Wikipedia defines Business Service Management (BSM) as “a methodology for monitoring and measuring IT services from a business perspective. BSM consists of both structured process and enabling software. BSM allows IT departments to operate by service rather than by individual configuration items or technology silo, enabling prioritization of efforts, ultimately improving the service that is delivered to the business or organization. Touching on all the Lifecycle Processes within the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL), BSM is a way to bring together many disparate processes and tools, and creating quantifiable improvement in efficiency and the ability to view technology as it is germane to business process.”
There is good and bad in this definition. First, it is good in that it clearly links IT management process and technology with value to the business community. Too often, management of IT has been an island or silo where metrics and objectives are so focused on the “technology” that the business value (revenue, profits, costs, customer & partner relationships, etc.) of that technology to the business units is lost. IT exists to further the needs of the business, corporation, enterprise, non-profit organization. Other goals are secondary.
The Wikipedia definition is also good in that it identifies the need for methodology that monitors and measures IT services …from a business perspective. Such measures are frequently contained within the domain of performance management and capacity planning, as illustrated (…and limited) by the IBM’s Tivoli Business Service Management product line. The essential link to ITIL best practices is also goodness, as illustrated in BMC’s multi-year emphasis on ITIL v2 and now v3 as the correct (…and limited) path to BSM. Computer Associates and Hewlett Packard are vendor examples of positioning BSM as strategic and critical to the successful IT operations … but such positioning is limited by the difficulty each vendor has in (market) positioning their products and professional services to a customer’s BSM objectives.
Why the difficulty? I would suggest that end users or customers of IT management technology are unclear as to what constitute proper BSM metrics, goals, objectives and policies. Forrester Research published an excellent overview of BSM in early 2007, but limited its distribution to Forrester clients. What is needed is an open forum for discussion of BSM by those who will carry final responsibility for its success in satisfying the harsh, yet reasonable demands of IT’s business constituents. Up to this point in time, BSM has been defined and promoted by technology vendors whose primary interest is to sell more software licenses …or by service vendors’ wanting to push their ITIL expertise …and that constitutes the bad of Wikipedia’s BSM definition. It caters to the vendor definitions. What about the issue of better connecting IT operations with IT development in order to accommodate the rapidly changing nature of today’s web application deployment? What about the issue of the unique tools, processes, metrics and service level agreements that have yet to be defined for emerging infrastructure services such as cloud computing and virtualization? For BSM to be a legitimate science within IT organizations, a broader “non-vendor originated” definition will need to emerge.
To me, the most interesting thing you said was that customers were “unclear as to what constitute proper BSM metrics, goals, objectives and policies.” I think one problem with the B in BSM is that everyone’s business is at least a little different and how those different business cultures want to use IT can also be at least a little different. So far, it seems that most of the focus is on those differences and that’s made it hard to get a clearer consensus on what metrics, goals, objectives, policies could/should be a part of everyone’s BSM. So Bill, how do you think we can get this ‘non-vendor originated’ consensus that still allows everyone to be at least a little different?
Posted by jnoel | September 27, 2009, 12:52 amBill’s posting is long overdue. Well done and understood, BSM can provide a much-needed pathway to coherent and productive communications between the IT technical community and the business management community that needs them to deliver the goods and services that drive and underlie business success. I believe there are two problems, one is the issue, as Bill clearly states, is a lack of vocabulary which bridges IT’s technical and technology driven activities and the vocabulary used to discuss it and its impact – there needs to be an ability to relate that in a business-oriented vocabulary. Today, that business-oriented vocabulary doesn’t exist in any coherent and shared way. I would suggest that the need is for a conversation and standardization of ways to discuss BSM and relate it to how the consumer (i.e. the business side) feels and articulates their pain.
Without a shared view and understanding of what is being discussed, each vendor is left and quite rightly defines, interprets and presents BSM in terms of the solutions and products they provide. This puts the focus on the ‘tools and technologies’ used for solving rather than the impact on resolving a business pain. The idea of an independent group managing a discussion to address that challenge makes good sense.
Posted by rlptak | September 28, 2009, 11:57 amI believe the answer to Jasmine’s question “how can we get this ‘non-vendor originated’ consensus?” lies in the use of social media that can enable open and unbiased discussion between IT management vendors, IT operations, and IT industry gurus. No single entity can generate that kind of forced honesty. Vendors push product and are biased. Experts want to sell their opinions and limit access. Users lack the resources required to sponsor and promote such discussions. Social networking provides a path previously unavailable.
Posted by bkeyworth | September 30, 2009, 1:01 pm