IT Service Oriented User Support Future Changes in Policy and tools. 8 September 2009 Nick Ziogas, Nicole Cremel IT-UDS Ivan Fedorko IT-FIO

Background Clear direction given by the IT management. Move towards a more service (and so user) oriented support policy based on ITIL best practices. GLM June 2008 our proposal agreed by GLs aimed to address a number of issues concerning the way we deliver support to users today. The Cern Computing Support Services contract, which includes the HD was coming up for re-tender Jan 2010. Opportunity to review the support policy in general. The HD and associated contract services are part of this policy. The tender has been adjudicated, September 09 FC for formal decision.

Change Management Blackbox The current situation Response SLA Based HELPDESK AFS AIS Antivirus Linux Mac Mail & Web Nice/DFS Video Conference Windows IT Department Phone Email Direct email feed 2nd Level Contractor Request Not based on SLA/OLA Cds.support@cern.ch 2nd Level Cern /IT Castor.support@cern.ch Atlas.support@cern.ch Twiki.support@cern.ch Tsm.support@cern.ch etc, etc 3rd Level Cern /IT Response ? Change Management Blackbox  User Community ??

Why change ? Engineers spend valuable time on routine matters. ~140 direct line feeds to 2 & 3rd level. Netops process re-organization. 30-40% ticket resolution by the HD in 3 months. Improve service coordination, eliminate sharp edges and bumpy interfaces. No process defining support delivery, no overview, no overall responsibility. The contractor will assume this responsibility within well defined guidelines. Inadequate classification, lack of information, barriers between services result to tickets bouncing back to users exposing shortcomings. Contractor has to respect SLAs, but once the tickets are out of his scope, no SLAs apply! Users do not know what service they are entitled to and what are the limits of the service. Tool usage (PRMS) within IT groups is very different. We need a common support goal and a tool that facilitates the common approach.

Medium term goal. A more coherent approach. SLA Based Response Contractor OLA Based Response Quality Assurance & Documentation (Knowledge Management) IT Department Escalation 2nd Level Contractor OLA 2nd Level Cern/IT Structured Input Service Desk ALL IT services Single Point 1st Level Support Web form Email templates? Formatted Email And Phone OLA 3rd Level Cern/IT Request Change Management registration & follow up system. Progress visible to Users  User Community

Implications & Benefits. More structured user input. Allow services to anticipate user requests. Today ~10% of requests are incomplete. OLAs to define how our services will work together and with the SD to support the service delivery. The SD will be responsible for the SLAs underpinned by the OLAs. More coherent response. Better image for our services and more transparency for Service managers. Request For Changes should be moved and tracked in another system, with progress visible to the users. More responsive support. No more gray areas. Quality Assurance Service will capture the knowledge and write FAQs, thus avoiding CERN staff solving the same problems. More effective use of service manger’s time when dealing with support issues. Ability to better monitor and measure the support performance and apply corrective measures if needed. Establish a structure that can be scaled to accommodate future support needs.

Shift in mentality is required IT mission statement: ‘To ensure that all CERN staff and users have access to the IT infrastructure, services and support that they need in order to accomplish their work in an efficient and effective way.‘ What does this shift consist of ? We need to see support the way our users see it. The user’s view ignores the internal IT structure, the contractor (SD) and the different service managers. This division hampers the efficiency and the effectiveness of our support effort. SD and SMs need to Understand each other’s work and needs, better (the service level requirements) Work closer together Communicate more Have the same understanding of the tools used to support services

How does this effort fit in the IT strategy? The department wide effort encompasses this effort. It addresses the issues globally. We are working in one important area that is under our responsibility but the 2 are interconnected. For example: Work on the Service Catalogue –> support will be organized around the SC. Work on the Service definition and OLAs -> these will determine the input parameters for SLA tracking and the service delivery. Work on the processes –> the process definition will have a big impact on support delivery including moving the first level work to the SD. Work on change management –> impact the Quality control and way tickets are processes/classified. The work above is far from being completed (GLs & POC) but a number of changes have been put in place. In the area of our direct responsibility which is the SD and associated support services the new contract applies as of 1st of Jan 2010.

What means to achieve this? New Computing Support contract, as of 1 Jan 2010 New tools (Incident management, SL management, Knowledge management) replacing PRMS  RITS Your active collaboration, feedback, comments, requirements, Kbase enrichment, discussion forum) This effort concerns everyone who is involved in support.

New Computing Support Services Contract New Contract, Requirements and Service Manager’s Role Nicole Cremel IT-UDS

Summary of most visible changes New Tool. Shift focus from free email to structured input. Lack of good Web interface in PRMS forced the use of free email as the only alternative. Result, badly specified tickets, waste of time, ticket ‘ping-pong’.. Today we have the tools and everybody has a browser. (ex:EDH, Cern Market, Online services, all use structured input) SRM url to link to your pages. Requests & Incident input: Using a web form through the Service Catalog (SRM module) Formatted html Mail templates – under investigation Tagged email Web services Free email with validation for backwards compatibility Knowledge Management: The tool greatly facilitates this but you need to review and approve. Supported by the KM module.

Summary of most visible changes SLA tracking: Transparency enhances users trust and improves the credibility of our services. But also defines the limits. Supported by the Incident tracking. Overall ticket responsibility: The Contractor will be responsible for the respect of the SLAs throughout the ticket cycle. His role will be more active. Equally for capturing the knowledge Substantially increase communication & coordination between the contractor and CERN support staff. Remove ambiguity. Introduce full functionality gradually by service.

Next steps… Dates and what is happening now New contract 1 Jan, tool to support Work on the contact implementation (UDS & contactor) Work on the tool (FIO with UDS) Work on the SC, processes, Service delivery (Dept, all)

Next steps… Calendar and announcements (FIO, important dates etc) Precise roadmap of tool delivery will soon be available Detailed tool presentations Tutorials for targeted audience like SM and support staff Forum: https://espace.cern.ch/itsdf discussion: RITS it-dep-service-managers e-group for communication