Service Transition

ST p76 Table 4.7 Nonsense RACI chart Table 4.7 in Service Transition shows a RACI chart.

Roles (columns) are the five stages of the lifecycle (hum... a stage can be a role? though that roles are owned by humans)

Activities (rows) are *again* lifecycle stages

So you can find easily that the Operations stage is responsible for the Design stage (second row) and that surprisingly, the Continual Improvement stage has... 4 accountables (breaking the sacred law)

The authors wanted to transmit a message here, but used the wrong tool.

ST p69 Wrong hierarchy in the CMS The figure 4.8 shows an example of CMS structure.
In previous paragraph, it states that

"Figure 4.8 shows how the CMS covers the data and information layers of the knowledge/information/knowledge hierarchy explained in section 4.7, KnowledgeManagement."

But in fact the hierarchy shown is Knowledge/Information/Data

Release management also defines release policy

Transition planning defines release policy [ST p 36], which makes sense. Release management [ST 4.4 p84] also defines release policy which makes less sense.

the new name for Configuration Management, SACM

the new name for Configuration Management, SACM appears only in the process itself. Not even the authors of other chapters in the same book are aware of the name change.

ST p90 Figure 4.20

‘Assume deployment …’ changed to ‘Assure deployment …’

ST p223 CAB/EC to ECAB

The 'not-so-obvious' V2 abbreviation of CAB/EC (CAB Emergency committee) for the subset of CAB taking decisions on emergency changes is changed to EmergencyCAB or ECAB. No objections to that.

Note: Even I saw a question on this in the foundation paper regarding who authorizes emergency changes - where both the options were given!! If you missed this change in V3, you (I mean V2 aware people) can rest assured that you lost one mark!

Now about the inconsistency:

ST p59 Renaming FSC to CS then referred to as SC

Page 58 (Change Management Process) tells us that Change Management is responsible for generating the change schedule, which is explained can be abbreviated CS (all of this sounds pretty logical. Why we had to rename FSC to CS though, I will leave to the SWAMI to predict).


ST Service V-model figure 4.21 and 4.30 confusing

ST Service V-model figure 4.21 p92 and 4.30 p124
"the confusion lies in the steps that have to be followed on the V model. My opinion is that it is down the left hand side and back up the right hand side. The confusion comes from the number on the picture. 1a on the left, 1b on the right, 2a on the left, 2b on the right... there is absoultely no text to explain the direction of travel and perhaps the authors assumed that everyone would automatically know.
However, by adding connecting arrows and the numbering system used all it has done has caused confusion and (sometimes heated) debate."

super pedantic: no "G" in green-field

ST start of chapter 8, p 199.
Who is "Greenfield"? presumably this means "green field"

typo "form" for "from"

ST 8.1.3 p201 There is a typo: for "form" read "from"

Syndicate content