift to be there when you leave your room, maybe a little later than you should have.

So, why are the lifts programmed to take people from the lobby, rather than to treat all floors equally?

It's for the staff, and the hotel, yes, they're stakeholders too, but, with a service, isn't the end customer supposed to be the ultimately important stakeholder?

Why is it for the staff? Because it's annoying for them to have a queue of customers building up in the lobby - they might complain to them about slow lifts - but, on the 5th, 20th, 19th and other floors, nobody sees the queue (apart from those in them) and there are no staff to hassle. So they're a lower priority for the staff.

This particular example is quite finely balanced. You could argue that it suits all stakeholders best this way - particularly if you were on the staff.

That's why I think it's a good example - you actually have to think quite hard about requirements to be sure that you really understand the stakeholders, and their needs, and then also understand the priority each stakeholder has, when there's a conflict.

 

 

Whose requirements are they?

Part of getting your Service Portfolio right is having the right requirements. To have those, you need to understand your stakeholders and their requirements. Then you can use these to design the service.

It's useful to think about which stakeholder requirements are going to be most significant.

This struck me in the hotel lift this morning.

Have you noticed that there's always a lift, or nearly always, available in the hotel lobby - but you often have to wait to come down from your floor?

Which do you, as a customer, find more important - getting to your room quickly, or getting to an appointment quickly? Well, in a foreign city, if you're not used to the food, then, maybe, getting to the room is a priority, but, surely, usually, you'd like a lift to be there when you leave your room, maybe a little later than you should have.

So, why are the lifts programmed to take people from the lobby, rather than to treat all floors equally?

It's for the staff, and the hotel, yes, they're stakeholders too, but, with a service, isn't the end customer supposed to be the ultimately important stakeholder?

Why is it for the staff? Because it's annoying for them to have a queue of customers building up in the lobby - they might complain to them about slow lifts - but, on the 5th, 20th, 19th and other floors, nobody sees the queue (apart from those in them) and there are no staff to hassle. So they're a lower priority for the staff.

This particular example is quite finely balanced. You could argue that it suits all stakeholders best this way - particularly if you were on the staff.

That's why I think it's a good example - you actually have to think quite hard about requirements to be sure that you really understand the stakeholders, and their needs, and then also understand the priority each stakeholder has, when there's a conflict.

 

 

Service Olympiad

Service Olympiad

The UK itSMF was having a twitterchat last night on the #itSMFbig4 hashtag. During the interesting, but fairly frenetic and disjointed experience that is a twitterchat, I thought of this as a possible idea when chatting to James Finister @jimbofin, so twitterchats can certainly produce a productive interaction.

This is the idea, in a bit more detail. A competition would be set up, called the ‘Service Olympiad’ run by and sponsored by the global itSMF organisation – or it could be set up with the BCS, a business school, SFIA or ISACA, or the Open Group, or, indeed, a combination of these and others involved with services, such as the Taking Service Forward initiative. Maybe a company would be set up just for this.

The ultimate aim of the competition would be to raise awareness of the importance of services and help improve the skills being developed for those who will be governing, managing and operating the delivery and consumption services in the future.

Schools, Universities, Colleges and Business schools would be invited to register, for a fee (all the work to set this up would cost a bit). Every institution that registered would form a team, a bit like ‘University Challenge’, which would work together on a scenario set by the Olympiad team. A panel of experts would judge their submissions and the second round would be competition between the top seeds from the initial submission. There’d be a third, and possibly fourth elimination round. Then the final would involve the top two teams competing in a live event. They’d give a presentation to a team of experts, representing the board of a fictional company, and the presentation that convinced the board would be the winner.

The sponsors would find worthwhile prizes for the winning team, and the other finalist, that, as well as the odd desirable item, like an iPad, would include an apprenticeship with a company, or a year’s study at a business school or similar.

 Teams would be drawn from students reading business studies (MBA students might be eligible – but that would have to be thought out carefully), hospitality management, computer science, logistics & supply chain management and other studies that involve services at their core.  Maybe even law, accounting and auditing.

The team competitions would involve business simulations with a scenario to which they need to produce business cases and service strategy, design and transition plans. Something like this one: http://www.theitsmreview.com/2013/07/consultant/

It might make sense to pilot this in the UK, as part of the #itSMBig4 skills initiative, but I think, in an ideal world, most itSMF chapters could run an Olympiad in their country, with the final being a global event – not that would be good publicity!

Elimination events like this are good for generating excitement and interest, but there’s the problem of all the good and enthusiastic teams that only make the first or second round. It would be a pity for that to be the end of their interest. So I think it would be good to have an individual event too, an essay writing competition, to run alongside the team event, open to all entrants, with the winner being a member of the judging panel of the finals (as long as there was not conflict of interest, of course!).

The judges would be looking for creativity, inventiveness and style, naturally, but also, well grounded understanding of the organisations, their values and requirements. Teams would have to be able to convince that their approach would get past the various gatekeepers between them and the board, so it would involve some evidence of negotiating skill, collaborative consulting and some insight into how organisational management works.

 

 

 

 

 

A vision for the itSMF global site - a resource run by chapters

A vision for the itSMF international web site - an active site, run by the chapters directly

I've got an idea for an improvement and I'm interested in what the general support for it might be - maybe it would be a good topic for the EGM.

First, the problem. Rob England said that the itSMFI web-site is 'as dead as a doornail', and this got me thinking:

I think that the current model is broken. The site is supposed to be run by the IEB for the chapters. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the chapters run the landing page for the itSMF?

My vision would be that a team is proposed by the chapters to take over the itSMFI site. They can decide on a new design, working with the members and chapters. Then the chapter web sites can drive the itSMFI site - there can be feeds of 'best of' information from sites around the world. There can be discussions, driven from, or connected to country sites. Rather than a static link to country sites, there can be a page for each chapter,  with its unique characteristics. There could be a new chapter spotlighed each week or month (we tried that a few years ago).

When a chapter improved its home site, then it could update the itSMFI site.

Important things like membership could be covered - so you could get an idea of how it all works in the different chapters.

The Publications page should be alive with publications that are produced by members, that chapters are wanting, that are being written at the moment etc. etc. So it becomes a resource that's useful for anybody looking for things. There could be a blog area for members - with the 'best of' highlighted.

Then, and I might have left the best until last, the Knowledge Repository could be on the site, fed by the chapters, possibly a resource for members only (not for me to say, of course, that sort of thing would be for the governance working group).

What do you think? A good idea for the EGM?

 

Taking Service Forward - the Adaptive Service Model - your chance to contribute

Fifth update from the Taking Service Forward initiative - February 26, 2014

We are delighted to announce that the Taking Service Forward wiki is now on line. It may be accessed at 
http://takingserviceforward.org/wiki/ . Everyone interested in participating in the work of TSF is encouraged to create an account on the wiki and contribute their knowledge.

The details for how to join and the governance and management of the Adaptive Service Model may be found at 
http:// bit . do / TSFgovman

With the launching of the wiki, the web site 
www.takingserviceforward.org becomes the core support of Taking Service Forward. At that site, you may find:

- A description of the Taking Service Forward initiative, including its charter, its roadmap, the story behind its start and the context in which it has developed
- A description of the crowd-sourcing approach of the initiative
- The Adaptive Service Model, including the meta-model and the model itself
- A description of the architectural concepts, the modelling language and the principles upon which the model is based
- The wiki, which will be the core support for proposing and discussing proposed updates to all TSF deliverables
- In the future, the service ontology, the third main deliverable of TSF, will also be documented and discussed at this site

In addition, there are various links to the social platforms, such as Google Plus, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, used by TSF, as well links to other documents relative to TSF

The next steps in evolving and improving the Adaptive Service Model are now up to you, the community as a whole.

Join, contribute, benefit!

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) - what is their business value?

NDAs have very specific value when two companies wish to discuss a potential collaboration that involves trade secrets, IP or other matters that they wish to discuss, but wish to discuss under protection.

It's less obvious what value they have when used by companies to get their employees or staff to sign them.

A common argument that has been produced in favour of having NDAs is that they are best practice - but, even if NDAs are best practice (and I'm not sure they are - I'd want to see the evidence for this), best practice is that best practice is adapted to circumstance and adopted for good reasons, not imposed, against sound objections, just because it has the label 'best practice'.

 
Since then, I've been thinking about, and discussing NDAs, so I thought it useful to add this discussion to this group:
 
When somebody is concerned enough to impose NDAs on everybody my thought is "Honi soit qui mal y pense", then the following questions come to mind:

- What are they trying to hide? Is there some secret formula (like the fabled Coca-Cola one) that they're worried about getting out - or do they want to hide incompetence, political manoeuvres (which, like orchestral ones, prefer the dark), or corruption?

- Do NDAs work? Would some evil traitor who infiltrated Coca--Cola and decided to sell their formula to Pepsi really think 'Oh, no, I can't do that, I've signed an NDA!', and Coca-Cola would thus be protected?

- Do NDAs work? How many people have been prosecuted successfully for breaking one? When such prosecutions were successful, how good were they for the company's reputation?

- Are NDAs magical thinking? The idea that a form of words, written by a lawyer, when signed, form a magical protective charm?

- Is it simply paranoia? If somebody has had an unfortunate life, surrounded by secret policemen and psychopaths, then you could understand their paranoia. Somebody with mild schizophrenia might have irrational paranoia (eating lots of oily fish can help)

- Or are the people who are insistent on NDAs dishonest themselves (hence 'Honi soit qui mal y pense') and think that, if it was them, they'd behave badly if they weren't stopped by an NDA?

- Or is it simply insecurity? The thought that, if you don't micromanage all the news you'll find yourself exposed to the world in a compromising situation.
 
furthermore:
 
NDAs claim, in their text, to be contracts that protect the interests of both parties. However, this is, surely humbug, how many individuals feel that their interests have been served by signing an NDA with a company?

NDAs are claimed as protection. However, if somebody did something damaging to an organisation by revealing something secret that was serious enough to go to law about - wouldn't existing laws, such as theft, or libel or malicious damage do the trick? Do NDAs add anything even legally useful?

I suspect that it's usually some mixture of the above. Few of these are concerned with the good of the organisation.

However, from the point of view of governance, it is reasonable that you've said to people that you don't want your dirty linen washed in public, so, please could they agree not to pass on everything to possibly malevolent outsiders.

It's also reasonable that, if you have colleagues who are paranoid or insecure, or have some magical thinking (and none of these are disqualifications for most jobs or from being a generally good egg), then it's a kindness to make a concession to their feelings.
 
Are NDAs actually 'Best Practice'? The ITIL guidance is:
 
From ITIL 'Service Operation':
 
"
Screening and vetting 

All service operation staff should be screened and vetted to a security level appropriate to the organization in question.

Suppliers and third-party contractors should also be screened and vetted – both the organizations and the specific personnel involved. Many organizations have started using police or government agency background checks, especially where contractors will be working with classified systems. Where necessary, appropriate non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements must be put in place.



In Service Design, it talks about the Security Management  System (ISMS), and says:

"
The objective of the implementation element of the ISMS is to ensure that appropriate procedures, tools and controls are in place to underpin the information security policy. Measures include:

■  Accountability for assets – service asset and configuration management and the CMS are invaluable here

■  Information classification – information and repositories should be classified according to the sensitivity and the impact of disclosure.

The successful implementation of the security controls and measures is dependent on a number of factors:

■ The determination of a clear and agreed policy, integrated with the needs of the business

■ Security procedures that are justified, appropriate and supported by senior management

■ Effective marketing and education in security requirements

■ A mechanism for improvement
"
 
As is so often the case, what is important is a balanced approach with the value of an exercised considered in the light of the value and cost to all parties.

'Best Practice' - a great idea, but, should it be used as a club?

Best Practice. Two words that have led, already, to tons of discussion, some of it productive.

 

I was thinking about it today when, in response to the suggestion that there was no reason to do something, and lots of reasons not to do it, the answer was 'it is best practice' to do it.

 

To me, this doesn't make much sense. It's an argument from authority, rather than an argument from reason, logic and current circumstances - and arguments from authority are one of the well known logical fallacies.

 

More importantly, if you've no idea what to do and ask somebody and that person replies, 'well, best practice suggests that you do X', that's perfectly reasonable. You're not sure, you're looking for advice and if you adapt this best practice, as you adopt it, then it may well work for you.

 

However, if you do have an idea of what you are doing and you specifically see some reasons why you shouldn't do something that are germane to the current situation, then, surely, saying that your objections should be overridden, not because you're wrong, but because 'Best Practice' somehow trumps evidence, practical requirements and objections is quite wrong.

 

Am I right? Is it OK to use 'best practice' as a club to get rid of things you don't like but have no actual argument against? Or should one cry 'foul' when somebody attempts to wield the 'best practice' club?

Bloom's Taxonomy and the ITIL syllabus

(I just downloaded it to check) says: 'Testing and validation of knowledge take place at Bloom's taxonomy level 4 (analysing) and level 5 (evaluating)'.

Now, I've just discovered (so I didn't know either) that this is wrong. Bloom's taxonomy changed, apparently more than 20 years ago, so level 5 is now 'Creating', not 'Evaluating', which is now level 4.

http://ww2.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxonomy.htm

To me it makes a lot more sense, to me, anyway. I've always felt a bit uncomfortable, but not been quite sure why, when lecturing people about Bloom's taxonomy, with the notion that 'evaluating' is the top.

I'm not sure if this should make a difference to the ITIL syllabus, and, if it does, what that difference would be, but I think it might be quite beneficial.

Design is a crucial and, as we know, often ignored, part of getting things right - the art of understanding all the requirements agnostically and then, and only then, working out what is the best solution. Isn't that, fundamentally, what being creative is all about?

itSMF Governance

The itSMF is embarking on a programme to improve its governance. It has established a working group to help put a sound governance system in place for the organisation. I am pleased to have been invited to be part of the governance working group - my colleagues on the group are: Shari Brunette, from the US, Steven de Smet from Belgium and Ulf Myrberg from Sweden. I'm hoping that this is going to be a very positive contribution to the future success of the itSMF - but, of course, we're just the steering group, the requirements and work must come from the whole community.

 

Some think of governance as being boring documents full of policy & rules that nobody uses or needs, but are there to feed the auditors.This view is not completely false as one of the outputs from governance is policy and, indeed, good policy does keep auditors happy.

 

Governance, though, is much more than that. It is how an organisation governs itself, that is how it works, day to day, operationally. If there are policy documents then these must be living documents that are part of what the organisation actually does - in other words they must be clear, understandable, understood and used.

 

The other half of governance is, indeed, making sure that the resources of the organisation are used effectively to produce value. So the organisational structure, the dynamics (including communication), the attitude, behaviour and culture as well as the processes and procedures are all essential parts of governance. Governance sets the tone for management to manage - it ensures that everybody, customers, suppliers, employees, managers, directors and volunteers are involved and treated properly. 

 

The best governance advice available to date is that produced by the King III commission in South Africa - it forms the basis of South African law and the basis of the UK's Finance Act. King III understands organisations as entities and sees governance as the job of making sure that they not only produce value for stakeholders (not just shareholders, and certainly not just boards of directors!) but also that they act as good corporate citizens.

 

So, as well as producing value for the organisation, good governance will make sure that the organisation works on sound ethical principles, that it is a good corporate citizen, so helps the societies in which it operates and is socially & environmentally responsible. So good staff relations as well as good customer and vendor relations are essential. Communication, of course, at all levels and between all stakeholders must be open and transparent to make sure that it is honest.

 

So, with good governance, there is no room for unnecessary secrecy, for doing things in private and then telling people what has been done. Things must be communicated both ways and in an open and frank manner, making sure that all stakeholders are properly considered and their needs and requirements understood and, where possible, met.

 

Subscribe to this RSS feed