See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220985390

A maturity model for implementing ITIL v3

Conference Paper · July 2010

DOI: 10.1109/SERVICES.2010.80 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

28 1,466

2 authors:

Ruben Filipe de Sousa Pereira Miguel Mira da Silva

ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa University of Lisbon
24 PUBLICATIONS 142 CITATIONS 190 PUBLICATIONS 963 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ePharmacare View project

IT Governance in Portuguese Healthcare View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Miguel Mira da Silva on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Maturity Model for Implementing ITIL v3
Rúben Filipe de Sousa Pereira
Master Student
Instituto Superior Técnico, IST/INOV
Lisbon, Portugal
rubenfspereira@ist.utl.pt
Abstract—Information Technology Infra-structure Library
(ITIL) is the most popular “best practices” framework for
managing Information Technology (IT) services. However,
implementing ITIL not only is very difficult but there also are
no best practices for implementing ITIL. As a result, ITIL
implementations are usually long, expensive, and risky. In this
paper, we propose a maturity model to assess an ITIL
implementation and provide a roadmap for improvement
based on priorities, dependencies, and guidelines. We then
demonstrate a practical application of the proposed model with
a questionnaire to assess the ITIL Incident Management
process that was evaluated in two real-world organizations.
Keywords- ITIL; implementation; maturity model
I. INTRODUCTION
IT Service Management (ITSM) is the discipline that
strives to better the alignment of IT efforts to business needs
and to manage the efficient provision of IT services with
guaranteed quality [1]. Although there are many other
frameworks, the Information Technology Infrastructure
Library (ITIL) has become the most popular for
implementing ITSM [1,2] and, as a result, the framework of
choice in the majority of organizations [3]. With ITIL,
organizations aspire to deliver services more efficiently and
effectively, with more quality and less cost [2,3,4].
Furthermore, preliminary results have shown that ITIL
works in practice [4].
ITIL was launched by the Central Computer and
Telecommunications Agency (now OGC) in the UK with
the aim of providing technology-related services in a cost-
efficient and reliable manner, by offering a systematic
approach to the delivery of quality IT services [5]. ITIL
presents a comprehensive set of guidelines for defining,
designing, implementing, and maintaining management
processes for IT services from an organizational (people) as
well as from a technical (systems) perspective [6].
Many organizations that decide to implement ITIL fail
completely. Many others keep implementing ITIL long after
the planned deadline. Empirical evidence shows that
several organizations underestimate the time, effort, and
risks – not to mention the cost – of implementing ITIL. The
problem is that implementing ITIL is not easy [7].
Maturity models in IT management have been proposed
since at least 1973 [9]. More than one hundred different
maturity models have been proposed [10] but most are too
Miguel Mira da Silva
Professor
Instituto Superior Técnico, IST/INOV
Lisbon, Portugal
mms@ist.utl.pt
general and, as a result, not well defined and documented
[11]. The Process Maturity Framework (PMF) [12] is the
only maturity model specifically designed for ITIL but, in a
few pages, cannot provide enough information to help an
ITIL implementation.
The maturity model I propose is more descriptive,
detailed, and useful because it was designed specifically for
ITIL and contains comprehensive questionnaires for each
ITIL process. This model can be used to help an ITIL
implementation step-by-step by assessing the maturity of
the existing processes and suggesting what to improve or
implement next.
II. PROBLEM
Every year, more organizations desire to implement
ITIL. However a significant number of them fail and some
organizations collapse trying it [7,8]. Some of the most
common mistakes made by organizations when
implementing ITIL are [8]:
• Lack of management commitment
• Spend too much time on complicated process
diagrams
• Not creating work instructions
• Not assigning process owners
• Concentrating too much on performance
• Being too ambitious
• Failing to maintain momentum
• Allowing departmental demarcation
• Ignoring constant reviewing of the ITIL
• Memorizing self ITIL books
Certainly, many other reasons cause ITIL
implementations to fail. In particular, reasons that cause
information system projects in general to fail – such as
organizational resistance to change, unproven business
value, strong organizational culture, and so on – also are to
blame, as ITIL implementations usually are based on
complex IT platforms. But these other reasons can be dealt
with by general techniques for implementing projects in
general.
The main problem for implementing ITIL resides in the
fact that ITIL dictates to organizations “what they should
do” but is not clear about “how they should do it.” Based on
a large number of tightly integrated processes, the steps for
ITIL implementation aren’t clear [3]. Faced with so many
processes, the majority of organizations have no idea which
process to implement first and/or how far they should go
with that first process. Then the problem is repeated for the
second process, and so on, until they get lost and start
looking for help. But since each ITIL implementation is
unique, there are no “silver bullets” to solve this problem.
ITIL implementation is too expensive and CEOs think
twice before going forward with the implementation.
Combine that with unrecoverable money losses in many
known ITIL implementation failures and this certainly
becomes a problem.
III. ITIL
ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) is
a standard that was introduced and distributed by the Office
of Government Commerce (OGC) in the UK and includes
all IT parts of organizations. At present, ITIL is the most
widely accepted approach to IT Service Management in the
world. It has an iterative, multidimensional and lifecycle
form structure [3]. ITIL has an integrated approach as
required by the ISO/IEC 20000 standard, with the following
components that we can see in Fig. 1:
Figure 1. ITIL v3
A. Service Strategy
Service Strategy provides guidance on how to design,
develop, and implement service management not only as an
organizational capability but also as a strategic asset. Topics
covered in Service Strategy include the development of
markets, internal and external, service assets, Service
Catalogue, and implementation of strategy through the
Service Lifecycle.
Financial Management, Service Portfolio Management,
Organizational Development, and Strategic Risks are among
other major topics [22].
B. Service Design
Service Design provides guidance for the design and
development of services and service management processes.
It covers design principles and methods to convert strategic
objectives into portfolios of services and service assets.
The scope of Service Design is not limited to new
services. It includes the changes and improvements
necessary to increase or maintain value to customers over
the life cycle of services, the continuity of services,
achievement of service levels, and conformance to standards
and regulations. It guides organizations on how to develop
design capabilities for service management [23].
C. Service Transition
Service Transition provides guidance for the
development and improvement of capabilities to transition
new and changed services into operations. It provides
guidance on how the requirements of Service Strategies
encoded in Service Design are realized effectively in
Service Operation while controlling the risks of failure and
disruption. It provides guidance on managing the
complexity related to changes in services and service
management processes, preventing undesired consequences
while allowing for innovation [24].
D. Service Operation
Service Operation provides guidance on achieving
effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery and support of
services so as to ensure value for the customer and the
service provider.
Guidance is provided on ways to maintain stability in
Service Operations, allowing for changes in design, scale,
scope, and service levels. Managers and practitioners are
provided with knowledge that allows them to make better
decisions in areas such as managing the availability of
services, controlling demand, optimizing capacity
utilization, scheduling operations, and fixing problems.
Guidance is provided on supporting operations through
new models and architectures such as shared services, utility
computing, Web services, and mobile commerce [25].
E. Continual Inprovement
This provides instrumental guidance in creating and
maintaining value for customers through better design,
introduction, and operation of services. It combines
principles, practices, and methods from Quality
Management, Change Management, and Capability
Improvement.
Organizations learn to realize incremental and large-
scale improvements in service quality, operational
efficiency, and business continuity.
Guidance is provided to link improvement efforts and
outcomes with service strategy, design, and transition [26].
IV. RELATED WORK
There are many maturity models, like CMM, CMMI for
services, PMF, Trillium, Bootstrap, ITSCMM, etc. These
models differ from each other in terms of their factors and
characteristics. In this paper, we will compare different
maturity models in order to select the most suitable to base
our maturity model. Basically, we need three steps: the first
step is to select some models for comparison; the second
step is to find the variables for comparing the models; and
the third step is to select the most suitable model(s) from the
comparison.
Table 1 shows the comparison of the chosen models by
the selected variables.
A. Models compared
We will compare the models Trillium, Bootstrap,
Capability Maturity Model (CMM), Process Maturity
Model (PMF), IT Service Capability Maturity Model
(ITSCMM) and Capability Maturity Model Integration for
Services (CMMI SVC).
Trillium is a model that covers all aspects of software
development life cycle and was designed to be applied to
embedded systems like telecommunications [13].
The fundamental practices are at the lower levels,
whereas more advanced ones are at the higher levels. In
order to increase the effectiveness of higher level practices,
it is recommended that the lower level practices be
implemented and sustained [14].
Bootstrap, based on the CMM and developed by the
Software Engineering Institute (SEI), was extended over
time and adopted to include guidelines in the ISO 9000; it
began with five levels and now has six [15]. Software
Process Improvement programs are implemented in many
organizations. A frequently used and successful
methodology for improving the software process is the
Bootstrap methodology [16].
Process Maturity Framework (PMF) is described in the
ITIL book. It can be used either as a framework to assess
the maturity of the ten Service Management processes
individually, or to measure the maturity of the overall
Service Management process as a whole [17].
However, PMF is described only in ITIL v2 books and
not on ITIL v3 books, which creates some doubts about its
usefulness and success.
The IT Service CMM is a capability maturity model that
specifies different maturity levels for organizations that
provide IT services.
TABLE I. COMPARISON BETWEEN MATURITY MODELS
The main focus of the model is on the maturity of the
service provided by the organization. The model does not
measure the maturity of individual services, projects, or
organizational units [18].
CMMI-SVC integrates bodies of knowledge that are
essential for a service provider. It was designed to improve
mature service practices and contribute to the performance,
customer satisfaction, and profitability of the economic
community [19]. It has been proven that the adoption of
CMMI by companies brings good results with regard to
delivery time and the reduction of defects and costs [20].
B. Adopted variables
The adopted variables were:
1. Success: know if the model was implemented and
used successfully before and try to count how many
times.
2. Number of maturity levels: know how many levels of
maturity they assume and what their descriptions are.
3. Stage Model/Continuous Model: understand what
kind of model approach is used by each model.
4. Details: the detail level of each model, given the
goals, practices, and factors addressed.
5. Scope: know the area where each model is
applicable.
6. Base for: understand if the model was base for other
models.
These certainly are important variables to consider in
comparing the models. To measure these variables, we
study documentation about the models.
As result of Table 1, we conclude that the most suitable
models to base our model are ITSCMM and CMMI-SVC.
The reasons for our choice are:
1. Both focus on service
2. ITSCMM are very well detailed
3. CMMI-SVC have Stage Model and Continuous
Model
V. PROPOSAL
A. Methodology
To design our maturity model for ITIL, we will study the
chosen models ITSCMM and CMMI-SVC. In order to give
organizations more flexibility in ITIL assessment, we will
design our model with Stage Model and Continuous Model

Criteria Bootstrap Trillium PMF CMM ITSCMM CMMI-SVC

Success Medium Medium Very Low Extremely High Medium High
Staged model Continuous Continuous Both Staged Model Staged Model Both
(SM)/ Model Model
Continuous
model (CM)
Number of 0-5 1-5 SM: 1-5 1-5 1-5 SM: 1-5
maturity levels CM: 1-5 CM: 0-5
Scope Software Software Services Software Services Services
Details Medium Medium Low High Extremely high High
Base for Any model Any model Any model Many Models CMMI-SVC --------------
like CMMI-SVC. To do that we will design maturity levels We obviously can conclude that our model is different
for Stage Model and Continuous Model that will follow the from the ones compared.
CMMI-SVC and ITSCMM approach, as well the ITIL
B. Continuous Model
context.
To provide a maturity model that assesses organizations’ As we saw before, ITIL is very complex; however, some
ITIL and at the same time provide a roadmap to ITIL organizations already know which process or processes they
implementation, we need a very well detailed maturity want implement or assess, and for that they should use the
model. Each factor (goal, practice, sub-practice, etc.) Continuous Model.
indicated by the chosen models will be validated by us in To assess a process, the Continuous Model has a
ITIL books. questionnaire that will be composed of factors of ITSCMM
Our model obviously is different from the models and CMMI-SVC, previously validated, and everything not
compared before. While the compared models were made included in the factors but contemplated by ITIL (process
for a specific context (software development or service dependencies, specific roles and responsibilities, documents,
delivery), our model was designed specifically to help plans, etc.). Indeed, to understand the relationship between
organizations measure their ITIL maturity and guide them in all ITIL processes, we made a conceptual map (Fig. 2) that
implementation, in order to reduce the risk. clearly shows the complexity of dependencies and changed
Only PMF really could be compared with our model; documents between ITIL processes. The definition of
however, there are some differences: maturity levels for the Continuous Model is:
1. PMF was designed for ITIL v2 and our model was Level 1: Ad-hoc, success depends on individual effort and
designed for ITIL v3 heroics.
2. PMF is too simple in terms of factors (goals, Level 2: Resources and train are provided. Responsibilities
practices, sub-practices, etc.) and roles are assigned. The process is executed in

Change
Continual
Data Creates / Problem Can
Service
Management generates
Improvement update
KEDB Change
Data
input

Service report Information

Knowledge Creates / Knowledge Service report Security Evaluation
Reporting creates Security creates Evaluation
Management update strategy Measurement Management report
policy
input
creates

Capacity input
Capacity
helps plan input
Management Can
input
input generate Change input input
PBA Data results
For each
SLP
in
creates
Continuity generates
plan input
ITSCM
input tests
policy
Demand Creates / SDP SAC
Management update
Creates / BIA y/n
Creates / update CMIS
update update input
update y input
influences update
y/n input input creates
input input
input input
Service Service
use creates Change Transition input
Portfolio Continuity Release &
proposal Change Plan &
Management Management in Deployment
Creates / AMIS Management Support
Creates / Management Transition Service
input update Capacity Creates update creates Plan Validation &
plan
input Creates / input Test
influences creates
Availability update input
IT Financial input PSO creates
Management Management creates
Creates / input
input support update
input input
creates CMDB release
input SC
input support plan deployment
recorded plan
input VCD help input
creates
creates use
CI CAB Strategy
RFC Generation creates strategy
SKMS ECAB
in
Access Change
in Management Data Aplication
support Can
in Management
influences input input generate
input
Can
Is part Service generate
Catalogue in Manage Is part
of CMS SQP access of
Service
Portfolio update SIP input
input
update Change Tecnical
input input Data Event Management input
input creates Change Service Assets & Management
update creates Data Configuration
Request
Can Management Can
Fullfilment
input evoke generate
Incident Can
Management evoke
Service Level Is part
Creates / Monitoring and
Service Change Management helps Supplier of
Catalog Management update Service Desk Is part control
Data
Management of
Operation
creates Change IT Operation Is part
creates Creates / Management Is part
influences creates Data DML of
involve update of
Can
involve
generate
SLA
Client SCD
SLR BU OLA
input
input

Figure 2. ITIL v3 conceptual map

accordance with a plan and policy. The process is controlled
and monitored.
Level 3: The process is documented and all the documents
become assets of the organization in order to institutionalize
the process so it becomes a standard process of the
organization.
Level 4: Measurements, audits, reviews, and reports are
provided, managed, and controlled. Quantitative objectives
for quality and process performance are established and
used as criteria in managing the process.
Level 5: Continuous process improvement is enabled by
quantitative feedback from the processes and from piloting
innovative ideas and technology.
So far, we have just designed the questionnaire for
Incident Management and did the assessment in two
Portuguese organizations; we will show and describe the
results later in this paper.
C. Stage Model
As we saw, ITIL is very complex and wide; although the
number of organizations that want to implement ITIL
increases each year, most of them don’t know where to start.
In this case, the organizations should follow the Stage
Model that guides organizations in ITIL implementation,
telling them which process they should implement first and
how far they should go in each process.
The definition of maturity levels for Stage Model is:
Level 1: Ad-hoc, success depends on individual effort and
heroics.
Level 2: Projects establish the foundations for an
organization to become an effective service provider. This
enables organizations to understand what they provide,
with/for whom and how they provide it. The focus is on
customer satisfaction and organization train.
Level 3: The IT service processes are documented,
standardized, and integrated into standard service processes.
Highly important processes to the organization that allow
having high levels of performance in the management of IT
are included.
Level 4: Manage and control the information. Both service
processes and the delivery services are quantitatively
understood and controlled.
Level 5: Continuous process improvement is enabled by
quantitative feedback from the processes and from piloting
innovative ideas and technology.
A Stage Model maturity level is assigned to ITIL
processes by the compatibility of a process objective with
one maturity level description.
D. Stage Model and Continuous Model Relation
As we can see in Table 2, the Stage Model and the
Continuous Model are not independent of each other, at
least in part. When an organization chooses to follow the
Continuous Model, it already knows which process or
processes it wants implemented and just uses the
Continuous Model to assess each chosen process. But if the
organization doesn’t know which process(es) to implement
first and uses the Stage Model to determine that, then it
must use the Continuous Model to assess the previous
chosen process(es), too.
So, when the organization knows the process(es) it
wants to implement/assess, it should use the Continuous
Model and corresponding questionnaire; when it doesn’t
know which process(es) to implement, it first should use the
Stage Model and then the Continuous Model and the
corresponding questionnaire.
The evolution of the maturity described by the Stage
Model is incremental. For example, to achieve Stage level 2,
the organization must achieve Continuous level 2 of the 10
processes included in Stage level 2, but to achieve Stage
level 3, the organization must achieve Continuous level 3 of
the 14 processes included in Stage level 3, and achieve
Continuous level 3 of the 10 processes included in Stage
level 2 and so on.
The different colors used in Table 2 show this propriety.
VI. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The chosen research methodology to design and develop
this model is Action Research Methodology.
Toward the end of the 1990s, it began to grow in
popularity for use in scholarly investigations of information
systems. The method produces highly relevant research
results because it is grounded in practical action, aimed at
solving an immediate problem while carefully informing
theory [21]. It is composed of 5 stages (as shown in Fig. 3):
Figure 3. Action Research Cycle
According to this methodology, we must design a
maturity model and then find an organization that wants to
assess its ITIL (or part of ITIL) and at which we could test
our model.
After the assessment, we will study the results, take
conclusions, and then improve the model according to the
conclusions. Finally, we’ll describe what we learned in that
new experience of assessing an organization with the model
that we designed.
VII. EVALUATION
As noted earlier, this paper will just present and discuss
the results of the assessment of Incident Management
process in two Portuguese organizations (two action
TABLE II. STAGE MODEL AND CONTINUOUS MODEL RELATIONSHIP

Stage Model Maturity Continuous Model Maturity Levels

ITIL processes
Level Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Service Catalogue Management
Service Level Management
Supplier Management
Service Asset & Configuration Management
Event Management 2
Incident Management
Request Fulfillment
Monitoring & Control
Service Desk
Technical Management
Service Generation
Demand Management
IT Financial Management
Service Portfolio Management
Capacity Management
Availability Management
IT Service Continuity Management 3
Transition Plan & Support
Change Management
Release & Deployment Management
Service Validation & Testing
Problem Management
Access Management
Application Management
Information Security Management
Evaluation
4
Knowledge Management
Service Report
Service Measurement
Service Improvement 5

research cycles). The questionnaire is the most complete
possible and we differentiate three kinds of question:
1. Key question: All these questions are essential for
the correct implementation of each specific level of
the process, and all must be implemented to reach the
level. Basically, they’re related with roles,
responsibilities, activities, documents, audits,
reviews, etc.
2. Non-key question: Not all of these questions need to
be implemented, just 75 percent of them. Basically,
they’re related with sub-practices; they are not the
main focus.
3. Dependent key question: These questions are
related to dependencies between processes. If the
process that is being assessed depends in some way
on other ITIL processes and the organization has
those processes implemented, too, then the question
must be implemented; otherwise, it shouldn’t be.
Table 3 shows the results of the assessment of Incident
Management process in two Portuguese organizations. As
we see, both have the process at level 1although several
practices have been implemented in all levels. This means
that they don’t have all the key questions of each level
implemented; some basic activities are not implemented and
in some case they probably will face problems that, as we
saw before, could be serious to the organization’s future.
At the end of each questionnaire, some questions were
asked in order to understand the quality and completeness of
the questionnaire and the vision that each organization has
of its own ITIL implementation. Table 4 shows the results
of these questions. The used variables were:
1. Simple: If the person responsible for the
process understood all the questions.
2. Complete: If the questionnaire had all the
activities and practices implemented by the
organization.
3. Copy: If the organization wants a copy of the
questionnaire with the results.
4. State: What is the idea of the person responsible
for the process about the percentage of
implementation until now?
 TABLE III. INCIDENT MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENTS

Organization 1 Organization 2
Level Questions Nº Processes needed Not Not
Implemented Approved Implemented Approved
Implemented Implemented
Key 39 n/a 35 4 NO 33 6 NO
Non-Key 36 n/a 22 14 NO (61%) 25 11 NO (69%)
Level CM 0 1 YES 1 0 YES
Depend Key 2
2 SLM 0 1 YES 1 0 YES
CM
TOTAL 77 57 20 NO 60 17 NO
SLM
Key 27 n/a 15 12 NO 14 13 NO
Non-Key 18 n/a 0 18 NO (0%) 5 13 NO (28%)
Level CHM 0 2 YES 1 1 NO
Depend Key 3
3 PM 0 1 YES 0 1 YES
CHM
TOTAL 48 15 33 NO 20 28 NO
PM
Key 10 n/a 7 3 NO 6 4 NO
Level Non-Key 15 n/a 12 3 YES (80%) 8 7 YES (80%)
4 Depend Key 0 n/a 0 0 YES 0 0 YES
TOTAL 25 n/a 19 6 NO 14 11 NO
Key 5 n/a 4 1 NO 3 2 NO
YES YES
Level Non-Key 0 n/a 0 0 0 0
(100%) (100%)
5
Depend Key 1 CSI 0 1 YES 1 0 YES
TOTAL 6 CSI 4 2 NO 4 2 NO

5. Model State: What is the state of the
implementation based on the results of the
questionnaire?
This information is important to understand if our
questionnaire is adequate, for the organizations about their
own implementation, and for our future works.
TABLE IV. RESUME OF THE FINAL QUESTIONS
Simple Complete Copy State
Organization Yes Yes Yes 90%
1 4. The stage model follows an incremental path in order
Organization Yes Yes Yes 60%
2 5. Enables organization to know “where” they are and
The organizations have different perspectives of their
own ITIL implementation state. While organization 1 might
be at 60 percent of implementation and our maturity model
confirms it, organization 1 might believe it is at 90 percent
of the ITIL implementation and our maturity model shows it
is at 60 percent. This is
Although both are at 60 percent of the ITIL
implementation, they both are at level 1. This meets our
initial point: organization fail because they miss critical
practices or activities of the implementation. These
organizations remain at level 1 because they skip important
steps on ITIL implementation that could be crucial in the
future.
The assessment of organization 2 is interesting, although
know how they implement percentage is, they skip
important goals too. Organization 1 is the worse, they don’t
have idea of the state of their ITIL implementation they skip
important goals.
VIII. DISCUSSION
Although quite useful, the model is not perfect and this
section will identify the pros and cons of the model.
The identified pros of the model are:
1. Extremely needed in worldwide reality of ITIL
implementation
2. Very detailed
Model 3. Can be used to assess and to guide the
state
implementation
60%
63% to reduce the initial effort
what they need
6. Organizations that follow this model avoid the most
common mistakes of ITIL implementation.
7. Apparently the questions are easily understood
8. Apparently the questionnaire is complete
9. The organizations want a copy of the questionnaire,
which shows that they believe it is useful
The identified cons of the model are:
1. Only Incident Management questionnaire is
completed.
2. The sequence of implementation processes by stage
model might not be the most appropriate for all kinds
of businesses.
 About the percentage of non-key questions that need to
be implemented (75 percent), we don’t have any empirical
validation. However the idea isn’t new and the value isn’t
arbitrary. Trillium defines a minimum percentage to reach
the next level, too (90 percent), but Trillium doesn’t have
distinct questions (key, non-key, dependent key). Therefore
90 percent was a high value for those who must implement
all key questions, and then we believe that three-quarters of
non-key questions is acceptable.
The advantages of the proposal are evident. The present
reality of ITIL implementation in the world makes this
proposal extremely useful.
IX. CONCLUSION
It’s clear that ITIL implementation is not easy, as seen
by the fact that several organizations fail in efforts to do so;
they clearly lack something that helps them do it.
We propose a maturity model to help organizations
assess the actual maturity of ITIL and implement what they
are missing.
Basing our model in ITSCMM and CMMI-SVC gave us
a solid base to design our complete and detailed maturity
model.
With the evaluation of Portuguese organizations, we
show that in most cases, at least on these, ITIL
implementation is not at the level that organizations believe;
rather, sometimes they miss important goals necessary to the
success of ITIL in the organization.
With the assessment on these organizations we saw that
they implement ITIL as they want and not by a right set of
steps, and that’s what our model purpose.
We finally conclude that the assessments made
emphasize the need of our model purpose in the
implementation of ITIL in the worldwide organizations.
As part of our future research work, we will make more
assessments, in more organizations, of the processes that we
already have the questionnaires, and design the
questionnaire for the other processes in order to complete
our model.
REFERENCES
[1] Brenner, M, “Classifying ITIL processes: A taxonomy under tool
support aspects,” in: The First IEEE/IFIP International Workshop,
pp. 19 – 28. IEEE Press (2006)
[2] Hochstein, A., Zarnekow, R., Brenner, W, “ITIL as common
practice reference model for IT service management: Formal
assessment and implications for practice,” in: e-Technology, e-
Commerce and e-Service, 2005. EEE '05. Proceedings of the 2005
IEEE International Conference, pp. 704 – 710. IEEE Press (2005)
[3] Ayat, M., Sharifi, M., Sahibudin, S., Ibrahim, S, “Adoption factors
and implementation steps of ITSM in the target,” in: Modelling &
Simulation, 2009. AMS '09. Third Asia International Conference,
pp. 369 – 374. IEEE Press (2009)
[4] Kashanchi, R., Toland, J, “Can ITIL contribute to IT/business
alignment? An initial investigation,” WIRTSCHAFTS
INFORMATIK. 340-348 (2006)
[5] ITIL Lifecycle Publication Suiite. Ofice of Government Commerce
(OGC). 2008
View publication stats
[6] Graupner, S., Basu, S., Singhal, S, “Collaboration environment for
ITIL,” in: Integrated Network Management-Workshops, 2009. IM
'09, pp. 44 – 47. IEEE Press (2009)
[7] Nicewicz-Modrzewska, D., Stolarski, P, “ITIL implementation
roadmap based on process governance,” in: EUNIS 2008. Adam
Mickiewicz University Computer Centre (2008)
[8] Sharifi, M., Ayat, M., Rahman, A.A., Sahibudin, S, “Lessons learned
in ITIL implementation failure,” in: Information Technology, 2008.
ITSim 2008, pp. 1 – 4. IEEE (2008)
[9] Rocha, A., Vasconcelos, J, “Maturity models for information
systems management. (Os modelos de maturidade na gestão de
sistemas de informação, in Portuguese),” in: Journal of the Faculty
of Sciences and Technology at University Fernando Pessoa, Nº 1,
pp. 93-107 (2004)
[10] Bruin, T., Rosemann, M., Freeze, R., KulKarni, U, “Understanding
the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model,” in:
16th Australian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Sydney
(2005)
[11] Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, J, “Developing maturity
models for IT management – A procedure model and its
application,” in: Journal Business & Information Systems
Engineering (BISE), Volume 1, Number 3. B&ISE (2009)
[12] Paulk, C.P.,Weber, V.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, B.M.: The Capability
Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process.
Addison-Wesley (1994)
[13] 13. Trillium: Model for Telecom Product Development and Support
Process Capability, Release 3.2, Technical Report, Bell, Montreal
(1996)
[14] 14. Krishnan, M.S., Mukhopadhyay, T., Zubrow, D.: Software
Process Models and Project Performance. Information Systems
Frontiers. 1:3,267 – 277 (1999)
[15] 15. Kuvaja, P.: BOOTSTRAP: A Software Process Assessment and
Improvement Methodology. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
LNCS, Volume 926/1995, 31-48. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
(2006)
[16] 16. Robben, D., Nederland, B.V.S.: TPI, BOOTSTRAP and
Testing. (2006)
[17] 17. Lloyd, V.: Planning to Implement Service Management (ITIL).
OGC (2002)
[18] 18. Niessink, F., Van Vliet, H.: The Vrije Universiteit IT Service
Capability Maturity Model. Faculty of Sciences, Division of
Mathematics and Computer Science Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
(2005)
[19] 19. C. Forrester, E., L. Buteau, B., Shrum, S.: CMMI for Services,
Version 1.2. Technical Report, Software Engineering Institute
(2009)
[20] Pinheiro dos Santos, R., Marçal de Oliveira, K., Pereira da Silva, W.:
Evaluating the Service Quality of Software Providers Appraised in
CMM/CMMI. Software Quality Journal, 283-301, Springer
Netherlands (2008)
[21] Baskerville, Richard L.: Investigating Information Systems with
Action Research (1999)
[22] Sharon Taylor, M.Iqbal, M.Nieves, ITIL:Service Strategy,TSO
publications.Norwith,UK,2007
[23] Sharon Taylor, V. Lioyd,C.Rudd, ITIL:Service Design,TSO
publications.Norwith,UK,2007
[24] Sharon Taylor,S. Lacy,I.Macfarlane, ITIL:Service Transition,TSO
publications.Norwith,UK,2007
[25] Sharon Taylor, D. Cannon,D.Wheeldon, ITIL:Service Operation
,TSO publications. Norwith,UK,2007
[26] Sharon Taylor, G.Case,G.Spalding, ITIL:Continual Service
Improvement,TSO publications.Norwith,UK,2007