Inconsistent between books

Proactive problem management description does not exist in V3

I found a beauty. Actually embarrassed I have not seen this earlier.

I was looking a V3 problem Management Graph and noticed that one of the inputs comes from proactive problem management which would indicate the proactive problem management is outside actual problem management. I tried to find more details and this is the result.

The SO book describes Proactive Problem Management (4.4.5, see also 4.4.7):

Proactive Problem Management which is initiated in Service Operation, but generally driven as part of Continual Service Improvement(see this publication for fuller details).

Application Management

Application Management process is fully described under the organization but it is not mentioned as a process.

Nobody refers to Evaluation process in any other process.

Nobody refers to Evaluation process [ST 4.6 p 138] in any other process.

ITSCM not in the strategy book

ITSCM has a strategy dimension but it is not discussed in the strategy book

SO p64 CAB/EC should be ECAB ‘Change Advisory Board Emergency Committee (CAB/EC) to facilitate this urgent action.’ change to ‘Emergency Change Advisory Board (ECAB).’

SD p147,148 change SMIS to ISMS

147 Outputs
2nd bullet point changed to ‘An Information Security Management System (ISMS)’
4.6.8 Information Management
3 instances of SMIS changed to ISMS

SD p35 changed bullet point

In last bullet list before section 3.6.3, penultimate bullet point [that's the second to last one, Billy-Bob] changed from ‘Security Management Information System (SMIS)’to ‘Information Security Management System (ISMS)’ [shades of the Peoples Front of Judea]

Event generating a change ?

In Service Operation, page 38, figure 4.1 mentions an event can generate a change. Same is explained again in where an event triggers a change. But there is no mention of a change triggered by an event in Service Transition.

paragraph 2.4.3 should be the value of the volume to the business

chapter 2 in each book should describe it from a volume perspective: Therefor paragraph 2.4.3 should be the value of the volume to the business... (see service design). In SO it is a generic value to the business. In SS it does not have the value to the business described. Better alignment between these values would be beneficial.

SO regards KEDB as distinct from CMS, ST does not

SO p66 "the KEDB, like the CMS, forms part of a larger... SKMS" Clearly distinct.

ST p 68 "The CMS maintains... any related ... known errors". included.

NB there appears to be no mention of KEDB in ST?

Syndicate content