This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Enterprise Computing Services Europe
0 Description Fixed issue with cross tower involvement reducing rather than increasing risk.01 1.02 Review Record Version Reviewer Role Approval Record Version Approver Role . Wording changed to "Tick those that DO NOT apply" Increased the business risk of making changes to SC1/2 services % Prod/DR environments Added ITMW answer in outage section Locked ready for distribution See issue log for list of amendments in this revision See issue log for list of amendments in this revision 1.02 Ref No Change process 20th September 2010 20th November 2010 Document History Version 1.Change Management Risk Matrix Unilever Enterprise Computing Services Europe Document Information Author Owner Status / Version Reference Category Technology Date Published Review Due Mark Phypers Nick Brace 1.
Author Mark Phypers Date 9/16/2010 Mark Phypers Mark Phypers 9/24/2010 10/25/2010 Date Date .
the service is planned to remain available throughout the duration of the Change Yes. the Service will be unavailable and/or degraded for a period but this is during an agreed Maintenance Window or outside of agreed serviice hours. B1 What are the business implications of postponing this change Medium Significant Does the change introduce B2 new/enhanced/amended functionality to users of the service? NO YES No Out of Hours The change has no functional impact on end users The change will introduce new or enhanced/amended service functionality No. problem or known error will remain unresolved.Change Management Risk Matrix Change ID Business Risk Technical Risk Unilever Enterprise Computing Services Europe Description A. the Service will be unavailable for a period B3 Is there a planned outage to service? : Business Impacts Degraded Outage None This is purely an administrative change and there is an absolute zero potential impact on any live IT system as a result of making this change (e. e.g. e.g CMDB updates. Process Normal Normal agreed lead-time or greater A1 What is the proposed lead time? Rapid Change is requested to be implemented sooner than the standard lead time None No impact . an Incident.the change has no IT or Business driver and no requirements for a set implementation date Some impact.phypers 06/06/2011 Page 5 . Significant impact. Possible degraded service or intermittent loss of service throughout duration of the change Yes. and other paperwork type changes) Prepared by mark.g. postponement or failure of the change could cause delay to a milestone of a project.
at worst. what are the most serious potential impacts upon B4 the business. If this is a change to a Prod/DR Service.g. at worst. Service Continuity Failure could. Dev/QA/Sandbox). as a result of the planned changes.(E. locations. Risk of direct impact upon Unilever business services is negligible. in the event of an unplanned outcome? Resilience / Capacity Failure could. Business Process An unexpected outcome could result in a detrimental impact upon a business process resulting in financial impact to the company through impaired or lost ability to perform that process until service is restored. schedules or a change to CIs within the DR environment). Prepared by mark.not impact directly upon any Business systems themselves. only result in a loss of system resilience and/or capacity. only impair the ability to recover service in event of a further failure of systems (For example a change to back up routines. (For example a change to a single CI within a high availability architecture) Systems Management Failure could at worst only impair the IT organisations ability to manage this or other IT systems .phypers 06/06/2011 Page 6 .Change Management Risk Matrix B: Business Impacts Change ID Business Risk Technical Risk Unilever Enterprise Computing Services Europe Description Non-Prod This is a change to Non-Prod .
backup systems. holding schedules or rescheduling FTP times C4 Are there further impacts outside the service or host e.g. etc so the change could not directly impact business processes if it were to cause a failure Yes the change is to an operational business service C3 Is this a change to an operational service or system? Enabling Business No No further implications Some disruption which can be managed in advance e.g. system management tools. Proof of Concept and/or Sandbox systems Quality Assurance and/or regression systems Production and Disaster Recovery systems There is no change to a service as defined in the CMDB Service Criticality 4 or 5 Service Criticality 3 Service Criticality 2 Service Criticality 1 The change has no effect on an operational service Hover for guidance notes C1 Type of environment(s) the change impacts? (Tick highest impact one only) QA/Reg Prod/DR NONE SC4/5 C: Environments Impacted What is the highest SC level Service C2 comprising this change? (Tick highest impact one only) SC3 SC2 SC1 NO Project The service is not yet operational but is in regular use as part of an inflight project. Yes the change is to an operational business service during normal service hours but the system is a backoffice system such as monitoring tools. scheduling/batch Manageable Prepared by mark.Change Management Risk Matrix Change ID Business Risk Technical Risk Unilever Enterprise Computing Services Europe Description Dev / POC / Sandbox Development.phypers 06/06/2011 Page 7 .
g. Prepared by mark. Please ensure your implementation plan includes tasks to handle this.Change Management Risk Matrix Change ID Business Risk Technical Risk Unilever Enterprise Computing Services Europe C4 Are there further impacts outside the service or host e. delay to batch processing or potential loss of FTP data. scheduling/batch Yes Description YES further disruptive impact e.phypers 06/06/2011 Page 8 .g.
g.communication / documentation purposes only This change has been raised in order to carry out testing on a non production environment prior to implementation on production systems.any known issues from testing? Prepared by mark. Emergency fix Will this change impact upon other towers or 3rd parties ability to supply their services? D2 (tick all that ARE NOT impacted .Change Management Risk Matrix Change ID Business Risk Technical Risk Unilever Enterprise Computing Services Europe Description No No impact on call volumes or change in support levels / models / agreements D: Cross Tower Impacts D1 Will this change impact the Service Desk? Yes Client May cause increased call volumes or involves changes to support levels. e. help files.leave blank if it does impact them)) Network Enterprise Application 3rd party NA Test E1 Has the change been tested successfully? Yes Partial E: Testing No None No issues found from testing E2 Testing output . Successful testing has been completed for the change in matched QA environments or the change has been completed successfully on a previous occasion Successful testing has been completed. however there are known differences between the QA and Production environments. there is a potential for unforeseen issues to arise No testing has been done or testing is not possible. etc Does not impact upon Client Services ability to provide contracted services Does not impact upon Network Services ability to provide contracted services Does not impact upon Enterprise Hostings ability to proviode contracted services Does not impact upon Application Services ability to provide contracted services Does not impact upon a 3rd parties ability to provide contracted services This is not a physical change .phypers 06/06/2011 Page 9 .
any known issues from testing? Minor Minor known issues to be released into production.Change Management Risk Matrix Change ID Business Risk Technical Risk E: Testing Unilever Enterprise Computing Services Europe Description E2 Testing output . with potential to cause small incidents Change includes a significant known error being released into production.phypers 06/06/2011 Page 10 . potential to cause significant incidents but the risk has been accepted by the business Major Prepared by mark.
The change can be implemented. Backout plan has not been or cannot be tested. It has not been specifically tested with regard to this piece of work. Any issues can be resolved between these parties The change requires both internal and 3rd parties or cross tower teams available during the change window.Change Management Risk Matrix E: Testi Change ID Business Risk Technical Risk Unilever Enterprise Computing Services Europe Description Full Full post implementation testing is planned immediately after change is implemented Confidence testing planned by Business contacts (Not necessarily straight after change is implemented e. Any issues can be resolved between these parties F2 Has the Backout plan been tested? Standard No 1 G: Resource 2 G1 Resource complexity 3 Prepared by mark. The change requires more than one internal implementing team available during the change window.g.phypers 06/06/2011 Page 11 . tested & backed out by the change implementor in isolation. On-site testing) No post implementation testing has been planned Easily implemented by change implementor in isolation Complex back out plan requiring staggered activities from a number of teams No backout assessment has been made or backout is not possible E3 Is post implementation testing planned? Business None Simple F1 What is the backout complexity? Complex Unknown F: Backout Yes This change has been both implemented and backed out on a matched QA environment This is a standard backout plan used many times in the past for similar changes.
phypers 06/06/2011 Page 12 .Change Management Risk Matrix G: Resource Change ID Business Risk Technical Risk Unilever Enterprise Computing Services G1 EuropeResource complexity Description 4 The change will require outside assistance (Internal or third party) if it errors Prepared by mark.
<Enter> 10 10 Prepared by mark.phypers 06/06/2011 Page 13 .
<Enter> 10 10 Prepared by mark.phypers 06/06/2011 Page 14 .
phypers 06/06/2011 Page 15 .<Enter> 10 10 Prepared by mark.
<Enter> 10 10 Prepared by mark.phypers 06/06/2011 Page 16 .
<Enter> 10 10 Prepared by mark.phypers 06/06/2011 Page 17 .
phypers 06/06/2011 Page 18 .<Enter> 10 10 Prepared by mark.
phypers 06/06/2011 Page 19 .<Enter> 10 10 Prepared by mark.
<Enter> 10 10 Prepared by mark.phypers 06/06/2011 Page 20 .
C2 B1 B4 6 Paul White / Eddie Cohen / Simon Goddard Admin Paul White C3 7 8 All B3 9 10 Josh Ruding Ade Badru all c3 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Steve Judge Misc E1 .Issue Log Issue ID 1 Raised by Paul White Q# All 2 3 4 5 Paul White Simon Goddard / Eddie Cohen Simon Goddard / Eddie Cohen Eddie Cohen C1.
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 .
Description Testing reveals very difficult to get an ITMW change to come out as a major. This is because the matrix assesses risk not size and if action has been taken to mitigate the risk then the change will not achieve Major categorisation.Planned degradation (agreed with business or ITMW) .theres no increased risk to the service by making these changes in normal hours but the risk matrix will say that there is. Issue regarding the "Operational Service" answer needing clarification as to meaning and not reducing risk score enough. No option for changes raised to carry out testing . Issue regarding ticking multiple "Type of environments impacted".No planned outage .which happens OOH . Numbered the questions to make issue tracking and revision history straight forward to administrate. Suggested this structuring this slightly differently: . Proposed addition of guidance notes. Issue regarding the "Business implications of Postponement" question adding too much risk or whether relevant at all.Planned outage (agreed with business or ITMW) . Issue regarding the wording of the "impact on service if change fails" answer.Planned outage or degradation (not agreed) Suggested adding in calculations to show the change category and lead time as well as the business & technical risk Changes to back up regimes normally happen during normal hours of the service but not during the hours of the backup .
02 24-9-10: will be added in a future release.02 .clarification added to instruct to tick one answer only Updated .01 1. Updated .guidance note added on answer 1 and scoring of answer 1 weighted to much lower risk Updated 24-9-10: Needs discussion 12-10-10: Solution added .01 1.01 Partial 1.Or to handle this via guidance notes Updated .wording clarified on answer 1 24-9-10: will be added in a future release. 29-09-10: Loggged issue 12-10-10: Soluton added to questions B4 &C3 12/10: Added low risk answer 1. 12-10-10: a couple of guidance notes added as comments on the risk sheet Trial solution added .needs testing Version Resolved In 1.Scoring changed to only add noticeable risk to the unresolved issue answer.01 1.02 1.02 1.Status 24-9-10: Under discussion whether to add a question relating to number of CIs impacted in order to push the risk higher for "Large" releases.01 1.