Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
ITIL at Celanese Case Study- Group 4 - Coggle Diagram
ITIL at Celanese Case Study- Group 4
Timeline
2001 - 2005: Current CIO was hired and began shaping department into standardized IT structure. The budget for new IT projects in 2005 was around $8 million.
2006-2007: "Heavy build" phase where IT costs grew with little regard for spending as many new application projects were taken on and thrown "over the wall".
May 2007: ITIL v3 standards are released focusing on customer value and business alignment
Fall 2007: HP Completes assessment of Celanese and rates their IT operations below overage and processes at a 2/5 in the HP maturity model. HP makes recommendations for more formal processes.
Fall 2007: OSM is implemented after HP assessment and poor release of APware software. After 6 months an OSM model for APware is created and Celanese looks to replicate results for other software.
2008: Budget increases to $35 million for new IT projects. ITIL Process Lead position is added and team members are ITIL v3 certified. Many changes including reducing silos between departments are committed for 2009.
2009: Budget for new projects increases to $65 million. 80 OSMs have been completed by April 2009 but only 45 were approved. Data Base Team lead works with Microsoft to offer a standardized OLA for database services in applications.
Stakeholders
IT Operations Department
IT Infrastructure Department
Celanese Clients
IT Applications Department
CIO
IT Manufacturing Department
Business Processes and Strategy Department
IT Directors in EU and Asia
Relevant Facts
Scores were below average 0f 45%
Celanese received an average rating of 2 on a 5 point scale.
High risk reliable service delivery
Celanese is a global leader in the chemical industry.
Budget cuts in 2009 hindered improving IT development.
Solutions
Intensive training of ITIL
Pros
Better customer Services
Standard practices across IT services
Increase of ITIL knowledge
Cons
Time consuming and costly
Difficult staff not ready for change
ITIL culture across departments
Pros
Making sure all departments IT services aligns
There will be more engagement and participation among employees
long term sustainability
Cons
Involves a lot of time
Cultural resistance
Heavy leadership involvement
Service review and continuous improvement
Pros
Regular reviews
Adapt and stay agile
Customer satisfaction increase
Cons
Investment of a lot of resources
Pressure and staff fatigue
Complex assessment of improvement
Problems
There is an issue with support from higher up and the direction it is going in unclear.
Why does the problem exist?
The ITIL program was started without much traction from leadership, which led to a spotty implementation.
What is the cause?
There was an unclear benefit from implementation due to a lack of backing and evidence to support the initiative.
How did it happen?
Instead of a strict adaptation into the ITIL methodology, teams were encouraged to test out this process with limited results.
How did it impact the IT Group?
Without strict enforcing, it led to success for those who leaned into ITIL strongly while others saw little to now value from it.
What is the consequence?
ITIL would be met with skepticism and a lack of drive as those in the higher positions were not backing this as well.
How did it impact the organization?
Without the structure behind ITIL, it led to a less efficient IT team, leading to a lack of vision regarding cost and risk.
Who is responsible?
Those in higher positions not realizing the potential of the ITIL and enforcing those standards into their teams to see the benefits.
The different functions in IT operated under differing styles and with that came a severe deficiency in how they would mesh.
Why does the problem exist?
As different functions in the IT dept. did not work together under a similar structure, it led to poor delivery of service.
What is the cause?
Celanese was originally letting each dept. operate within their own ideals. When they decided to unify, it was focused on providing value and created a rift in processes. This left the different areas unable to work together effectively.
How did it happen?
With teams operating independently, it would allow infrastructure to work on projects that they were not a part of in the planning stages leading to a disconnect.
How did it impact the IT Group?
Without proper planning being involved, it led to budget issues, poor standards, and difficulty in keeping all functions grounded.
What is the consequence?
Services went down more often than what would have been necessary. Operational costs were also miscalculated as a product of this.
How did it impact the organization?
Delays in services were a major issue. Not having a clear standard of work created an issue with trusting the work. As growth happened, scaling became an issue.
Who is responsible?
The IT leadership for not enforcing and adapting the change, and the IT groups for not collaborating together effectively to mitigate potential issues early.
There are issues with the budgeting and there was friction in accepting changes within.
Why does the problem exist?
As the economy took a turn for the worst, budget cuts in IT departments led to issues in process improvement and control.
What is the cause?
With a focus on short term savings, it forgot to forecast potential future gains. Short term gains being prioritized over long term growth potential.
How did it happen?
Implementation of ITIL was seen as a more political move and the potential gains from adapting were not realized. Not providing proof of concept through cost-analysis also created a rift.
How did it impact the IT Group?
Teams had to work with limited budgets and training was often less important, which led IT teams to underperform.
What is the consequence?
Delays in process improvements, which led to quick result decision making and inefficient performance.
How did it impact the organization?
Quality was subpar and led to delays in processes. The company faced a struggle with missed opportunities and poor SLA (Service Level Agreement) turn-around times.
Who is responsible?
The CIO for a shortsighted vision on quick benefit vs. long term potential. Finance and higher leadership for placing heavy value in reducing costs without a clear vision of long term efficiency.