Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Celanese Case Study - Coggle Diagram

- - - - The issue happened in the first place due to the lack of proper change management processes and controls in place at Celanese. The lack of communication between different IT groups also contributed to the issue as the change made by the Infrastructure group was not properly communicated to the Applications group, who were responsible for the affected system.
    - - This decision impacted IT in a negative way as it created a perception that IT was unable to deliver on its commitments, which led to a loss of trust and credibility. This undermined the effectiveness of IT as a business partner and limited the potential value it could provide to the organization.
    - - The consequences of this decision were that the business units became dissatisfied with IT services, and IT's credibility was damaged. The Infrastructure group was seen as unable to deliver on their promises, and the other groups were seen as being unwilling to work together to resolve issues.
  - - - A lack of process discipline and documentation within Celanese's IT department
      - The Infrastructure group had been providing services to the company based on their own expertise and knowledge, rather than following documented processes and procedures
      - The CIO inconsistently supports ITIL improvements; He believes that employees willingness to take risks are at odds with further implementation of a process
      - Some groups deemed the ITIL overly complex and unnecessarily 'bureaucratic.,' namely the Application Manager
    - - It changed the role of the IT department from that of a service provider to that of a contract manager.
      - It created a culture of blame-shifting, as the IT staff blamed the vendor for any issues, while the vendor blamed Celanese for not providing adequate resources and support.
    - - Overall resulted in cost savings.
      - The single-provider approach made Celanese overly dependent on a single vendor for critical IT infrastructure support
      - The outsourcing contract was poorly defined, which led to issues with service levels, pricing, and quality of service
- - - - Can lead to increased job satisfaction and motivation for IT employees who may feel frustrated with their current level of knowledge and skills
      - Can result in improved communication and collaboration between different IT groups
      - Provides a long-term solution by improving the skillset of IT employees and reducing the likelihood of similar issues occurring in the future.
    - - Training and education can be time-consuming and expensive, especially if done properly.
      - It may take a while before the benefits of training and education are realized, and there is no guarantee that they will lead to tangible improvements in IT service delivery.
      - Some IT employees may resist or be hesitant to participate in training and education, especially if they feel they already have sufficient knowledge and skills.
  - - - Balancing process improvement and performance can lead to an optimal outcome that benefits both areas.
      - This approach recognizes the value of both process discipline and good people who can take risks, and seeks to find a balance between them.
    - - Finding the right balance between process improvement and performance can be challenging and requires careful consideration of trained professionals
      - This approach may not address underlying issues with processes that need to be improved to achieve sustainable performance gains.
  - - - A cross-functional team can bring in different perspectives and expertise to the SLA review and revision process.
      - It can create better buy-in and understanding of SLAs across different departments and stakeholders.
      - The revised SLAs can align better with the business goals and priorities.
    - - The process of forming a cross-functional team and reviewing and revising SLAs can be time-consuming and resource-intensive.
      - The team members may have different priorities, perspectives, and agendas, which can lead to conflicts and delays in decision-making.
      - There may be resistance to change and new SLAs, especially from the stakeholders who feel that the current SLAs are working well for them.