Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Celanese Case Study Mind Map, 10/13/25, CIT 376 - Team 2 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - 1997: Peter Keen publishes his cautionary book "The Process Edge".
        
        2000: Microsoft (US) adopts the ITIL into it's Operations Framework.
        
        2001: The second version of ITIL is released.
        
        2001: The current Celanese CIO was hired. With a limited role of "individual contributor CIO".
        
        2002: The PC standardization effort began at Celanese
        
        2005: Celanese had been able to cut their IT budget from $130 million in 2001, to $83 million due to standardization and duplication elimination.
        
        1 more item...
- - - - Celanese's use of the cost allocation model for IT's budget led to a disconnect between IT value and business outcomes. This budget model makes it difficult to see the real cost and value of IT services.
      - What is the cause?
        
        IT is seen only as an expense rather than an enabler of business outcomes.
        
        How did it happen?
        
        The CIO's approach favoring trust based relationships over formal agreements made the introduction of SLAs difficult.
        
        What is the consequence?
        
        Mistrust between business and IT. IT is only expected to do the best they can with their allocated resources.
        
        How did it Impact the IT group?
        
        There is constant pressure on IT without proper funding or agreed upon service levels.
        
        How did it impact the organization?
        
        Inefficient resource allocation and poor prioritization of IT spending.
        
        Who is responsible?
        
        1 more item...
  - - - The OSM model is complex, bureaucratic, inconsistent, which makes it difficult for IT teams to define, approve, and support services efficiently across the organization.
      - What is the cause?
        
        Multiple approval meetings, unclear service ownership, skill gaps, policy restrictions, high volume of services requiring OSMs
        
        How did it happen?
        
        The OSM relies on detailed checklists, weekly meetings, and coordination across multiple groups. The approach is mandatory for new services, and requires 3-4 meetings for approvals, with some taking months.
        
        What is the consequence?
        
        Significant delays in bringing services live, difficulties in identifying a single service owner, frustrating IT teams, makes it difficult for other groups to adopt it, IT teams see it as bureaucratic.
        
        How did it impact the IT group?
        
        Inefficiencies, time lost in meetings, difficulty understanding the requirements, challenges in coordinating across teams. The infrastructure group saw the benefits but other IT groups has mixed feelings and find the structure intimidating.
        
        How did it impact the organization?
        
        The organization experienced delays in deploying IT services and inconsistent support for both new and existing services. IT's credibility and efficiency is negatively affected when services are delayed or not supported.
        
        Who is responsible?
        
        1 more item...
  - - - What is the cause?
        
        How did it happen?
        
        What is the consequence?
        
        How did it impact the IT group?
        
        How did it impact the organization?
        
        Who is responsible?
        
        1 more item...
        
        The organization has troubles with having unclear accountability, the ability to scale difficulties or outsourcing services effectively. This lack of an unified IT process management reduced Celanese’s overall agility and reliability.
        
        The IT group became divided when Infrastructure began trying to push for ITIL-based improvements while other groups saw it as an unnecessary overhead. This ended up weakening collaboration and delaying any sort of maturity for the cross-functional processes.
        
        Without consistent executive backing, ITIL adoption was slow and inconsistent, which lead to communication gaps and resistance from other departments that viewed ITIL as being overly bureaucratic as opposed to being beneficial.
        
        After HP’s ITIL assessment in 2007 revealed there to be very little process maturity going on, the CIO chose not to follow HP’s recommendations. Instead of implementing changes through a unified, top-down plan, IT managers had developed their own localized solutions which resulted in a lack of coordination and uneven progress.
        
        Leadership was skeptical of the measurable benefits of process-based discipline compared to performance-driven results. The CIO's reluctance to mandate ITIL practices ended up creating ambiguity and allowed for each IT group to act independently.
      - CIO and IT directors were uncertain about the value of ITIL process maturity and were hesitant to enforce structured process improvements across all IT units. This led to a fragmented and inconsistent adoption of ITIL principles.
- - - - Enables informed decision making
      - Promotes shared accountability for service performance
      - Improved transparency and trust
    - - Risk of resistance
      - Involves system changes and time.
  - - - Speeds up the OSM approvals
      - Reduces confusion and bureaucracy
      - Clarifies roles and responsibilites
      - Improves adoption across IT groups
      - Ensures reliable service support
    - - Redesign and training requires time and resources
      - Slowdowns other IT initiatives
      - Tiered service ownership may be difficult to implement
  - - - Promotes consistent adoption of ITIL practices across all IT units.
      - Strengthens executive visibility and trust in IT processes.
      - Enables measurable progress tracking for more efficient and predictable service delivery.
    - - Could be perceived by some staff as being too bureaucratic, which could end up risking cultural resistance if not it isn't implemented properly.
      - May initially slow operations as employees adjust to new procedures and reporting requirements.
      - Requires additional time and resources for training, governance setup, and executive engagement.