MSDP 2.0 How to get there TEAM Project Methodology Pack Abbreviations ABBREVIATION TERM BO Business Object BS Business Service I/O Input/Output OG Object Group SCM Service Collaboration Model SLCM Solution Lifecycle Manager SME Subject Matter Expertise VA Vision Architecture Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 2 Moving msdp from being a business constraint to a business enabler • Complex structure with many dependencies • Becomes a true Competitive Edge being proud of • New functionality takes long time to implement • Brings down TTM and secure quality • Difficult to support new business requirements • A Business enabler supporting new business models and requirements Provides support for strategic decisions • Only supports parts of the global services portfolio • MSTOP 2G is not supported • Contains customer specific solutions • Provides solid ROI and TCO reduction • Secures alignment between business and tools • Enables full support of business processes (e.g.MSTOP) Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 3 TEAM project Scope step 1 › In scope for TEAM project – MSTOP 2G Processes including interaction between these processes and their information needs › Event Management › Incident Management › Problem Management › Field Operations Process › Change Management – Service areas › Network operations › Field maintenance – Technology domains › Wireline › Wireless › Out of scope for – – – – – – All other MSTOP processes All other MSDP AS-IS Processes All other Non MSDP processes Technology domains All other service areas These areas may be applicable for follow up projects Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 4 Project TEAM 1 2011-08-31 TG1 2012-09-03 2013-03-01 TG2 2013-04-30 TG3 Project Mgmt. TG0 2011-10-16 TG4 TG5 Steering Control EA Governance Development Develop EA Governance Governance Feasibility Feasibility study Mobilize EA Coaching Design long term solution Analyze process architecture Develop Service Architecture Develop Vision Architecture Develop Information Architecture Analyze System Architecture Develop Solution Architecture Secure MSTOP alignment MSDP Delivery process (Design, Development and Deployment) Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 5 Establish EA Governance Operate EA Governance Designing the long term solution in six work packages Analyze Process Architecture Produce I/O Hypothesis Validate I/O Define I/O Build Common Process Information Flow Model Develop Vision Architecture Draft Vision Architecture Develop Service Architecture Draft Service Architecture Detail Service Collaboration Model Business Objects Review & Approve Service Architecture Define Vision Architecture Scenarios Develop Information Architecture Describe AS-IS and gather requirements Create Object Group Hypothesis Verify and Finalize Object Groups Review & Approve Information Architecture Analyze Vision Architecture Scenarios Analyze System Architecture Decompose AS-IS Systems Model Integration Landscape Collect & create system data models Finalize Vision Architecture Develop Solution Architecture Identify Current and Future Demands Internal Market Scan (System Diagnose) Prepare, Submit and Analyze high level RFI for main systems Select Main System Hot Candidates Define Overall Architecture Complement RFI Describe Transformation Scenarios Create Transformation Roadmap › Scope – The scope was reduced and adapted to accommodate think big – start small – act now – Identify all the information object groups – start working on 5 of the MSTOP2G processes – work hypothesis driven › Plan – One driver per track – Collect all information in a common tool – Mix people experienced with architecture work with domain experts › Work – Change of setup from stream drivers to drivers per processes after initial evaluation of progress – Ways of working was accommodated accordingly – This led to a more iterative approach to the development – Possible to complete all streams per process in 6-8 weeks with a 5 person dedicated TEAM › Enterprise Architect (driver) › Modeler (tool responsible) › Information Architect › Process SME › SLCM The TEAM Project is currently working with the Solution Architecture Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 6 USING EXISTING KNOWLEDGE TO DRAFT INFORMATION MODELS Reference model from SID 1 Reference model from ECIM 2 › Purpose & Scope – Reusing and building upon existing knowledge – Aligning with previously established information structure – Ensuring that information requirements support desired AS-IS possibilities › Prerequisites – Access to reference models and AS-IS models › Deliverables – Understanding of AS-IS, existing needs, pain points, future plans etcetera. – Alignment with desired AS-IS possibilities AS-IS system data model 3 4 AS-IS system data model Parameters Profile Customer Groups Location Groups Location Types Customer Location Repair Center › Brief Description Work Log 1. Using SID to draft information models 2. Using ECIM to draft information models 3. Using system data models to ensure alignment with AS-IS information requirements Sent Incident Items Change Request MSDP State Maintenance Request MSDP Priority Site User Order Sparepart Product Entity type › Methodology Conclusion Service Node NOC User Trouble Ticket Work order Attachment User Groups Service Order Process? Order line Customer CSUL - Customer Service Unit List Ext User Bullentin Board TT Type TT Sub Category NOC Organisation User Group NOC – Reference models help in effectively and efficiently developing a basis for further development. During this project reference models were used primarily for creating drafts which later were used as basis for discussion and further development. Organizational unit Reference models enabled efficient drafting of information models and ensured alignment with AS-IS functionality Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 7 Identifying INFORMATION produced and consumed By processes Excel spreadsheet with I/O 2 Event Management INPUT Monitoring log book record (Event Record) Resource interdependency (topology) and service mapping List of Commands per resource 1 Active Monitoring Continuation Decision Result (Positive, from 1.16) Activity flow Resource Monitoring Data Resource Type Thresholds Monitoring log book record (Event Record) 3 ACTIVITY OUTPUT CLARIFICATION Once the need to perform Active Monitoring is confirmed, 1st Level Operations should perform the Perform active Active Monitoring on the 1.04 monitoring as per Network covering the Monitoring data need area specified in Log Book. This would generally mean to constantly check the health of one or a set of resources. Verify if there is any deviation on the performance or utilization of the Analyze Active Monitoring 1.05 resource, compared to monitoring data Analysis Result the expected behavior taking into consideration the monitoring objectives. ID PROCESS ACTIVITY Activity flow with I/O › Purpose & Scope – Capturing Process I/O as a foundation for further architecture development › Prerequisites – Activity flow › Deliverables – I/O mapped to Business Processes › Brief Description 1. Capturing the current Activity flow 2. Creating a Excel spreadsheet based on the activities for the organization to fill out with process I/O. Sending out and receiving Excel spreadsheet. 3. Modeling process I/O and write in the descriptions Conducting workshops to verifying I/O and descriptions. › Methodology Conclusion – Capturing I/O using excel was efficient, but it should be thoroughly explained how to work with the spreadsheet. Examples are vital. – Identifying inputs and outputs are absolutely necessary in order to further develop the service architecture. Sometimes it was a bit awkward to define them activity level - a pragmatic approach is necessary. Identifying process inputs and outputs as a foundation for further architecture work Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 8 STRUCTURING Business information REQUIREMENTS I/O sorted per OG 2 Environmental data Preventive Maintenance 1 Activity flow with I/O › Purpose & Scope Change/Maintenance information Matched Change / Maintenance Identification Weather feed Maintenance information Matched Change / Maintenance Information Weather/news highlight (verification) Change/Maintenance list Matched Change / Maintenance Identification (If positive) News feed – Capturing business information requirements – Transforming process I/O to information objects – Identifying information architectural building blocks › Prerequisites – I/O mapped to Business Processes – I/O described and exemplified › Deliverables – Object Group hypothesis – Business Object hypothesis Change/Maintenance list / information › Brief Description I/O sorted per BO 3 MONITORING DATA Resource monitoring evaluation result Resource Monitoring Results ACTIVE MONITORING REQUEST Active Monitoring Continuation Decision Result Active Monitoring Request 1. Using activity flow as input for IA 2. Creating and validating OG hypothesis by sorting I/O Resource Query Resultper OG 3. Creating BO hypothesis by sorting I/O per BO › Methodology Conclusion Deviation Persistency Check Result – I/O’s were well described and exemplified. This was very valuable in order to understand the process flow and to understand the information requirements. – Some amount of redundancy existed amongst I/O. This made the analysis slower than anticipated. Perform Active Monitoring Decision ACTIVE MONITORING STATUS REPORT Status Report ACTIVE MONITORING QUALIFICATOR S Active Monitoring Decision Rule Set RESOURCE TYPE THRESHOLD Resource Type Tresholds Structuring business information in order to identify information building blocks for the overall architecture Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 9 Bridging process and Business Service Architecture Activity Flow with I/O 1 2 Process Capability Mapping Model › Purpose & Scope – Identifying Process Capabilities based on business processes – Collaborating Capabilities with Business Objects › Prerequisites – Activity flows – I/O described and exemplified › Deliverables – Process Capabilities – Business Collaboration Model › Brief Description I/O sorted per BO 3 MONITORING DATA Resource monitoring evaluation result Resource Monitoring Results ACTIVE MONITORING REQUEST Active Monitoring Continuation Decision Result Active Monitoring Request 4 Resource Query Result Deviation Persistency Check Result Perform Active Monitoring Decision ACTIVE MONITORING STATUS REPORT Status Report ACTIVE MONITORING QUALIFICATOR S Active Monitoring Decision Rule Set RESOURCE TYPE THRESHOLD Resource Type Tresholds Capability Collaboration Model 1. Capturing the Activities in the Activity flow 2. Drafting and mapping Process Capabilities to Activities 3. Validating and choosing Business Objects to be used 4. Iteratively puzzling out how Process Capabilities collaborate with Business Objects using previously drafted capabilities and business objects. › Methodology Conclusion – Shortcomings in the Activity flow resulted in many iterations to find appropriate Process Capabilities and identifying the information flow. Identifying how information flows between Capabilities by puzzling together drafted Capabilities and Business Objects Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 10 DETAILING AND STRUCTURING BUSINESS INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Capability Collaboration Model 1 Business Object Model 2 ALARM L3 ALARM ENRICHMENT & CORRELATIO... › Purpose & Scope Contains information about alarm, thresholds crossed together with a reference to the resource causing the alarm. CONFIGURATION ITEM – Describing detailed information requirements with entities and relationships between entities – Describing the contents of key business objects – Arranging business information requirements into information architectural building blocks ALARM SLOGAN L3 RESOURCE CONFIGURATI ON ALARM ALARM STATUS L3 TOPOLOGY ALARM COMMENT Qualify m CONFIGURATION ITEM L3 PERCEIVED SEVERITY L3 ALARM SLOGAN ALARM RESOURCE ALARM › Prerequisites ALARM SPECIFIC PROBLEM – Business Objects identified – Service Collaboration described ALARM CLASS ENRICHED ALARM Enrich and Correlate Alarm PROBABLE CAUSE ALARM TYPE › Deliverables EVENT TYPE (X733) Alarm Object Group Model 3 ALARM TREND RESOURCE TYPE DIMENSION Business Object Model (updated) 4 ALARM TREND ALARM IMPACT ANALYSIS ALARM CORRELATION LOCATION ALARM CORRELATION TYPE CONFIGURATION ITEM ALARM SLOGAN RESOURCE THRESHOLD APPLICABILITY THRESHOLD CROSSED THRESHOLD ALARM ALARM SPECIFIC PROBLEM ALARM OMMENT CROSSED THRESHOLD ALARM STATUS ALARM COMMENT PROBABLE CAUSE ERCEIVED SEVERITY RESOURCE ALARM PERCEIVED SEVERITY RESOURCE THRESHOLD APPLICABILITY ALARM SPECIFIC PROBLEM ALARM SLOGAN Alarm ALARM TREND ALARM IMPACTED OBJECT ALARM IMPACT ANALYSIS ALARM TREND DIMENSION RESOURCE TYPE We can have lot of different dimensions, e.g. all properties of an alarm can be a propertiy. ALARM CLASS LOCATION ALARM CORRELATION ALARM CORRELATION TYPE ALARM ALARM STATUS RESOURCE THRESHOLD APPLICABILITY CROSSED THRESHOLD ERICSSON HUMAN RESOURCE ALARM SPECIFIC PROBLEM ALARM COMMENT PROBABLE CAUSE PERCEIVED SEVERITY ALARM TYPE ALARM CLASS WARNING TREATMENT PROCEDURE WARNING TREATMENT PROCEDURE WARNING TREATEMENT PROCEDURE STEP WARNING TREATEMENT PROCEDURE STEP EVENT TYPE (X733) AUTOMATIC WARNING TREATEMENT PROCEDURE Complex object that could represent some property of an alarm, e.g. alarm type, alarm class or other property. TIME BASED CORRELATION RULE RESOURCE INTERACTION RULE COMBINED CORRELATION RULE ALARM FILTER RULE WARNING TREATEMENT PROCEDURE APPLICABILITY... RESOURCE TYPE CONFIGURATION ITEM ALARM CORRELATION RULE TOPOLOGY BASED CORRELATION RULE MANUAL WARNING TREATMENT PROVEDURE ALARM TYPE EVENT TYPE (X733) WARNING TREATEMENT PROCEDURE APPLICABILITY ALARM PROPERTY › Brief Description 1. Identifying which Business Objects to detail using the Capability Collaboration Models 2. Detailing Key Business Objects 3. Distributing BO information structures into OG:s 4. Updating BO:s based on adjustments during previous step › Methodology Conclusion ALARM CLASS PROBABLE CAUSE CONFIGURATION ITEM ARM TYPE ALARM CORRELATION RULE TYPE – By iterating between BO:s and OG:S the quality of the architecture improves. Iterating also supports finding the right balance between generalization (flexible) and specialization (restrictive) WARNING TREATEMENT PROCEDURE APPLICABILITY Complex object that could represent some property of an alarm, e.g. alarm type, alarm class or other property. WARNING TREATEMENT PROCEDURE APPLICABILITY... Structuring the same business information with different contexts in mind enhances architecture quality AUTOMATIC WARNING TREATEMENT PROCEDURE ALARM ROPERTY ORRELATION RULE causing the alarm. ALARM RM STATUS VENT TYPE (X733) We can have lot of different dimensions, e.g. all properties of an alarm can be a Contains information about alarm, thresholds crossed together with a reference to the resource propertiy. ALARM – Detailed Business Objects – Detailed Object Groups MANUAL WARNING TREATMENT PROVEDURE RESOURCE TYPE Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 11 CONFIGURATION ITEM Analyzing how requirements impact Capabilities and information Requirement spreadsheet 1 Capability Requirement Model 2 › Purpose & Scope – Ensuring high precision in capabilities, their collaboration, Information requirements and Vision architecture Requirement: Possibility of linking Work done on PT with Time Reporting (the way it works for SMS tool in Customer Support); › Prerequisites – Defined Service Collaboration and information models The description of the developed Problem Management tool must be used as specification for the MSDP tool and it must support migration of the existing data. › Deliverables – Defined functional requirements on capabilities – Defined Information requirements – Calibrated Vision Architecture Object Group Model 3 MS Domain Collaboration Model 4 L2 PROBLEM INVESTIGATION PLAN Incident & Problem Management L4 L4 Incident L4 Known Error Problem PROBLEM WORK PROBLEM WORK TYPE PROBLEM WORK STATUS SOLUTION INVESTIGATION WORK ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION WORK PROBLEM EVALUATION WORK SOLUTION DEPLOYMENT WORK Planned, Ongoing, Complete L3 L3 ACTIVE MONITORING REQUEST ACTIVE MONITORING CONCLUSION Network Performance Management L4 Monitoring Activity › Brief Description 1. Identifying the functional requirements via users, SMEs and SLCMs 2. Analyzing how requirements impact capabilities and information 3. Securing the information requirements by ensuring that the input /output from capabilities correspond to what is stated by the requirements 4. Calibration of the Vision Architecture › Methodology Conclusion – By utilizing the available requirements model quality is increased. Designing into them into the architecture creates the baseline for development. Analyzing requirements is vital for ensuring that solutions meet desired business value Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 12 SYNCHRONIZING INTERFACES BETWEEN DIFFERENT business service AREAS 1 IM Capability Collaboration Model (draft) 2 CM Capability Collaboration Model (draft) › Purpose & Scope – Synchronization of capability collaboration for different process areas, e.g. IM an CM. › Prerequisites – Capability Collaboration described › Deliverables – Capability Collaboration synchronized between different process areas › Brief Description 3 Contradicting Capability Collaborations 4 Capability Collaboration Model (approved) 1. Describing Capability Collaboration for a process area 2. Describing Capability Collaboration for another process area 3. Identifying dependencies and possible contradictions between SA for different Business Service areas 4. Analyze and resolve contradictions and update the Service Architecture › Methodology Conclusion – The amount of synchronization will vary depending on the prerequisites for the teams responsible for different parts of the architecture development. Synchronization of architectural part developed in parallel ensures a coherent architecture Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 13 Developing the basis for landscape planning and consolidation analysis MS Domain Collaboration Model (initial draft) 1 2 Capability Collaboration Models Request Fulfillment – Creating a foundation for calibrating the Vision Architecture Problem Management ... CAPACITY / PERFORMANC E PROBLEM PROBLEM STAATUS REPORT Capacity & Performance Management PROBLEM STATUS REPORT RCA REPORT KNOWN ERROR INFORMATION PM EARLY ENGAGEMENT INCIDENT REPORT INCIDENT TREND Incident Management Collaboration Management HIERARCHICAL ESCALATION Access Management Riktning? Komplettera med EMERGENCY CHANGE? Security Management Why is this going to PM and not CPM? ACTIVE MONITORING REQUEST EMERGENCY CHANGE REPORT CHANGE REQUEST INCIDENT STATUS REPORT SERVICE HANDOVER RESOURCE HANDOVER ALARM INCIDENT EVENT TREND ACCESS REQUEST ACCESS APPROVAL CHANGE SUPPORT CHANGE ASSESSMENT & EXECUTION APPROVAL Change Management Event Management CHANGE MONITORING Deployment Event Fall-back procedure Monitoring Request APPROVAL PROCEDURE AGREEMENT & REVISION › Purpose & Scope SERVICE OR RESOURCE CONFIGURATI ON REQUEST AVALABILITY IMPROVEMEN T OPPORTUNITY Availability Management Field Operations Management WORK ORDER NOTIFICATION STANDARD ORDER EXECUTION REPORT Release & Deployment Management INCIDENT NOTIFICATION END USER SERVICE PARAMETER CONFIGURA... Request Fulfillment END USER COMPLAINT Collaboration Management STANDARD ORDER REQUEST › Deliverables – MS Domain Collaboration › Brief Description Information Architecture Model 3 SNIAMOD PDSM 1L ygetartS ecivreS ecnanrevoG ssenisuB 1L tnemeganaM yrevileD ecivreS 1L ngiseD ecivreS noitisnarT ecivreS ssenisuB erutcetihcrA 2L & gninnalP ssenisuB lortnoC tnemeriuqeR tnemeganaM dnameD tnemeganaM ssecorP sounitnoC 2L tnemevorpmI 2L ssenisuB ecnegilletn tnemeganaM noitarugifnoC & tessA tnemyolpeD tnemeganaM ssenisuB tnemevorpmI ytinutreppO ssenisuB SM dnameD ssenisuB tnemeriuqeR tnemeriteR & tnempoleveD noituloS 2L / kro W nalP ecruoseR ssenisuB erutcetihcrA tnevE tropeR 2L esaeleR tnemeganaM noituloS tnemyolpeD 2L tnemeganaM eugolataC ecivreS 2L 2L 2L resU dnE ledoM ecivreS noituloS noitarugifnoC metI esaeleR 4 MS Domain Collaboration Model 1. Creating Domain Collaboration Model as a starting point for framing capability collaboration development 2. Detailing each Business Service by identifying capabilities and information flow 3. Create/Update the Information Architecture Model based on acquired information knowledge 4. Complement the MS Domain Collaboration Model with acquired insights tnemeganaM ecnamrofreP & yticapaC tnemeganaM egdelwonK tnemeganaM ecruoseR 2L noitarepO yrevileD ecivreS sseccA tnemeganaM gninoisivorP ecivreS2L 2L yrevileD ecivreS noitanidrooC kro W tnemllifluF tseuqeR 2L snoitarepO dleiF tnemeganaM yticapaC gninnalP tnemeganaM tnevE 2L ecivreS tseuqeR evitneverP ecnanetniaM redrO kro W ecnamrofreP tnemerusaeM tnevE ecruoseR yevruS 2L resU dnE sthgiR sseccA tnemeganaM ytilibaliavA tnevE tnemeganaM niamoD krowteN tnemeganaM egnahC resU dnE tcartnoC 2L › Methodology Conclusion 2L ycnegnitnoC nalP egnahC 2L tnemeganaM melborP & tnedicnI remotsuC ecivreS 4L melborP rorrE nwonK tnemeganaM ytiruceS tnedicnI resU dnE tcudorP tnemeganaM ytiunitnoC ssenisuB leveL ytiruceS tnemeergA PDSM tnemeganaM slooT ataD latnemnoirivnE 2L tnemeganaM 2L noitacilppA latnemnorivnE atad tnemeganaM mralA 2L mralA ecnamrofreP krowteN tnemeganaM tnemeganaM yrotnevnI krowteN gnirotinoM ytivitcA krowteN noitacoL ssenisuB nalP ytiunitnoC 2L krowteN noitisnarT snoitarepO remotsuC yrevileD ecivreS tnemeergA SNIAMOD SGUB SNIAMOD NOMMOC NOSSCIRE tnemeganaM esuohera W noitacinummoC lennahC ecnaniF ecnaniF tnemegagnE selaS tnemeganaM niahC ylppuS troppuS ssenisuB noitarugifnoC nosscirE tnemeganaM 2L tnemeganaM yhpargoeG 2L lacihpargoeG aerA noitaroballoC tnemeganaM tnemeganaM tcatnoC noitacinummoC tnevE redlohekatS tcatnoC tnemeganaM ytilicaF tnemeganaM tce jorP gnidliuB tce jorP straP erapS esuohera W looT selbamusnoC redrO esuohera W tnemeganaM rodneV tnemeganaM esahcruP / reilppuS rentraP tcartnoC / reilppuS rentraP remotsuC 1L tnempoleveD tcudorP – Based on both information usage and structure, the MS Domain Collaboration provides a stable foundation for further analysis. 1L ecivreS SM remotsuC tcartnoC tnemeganaM latipaC namuH ssecorP ecrofkro W tnemeganaM ecrofkro W tnemyolpeD lanoitazinagrO tinU tnemeganaM tnalaT lennosreP ecnetepmoC eloR Service Delivery Operation L2 Event Management L4 Event L2 Incident & Problem Management L4 L4 Incident Problem Describing both information structure and information usage within the same model creates a solid foundation for balancing of the Vision Architecture Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 14 using scenarios to DESIGN AND CALIBRATE the vision architecture L1 L1 Service Delivery Management Service Strategy Business Governance Service Transition Business ntelligence L2 L2 Asset & Configuration Management L2 Configuration Item Deployment Management Report Event Solution Deployment Release MS Domain Collaboration Model 1 L2 L2 Release Management L2 Continuos Process Improvement L2 Business Improvement Oppertunity Vision Architecture (partial) 2 Requirement Management MS Business Demand Business Requirement Work / Resource Plan L2 Business Architecture Business Architecture › Purpose & Scope Knowledge Management Resource Management Demand Management Business Planning & Control Service Delivery Operation Resource Event Event Management L2 L2 – Identifying aL2 vision architecture that organizes Access Service Provisioning L2 Management information and capabilities in a balanced way to End User ensure data quality, eliminate redundancy and Work Order Access Rights reduce complexity. Survey Event Network Domain Management Change Management L2 Request Fulfillment L2 Service Delivery Work Coordination Field Operations Management Service Request Preventive Maintenance › Prerequisites End User Contract Change L2 Incident & Problem Management – SC and IA described Customer › Deliverables L4 Incident Problem Known Error Service End User L2 Network Inventory Management Network Performance Management Network Location Monitoring Activity Network Hypothesis & Scenarios 3 4 L2 Alarm Management Alarm Product – Vision Architecture and recommendations for further L2 MSDP development Tools Management L2 Envirionmental Data Management Environmental data › Brief Description Application 1. Using Domain Collaboration to identify areas of investigation 2. Drafting VA and identifying uncertainties, hypothesizes and scenarios to examine. 3. Analyzing scenarios, domain boundaries and information relationships by examining dependency, frequency, criticality, strategic intent and reference models (eTOM / ITIL), and updating VA 4. Identifying unresolved issues and creating recommendations for how to proceed. Recommendation (example) “The optimal architecture is best determined by detailing the Configuration Management Process and using new business models as scenarios” BUGS DOMAINS L1 Product Development MS Service › Methodology Conclusion ERICSSON COMMON DOMAINS L1 Sales Engagement Customer Supply Chain Management Vendor Management Warehouse Order Management Supplier / Partner Contract Purchase Warehouse Management Warehouse – Identifying and analyzing possible scenarios were a engaging and effective way to resolve uncertainties Business Support within core areas of development. L2 L2 Spare Parts Geography Management Finance Geographical Area Finance Scenario analysis of the Vision Architecture successively sets focus on areas in need of architectural development Customer Contract Supplier / Partner Consumables Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 15 Human Capital Management Tool Contact Management Collaboration Management Stakeholder Contact Communication Event Ericsson Configuration Management Communication Channel Balancing VISION- AND INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE Object Group Model for Service Delivery Agreement (first hypothesis) 1 2 Domain Collaboration Model (first hypothesis) Sales Engagement Customer Operations Transition CUSTOMER SERVICE ELEMENT WORKING LEVEL AGREEMENT SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT Customer Contract ERICSSON ORGANIZATION UNIT OLA ROLE delivered by – Identifying a vision architecture that organizes information and capabilities in an balanced way to ensure data quality, eliminate redundancy and reduce complexity CUSTOMER CONTRACT Service Delivery Agreement NOC ORGANISATION USER GROUP › Purpose & Scope › Prerequisites Service Delivery Agreement – Vision Architecture hypothesis – Information Architecture hypothesis CUSTOMER SERVICE ACTIVITY OPERATIONAL LEVEL AGREEMENT CUSTOMER ORGANIZATION UNIT › Deliverables COMMUNICATION PROCEDURE – Synchronized and optimized IA and VA › Brief Description CUSTOMER CONTRACT Object Group Model for Service Delivery Agreement (second hypothesis) 3 4 Domain Collaboration Model (second hypothesis) Service Delivery Agreement for SERVICE DELIVERY AGREEMENT SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT (SLA) SERVICE DELIVERY AGREEMENT ROLE CUSTOMER CONTRACT PRIORITY MATRIX OPERATIONAL LEVEL AGREEMENT CUSTOMER CONTRACT PRIORITY MATRIX ITEM SECURITY LEVEL AGREEMENT WLA MS SERVICE DELIVERY PROCESS L2 Customer Operations Transition relevant for CUSTOMER CONTRACT Service Delivery Agreement SERVICE DELIVERY LEVEL AGREEMENT INCIDENT CATEGORY 1. Draft Object Group Model based on BO:s 2. Draft Domain Collaboration based on OG:s and BO:s 3. Updating OG:s based on analysis of Domain Collaboration 4. Updating Architecture Collaboration › Methodology Conclusion – Analyzing architectural building blocks from different perspectives - how information is structured as well as how information is used –may significantly impact the resulting architecture. CUSTOMER CONTRACT The Operational Agreement Specification is a complex object representing service level objectives such as "Availability of a specific service of 90%" or "Time To Resolve for Priority Critical = 4h for 90% of incidents, 8h for 100% of incidents". It should be possible to specify this on a low level, e.g. for a specific node. E LEVEL ZATION SET Service Delivery Agreement for CUSTOMER ORGANIZATION UNIT SERVICE DELIVERY AGREEMENT SERVICE DELIVERY AGREEMENT ROLE ERICSSON ORGANIZATION UNIT SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT (SLA) OPERATIONAL LEVEL AGREEMENT WLA SECURITY LEVEL AGREEMENT CUSTOMER CONTRACT PRIORITY MATRIX MS SERVICE DELIVERY PROCESS relevant for CUSTOMER CONTRACT PRIORITY MATRIX ITEM VENDOR ORGANIZATIONA L UNIT CUSTOMER CONTRACT ITEM INCIDENT CATEGORY 3PP ORGANIZATIONA L UNIT The Operational Agreement Specification is a complex object representing service level objectives such as "Availability of a specific service of 90%" or "Time To Resolve for Priority Critical = 4h for 90% of incidents, 8h for 100% of incidents". It should be possible to specify this on a low level, e.g. for a specific node. CUSTOMER CONTRACT ITEM part of specifies terms & conditions for SERVICE DELIVERY AGREEMENT OBJECTIVE KPI SERVICE DELIVERY AGREEMENT SPECIFICATION REPORTING SPECIFICATION REPORT TYPE SECURITY SPECIFICATION COMMUNICATIO N SPECIFICATION REPORT CHANNEL PRIORITIZATION RULE CONSEQUENCE TYPE - Escalation - Reporting - Notification - Other communication - Etcetera. SERVICE DELIVERY AGREEMENT specifies terms & conditions for OBJECTIVE CUSTOMER OBJECT OF SERVICE TYPE CUSTOMER OBJECT OF SERVICE CONFIGURATION ITEM CONFIGURATION ITEM TYPE SERVICE DELIVERY SPECIFICATION APPLICABILITY SERVICE DELIVERY AGREEMENT CONSEQUENCE SERVICE LEVEL PRIORITIZATION RULE SET SERVICE DELIVERY ROLE TYPE CUSTOMER OBJECT OF SERVICE ROLE ESCALATION CONFIGURATION ITEM OWNER CONFIGURATION ITEM SHARER ERICSSON CUSTOMER INCIDENT CATEGORY SERVICE DELIVERY GROUP SERVICE DELIVERY GROUP TYPE part of KPI SERVICE DELIVERY AGREEMENT SPECIFICATION REPORTING SPECIFICATION SECURITY SPECIFICATION COMMUNICATIO N SPECIFICATION SERVICE DELIVERY SPECIFICATION APPLICABILITY Balancing the Vision Architecture results in an architecture that ensure data quality, eliminate redundancy and reduce complexity. SERVICE DELIVERY AGREEMENT CONSEQUENCE Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 16 PRIORITIZATION RULE CUSTOMER OBJECT OF SERVICE TYPE CONSEQUENCE TYPE - Escalation - Reporting - Notification - Other communication - Etcetera. Identifying current it support and gaps to target it support 1 System Component Model 2 Business Collaboration Model › Purpose & Scope – Ensuring that Process Capabilities and IT Functions matches and no gaps exists – Identifying GAPs between the AS-IS and TO-BE IT Systems › Prerequisites – Decomposed systems into IT Functions – Stable Service Architecture › Deliverables – A Gap model showing missing Business Capabilities and IT Functions 3 IT Function and Capability Gap Model 4 › Brief Description IT Function and Capability Gap Matrix – Verifying System decomposition – Collecting Process Capabilities for mapping to IT Functions – Comparing Capabilities and IT Functions and creating a Gap model › Methodology Conclusion – A good way to ensure the quality of the outcome and a starting point for identifying GAPs in IT Support IT Functions and Process Capabilities resulting in a gap of unsupported Capabilities and increased quality in Capability Models Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 17 Ericsson Internal | 2012-03-06 | Page 18
© Copyright 2024