Master Thesis Presentation

InTeligentInteroperable Telecommunications ITIL-compliant

Services Management System

João Casalta NabaisAdvisor at DEI: Alexandre PintoAdvisor at SAPO: António Cruz

Co-Advisor at DEI: Jorge Cardoso

Domingo, 8 de Setembro de 13

Background

• Services became underpinned by technology.

• Services need to be managed.

• ITSM and ITIL Appearance.

2


Motivation• Reducing companies costs.

• Increasing ROI (Return On Investment).

• Reducing implementation risks and time.

• Offering the possibility of increased flexibility.

• Impact in real world.

3


Motivation

4

• Provide a web solution, for ITSM companies to manage their services lifecycle.


Problems• High costs regarding ITIL adoption:

• Training.

• Consulting.

• Limitations of current Service Portfolio Management System Software:

• Lack of an ITSM services oriented software.

• Lack of an on-line system relating ITSM provider companies with ITSM customer companies.

5


Goals• Development of a set of Interfaces in

conformance with ITIL

• Incident Management

• Problem Management

• Development of a Service Portfolio Management System (SPMS)

• Used by functional analyst or architect to customize an ITSM solution

• Complementary to the market

6


Interface Design

7

Service operation processes | 77

Functionalescalation

Eventmanagement Web interface Phone call Email

Incidentidentification

Is this reallyan incident?

Incident logging

Incidentcategorization

Incidentprioritization

No

Yes

To request fulfilment(if this is a servicerequest) or service

portfolio management(if this is a change

proposal)

Major incident?YesMajor incident

procedure

Initial diagnosis

No

Escalationneeded?

YesFunctionalescalation?

Yes

Managementescalation

NoHierarchicescalation?

YesInvestigationand diagnosis

No

No

Resolutionidentified?

Resolution andrecovery

Yes

Incident closure

End

No

Figure 4.3 Incident management process flow


Interface Design

7

Service operation processes | 77

Functionalescalation

Eventmanagement Web interface Phone call Email

Incidentidentification

Is this reallyan incident?

Incident logging

Incidentcategorization

Incidentprioritization

No

Yes

To request fulfilment(if this is a servicerequest) or service

portfolio management(if this is a change

proposal)

Major incident?YesMajor incident

procedure

Initial diagnosis

No

Escalationneeded?

YesFunctionalescalation?

Yes

Managementescalation

NoHierarchicescalation?

YesInvestigationand diagnosis

No

No

Resolutionidentified?

Resolution andrecovery

Yes

Incident closure

End

No

Figure 4.3 Incident management process flow


Interface Design

7


Interface Design

7


Interface Design

7


Interface Design

7


Architecture

8


Ontology

9


Ontology

9


Ontology

9


Scenario

10


Scenario

10

We need to handle user issues more efficiently

Company


Scenario

10

We can developa solution for you

Consulting Firm


Company


Scenario

10


Consulting Firm

We will analyse and design the necessary ITIL processes to manage user issues


Company


Scenario

10


Consulting Firm

We will analyse and design the necessary ITIL processes to manage user issues


Company

!

No need. We already have ITIL conformant Interfaces for the processes you need


Flow

11

! SPMS

Consulting FirmITSMProvider Company ITSM

Consumer Company


Flow

11

!

Registers

Adds ITSM ServiceAdds BPMN/WSDL

SPMS


Consumer Company

ITSM Service


Flow

11

!

Registers


SPMS


Consumer Company

ITSM Service

Registers

Requests Instantiation


Flow

11

!

Registers


SPMS

Consulting Firm

Allows Instantiation

ITSMProvider Company ITSM

Consumer Company

ITSM Service

Instance

ITSM Service

Registers



Flow

11

!

Registers


SPMS

Consulting Firm

Allows Instantiation

ITSMProvider Company ITSM

Consumer Company

ITSM Service

Instance

ITSM Service

Registers


Edits Instance

Assign cost to elements

View Portfolio

Export Linked-USDL


Demo

12


Evaluation

13

• IM and PM Interfaces evaluated by SAPO

• SMPS Results:

• Must requirements - 100% (16/16)

• Should requirements - ~58% (7/12)

• Could requirements - 0% (0/2)


Conclusions

14

• Development of ITIL Interfaces √

• SMPS development √

• Satisfactory Outcome

• Vast technological knowledge acquired


Future Work

15

• ITIL Interface design for the remaining processes

• Development of remaining requirements (Should, Could and Won’t requirements)

• Improve SPMS features

• Publication of a paper: “ITIL Practices Interface Design”


InTeligentInteroperable Telecommunications ITIL-compliant

Services Management System

João Casalta NabaisAdvisor at DEI: Alexandre PintoAdvisor at SAPO: António Cruz

Co-Advisor at DEI: Jorge Cardoso


Master Thesis Presentation

Technology

itsm companies

efciently company domingo

usdl domingo

itsm provider companies

service request

itsm solution complementary

incident closure

itsm customer companies