Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Celanese Case Study (Relevant Facts (ITIL assessment done by HP found…

- - - - The Implementation process hasn’t been diffused to the Infrastructure group because the SAP maintains their entirely team to focus on the application side.
      - They would rather work on new technology than making the one little bit better
    - - Applications seen as more favorable investment, and as such, infrastructure group was often never aware of newly invested applications
      - IT would much rather work on the next best App and not spend time on process improvement
    - - Cross departmental process communication had not been implemented
    - - The SAP team has their own system with the incident, change, release and problem management process which were not replicated to the whole IT department and making it hard on IT to work on the problems.
      - Duplication of efforts and expenditures existed as a root cause
  - - - Organization believes any IT project or change must have ROI of 1 year or less, and as such, often scraps projects that may indeed be necessary
      - CIO is limited by decreased IT budget, and as such, needs to focus on areas of top importance without wasting money.
    - - Budget for IT projects was cut 30% from $128 million from the year previous
      - Company culture lacks the discipline to focus on improving internal processes in detail, and prefers to continue innovating
      - Business doesn't see IT investments as important as other areas within Celanese, CIO must meet business needs first
    - - CIO doesn't think certain areas need improvement or more focus as stated by the HP assessment
      - CIO thinks customer relationships are not an issue, as stated by HP Assessment
      - Organization prefers a solution that stems from ITIL and HP Assessment, but is modified more specifically to their perceived needs
    - - Not getting projects approved if 1 year ROI cannot be attained
      - Some areas suggested by HP assessment may not receive the necessary attention or improvements
  - - - SAP never fully developed and rolled out unified SLAs, tools, and documentation.
      - Groups never had effective internal communication/meetings regarding similar processes,etc. until HP assessment sat them down together
    - - Lack of integrated communications between applications group and others
      - Inadequate collecting, reporting, and distribution of information across groups
    - - SAP is managed by a different group than others with similar processes
      - Each group tends to pursue their own initiatives without unification across group direction
    - - IT communication among different groups is more confusing
      - Overuse of different methods to accomplish similar processes
- - - - Company may be able to outsource more work, while focusing more upon important internal IT projects/needs
      - More money can be spent on specific IT needs/projects
      - Company may be able to hire more IT professionals
    - - Pulling money from other departments may effect other departments output/processes
      - If other departments perform at a lesser rate, this may effect other departments processes/work, since revenue may decrease, thus decreasing IT budget potential
  - - - May help organization reach a higher, more balanced score in future HP assessments with help of ITIL implementation
      - This approach allows for each area to be addressed, IT group to receive attention, and subsequent balance across the organization
    - - Some groups/areas of IT may not receive the advanced attention and time they need to improve
      - Some areas in IT may not need to receive balanced attention and resources that could otherwise be sent to other areas within IT that need it more
  - - - More efficient use of time performing work for clients/internal
      - Increased communication across IT groups
      - More unified solutions free up more money available within IT budget for pursuing other solutions/changes/projects/etc.
      - May be easier to track and meet business requirements/demands operationally
    - - Clients may be unhappy with SLAs that do not address their specific needs
      - Some IT groups may need different ways to accomplish standardized processes, and as such, may be less efficient in doing so