Implementation of ITIL best practice in a Scandinavian context. 3.pdf · ·...

Implementation of ITIL best practice in a Scandinavian context.

Allan Salling Pedersen

Courant Group, Denmark [email protected]

Abstract: Despite the popularity, implementation of ITIL seems to cause problems in Scandinavian organizations. This research in progress paper presents a high-level summary of previous work and future plans to solve these problems. For example, through an action research project, we found that organizational culture creates a barrier to successful ITIL implementation and routinization. After presenting the main results from the action research, this paper shortly discuss how this knowledge can be used in future research to solve the problems and harvest the expected benefits from ITSM and ITIL.

Key Words: ITSM, ITIL, Best Practice adoption, Best Practice implementation and Best Practice routinization and institutionalization, organizational culture, OCAI.

Introduction

IT Service management (ITSM) has become increasingly popular together with the

need for increased customer focus in IT service delivery. This shift away from

technology orientation to customer orientation [19] is an indication that management

strive to increase the value of IT to the organization.

When it comes to implementing ITSM and IT governance many practitioners look for

best practice frameworks like the IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL). ”ITIL or ISO

20000 was most often mentioned by respondents as the framework or standard on

which they base their GEIT [Governance of Enterprise IT] approaches.” [20].

However, based on my experience and consultancy surveys [26], it seems that

Scandinavian organizations experience ITIL implementation problems. Other

researchers confirm these problems; some researchers even claim: “Many

2

organizations that decide to implement ITIL fail completely […] Many others keep

implementing ITIL long after the planned deadline. Empirical evidence shows that

several organizations underestimate the time, effort, and risks – not to mention the

cost – of implementing ITIL” [23]. Adoption, adaption, implementation and

routinization of best practice processes from a framework like ITIL will obviously

take time, but in spite of the popularity and relatively high adoption rates in

Scandinavia it is still unexpectedly difficult to find matured and routinized

implementations of ITIL version 3 in Danish organizations [26].

I previously came up with five possible explanations [25]. The first two being

inexperienced practitioners (I) or lack of implementation guidelines (II), or a

combination, causing the problems. From my own professional background, with

many years of implementation and CIO experience, and discussions within my

professional CIO network, it became clear that even highly experienced CIO’s find it

unexpectedly difficult to routinize ITIL, for which reason (I) could not explain the

problems. Neither could (II), literature on ITIL implementation is comprehensive, so

lack of guidance cannot directly explain the problems.

A third explanation (III) could be inappropriate motivation. Cater-Steel et al. [11]

investigated motivation based on institutional theory and found three types of

isomorphic pressure that influence the adoption and diffusion of ITIL. ‘Coercive

pressure’ from customers or top management, ‘Normative pressure’ from industry

groupings focusing on the advantages and ‘Mimetic pressure’, where organizations

imitate others adopting ITIL. If memetic pressure was the most widespread

motivation this could probably explain some of the problems, but an interesting part

of their investigation [11] was that many respondents actually put forward

motivations of a coersive or normative character like legislation influence (e.g.

Sarbanes-Oxley), expectations of users, need to standardize many different processes

across IT departments etc. From my CIO contacts and experience, the same picture

could be seen in Denmark, so inappropriate or missing motivation (III) could not be

the main explanation.

Implementation of ITIL best practice in a Scandinavian context 3

This left us with a fourth explanation (IV), being the complexity of the ITIL

framework. ”Introducing ITIL in an IT organization is a complex endavour [...]” [19].

The ITIL framework is voluminous and the implementation guidelines is based on a

complex combination of different theories and models, all together the framework is

complex to use in practice and according to [23] “[...] implementing ITIL [is] not only

very difficult but there […] are no best practices for implementing ITIL.” Maybe this

complexity could partly explain the problems. It could also be a reason why

researchers work to identify factors to improve implementation. We know from

contingency theory that a best practice (one size) does not fit all: ”there is no one best

way to organize” [15]. However, this could not explain all the problems according to

our previous investigations [26], for example the problems could not be isolated to

specific contingency factors like very small organization or certain industries etc.

ITSM researchers are aware that several other factors can influence implementation

e.g. Pollard and Cater-Steel [7] mention Boynton and Zmuds [4] earlier

implementation research and draw that into the ITSM and ITIL research: ”In any

implementation of a new or improved system or process, there are influencing factors

that facilitate or impede its success.” Following this path, ITSM researchers have

been working to identify critical success factors and related implementation

recommendations. Despite this work, the ITIL implementation problems are still not

fully explained or solved and we have a gap in the theory and our knowledge. A part

of this gap can be seen in this call for research: ”Might a particular ITIL

implementation project succeed, if it manages to handle the most important factors

identified by research […] The set of success factors has not yet been tested and

validated. This should be addressed by future research.” [18], this could be a fifth (V)

explanation causing implementation problems.

Based on the above I set out with a research question to test if careful application of

known CSFs and related implementation recommendations combined with ITILs own

implementation guidelines would be sufficient to solve the implementation problems

4

[25]. In the last part of this research in progress paper, a high-level summary of this

test is presented and discussed as part of plans for further future research to solve the

problems.

Theory The ITIL framework includes plenty of implementation theory. One of the five

official books (constituting the ITIL framework) focus specifically on the

implementation of ITIL. ITIL’s own implementation guidelines is based on Continual

Service Improvement (CSI) inspired by the Deming Cycle. From this, ITIL has

developed several models and guidelines e.g. a 7-step model and their own CSI-

model. Researchers combine these ITIL guidelines with identified CSFs to improve

implementation. CSF theory has roots back to Daniel [13], Bullen and Rockart [5],

[24] and they define that “CFSs are the limited number of areas in which satisfactory

results will ensure successful competitive performance for the individual, department

or organization. CFSs are the few key areas where “things must go right” for the

business to flourish and the manager’s goals to be attained. “

ITSM researchers previously identified several CSFs in work like [9], [28]. In [19]

work is done to identify the most important CSFs for better ITIL adoption. To obtain

a more complete picture, we extracted further CSFs and implementation

recommendations from the existing literature in [26].

Methodology and case selection To test CSFs and evaluate the results I needed a definition of successful ITIL

implementation. Success can be evaluated with process maturity models like ITILs

own Process Maturity Framework (PMF). Further ISO 20000 can be used as a basis

for process certification. In [25] I decided to use both of these, but combined them

with a model of implementation [12] with particular focus on routinizing,

encompassing six phases: 1: Initiation, 2: Adoption, 3: Adaptation, 4: Acceptance, 5:

Routinization and 6: Infusion.


The ITIL framework consists of several processes. To reduce complexity in the

investigations I focused on a single ITIL process (or an element of a process, or even

just a minor part of an element) and defined it to be successfully implemented if it is

routinized, according to step 5, where it is no longer ”perceived as something out of

the ordinary”. Together with this, I used input from the PMF maturity model and ISO

20000 to evaluate successful implementation [25].

I conducted a literature review to identify known contingency factors, CSFs and

related implementation recommendations, documented in [25] and [26]. Based on

this, and the above gap in the literature, I set out to test if the use of CSFs combined

with implementation guidelines could solve the problems. Early considerations led to

the conclusion that guidance and intervention were needed regarding proper use of

CSFs and related implementation recommendations. This need for intervention with

the field led me towards action research, as a method suited for problem solving. At

the same time intervention opened up the possibility to use my domain knowledge

and long experience within these kind of implementations. There have been frequent

calls for IS researchers to make their research more relevant to practice, yet it seems

IS researchers continue to struggle to make excellent research practically relevant

[30]. Action research provide one potential avenue to improve the practical relevance

of IS research [2].

Inspired by the force of a good example [14] I decided to locate an especially well

suited organization to test the CSFs and related implementation recommendations. To

avoid the obvious reason (I), such an organization could not be a ‘beginner’ within

ITIL implementation. It should preferably be an ITIL knowledgeable organization

experiencing implementation problems, but it should also be able to pass some initial

tests for contingency factors like e.g. sufficient size, industry, motivation etc. After

some search, a well-suited organization was identified, the IT department in a Danish

university. The university employs approximately 3.000 staff and 25.000 students.

The IT department above 100.

6

The case organisation passed the initial suitability tests against contingency factors for

example they have been working to implement ITIL for more than six years and have

experienced implementation problems.

To cope with and reduce the complexity of the ITIL framework (IV) a client-

researcher agreement was made to focus the action research on only one single ITIL

process. The organization had current problems regarding rutinization of the ITIL

Change Management (CM) process, which they previously have tried to implement

properly a least three times, but without satisfying rutinization as a result. Ongoing

efforts to centralize IT operations further increased the need (III) for a routinized and

successfully implemented ITIL CM process to avoid risk, unplanned disturbance of

users etc. Initial investigations further revealed that the organization already had a

largely well-designed ITIL CM process, probably made with assistance from ITIL

consultants and ITSM-system vendors in the past. This meant I could focus my effort

on solving the implementation problems more that the deeper process design aspects.

Methodologically this meant I went for a problem solving focused action research

method more than a design focused method. From these considerations, I based the

action research on a canonical action research model [25], consisting of these steps:

Diagnosis, Action Planning, Intervention (Action taking), Evaluation and Reflection.

Based on the steps the action research project was conducted in the selected case

organization to improve implementation and rutinization of their pre-designed ITIL

CM process using known CSFs and related implementation recommendations

identified during the initial literature studies. Interviews etc. were recorded,

transcribed and analysed in Hyper Research.

The overall research design consisted of two major action research cycles, focused on

research related learnings. The complete action research project lasted almost three

years. As a part of each major action research cycle several minor cycles were used

aiming on learnings related to the practical problem solving. As can be seen later,

after the first major cycle I needed to bring in further theory before I started the


second cycle. This theory and method (part 2) is presented below under the findings

section.

Findings In this chapter high-level findings are presented, structured against the steps in the

canonical action research model, several further details can be found in [25]. The

diagnosis of the ITIL CM process, conducted according to my definition for a

successfully implemented ITIL process, showed a largely well-designed ITIL CM

process description, documented on paper and in their ITSM-system. Nevertheless, an

important issue was that several important elements of the CM process only existed in

the process design and documentation, they were not well known and used

consistently in practice. As examples can be mentioned that ‘The Request for Change’

(RFC) elements from the overall CM process were not used consistently. Process

elements regarding registration and classification of changes worked only on ad hoc

basis. Risk, impact and business benefits were not assessed regularly and there were

no signs of process monitoring and process improvement.

During the action planning it became obvious that the action research group were

unable to solve all the diagnosed problems with our limited resources, for which

reason we focused on the implementation of a few selected elements from the CM

process. This at the same time reduced the complexity of ITIL (IV) and the

implementation efforts further. We selected these elements: CAB meetings, RFC,

KPI, Change Master Plan and documented these in a set of high-level guidelines to

assist and improve implementation of each element.

Preparing action taking, we used ITILs own implementation guidelines and combined

it with the knowledge from the CSF literature study. To illustrate this, some details

from our work on the high-level guidelines can be mentioned. The high-level

guidelines should assist in explaining the organization how to begin to use and

routinize the four selected process elements in practice. Recommendations from the

8

CSF literature study were applied e.g.: “Processes must be definite and clear in scope”

[17], “Abandoning too parted process descriptions” [29], “Minimize paperwork” [1].

Further we used for example ”Clear responsibilities have to be defined” [17] and

”Using concensus to reach agreement on processes and adjust over time” [1].

The high-level guidelines were implemented through two problem solving cycles. (1)

select information to include, produce the guidelines and bring them into usage (2)

routinize the usage and ensure the guidelines were regularly updated and used

consistently. During action planning and action taking we used well known CSFs

combined with further implementation recommendations identified in [26] like e.g.:

“Create common language” [29]. We know from Wagner [29] that routines are

formed by regular and predictable patterns of activity, which are made up of a

sequence of coordinated actions by individuals, based on frequent interactions

incorporating also informal interactions. This knowledge we used and combined with

knowledge saying that individuals interacting frequently come to share a common

meaning by developing a common language and symbols which improve the

exchange of knowledge and also guides further actions by the creation of mental

maps.

The results from the first problem solving cycle (1) to bring the high-level process

guidelines into use showed out to be very positive. Using ITILs own

recommendations in combination with CSFs we soon reached good effects from e.g.:

”Identify and involve key personnel, and let them participate in the design and

improvement of processes.” [19] and ”Winning hearts and minds through

involvement” [8]. Especially the advice about creating a common language, mental

maps and avoiding too detailed process descriptions showed to be very useful. The

use of high-level descriptions left us just enough room between the process guidelines

and practice, making it possible to enact the necessary interaction and adaption.

However, problem solving cycle (2) to routinize the usage of the guidelines did not

succeed in the same way. Problems regarding the long-term usage and the

maintenance of the guidelines began to appear after a period of time.


Similar detailed action planning and action taking were conducted for each of the

selected process elements and actions were carried out. Based on predefined criterias

for a successfully implemented ITIL process we evaluated and reflected on the

actions from the first part of the action research project. High-level results are

presented below; further details can be found in [25].

After approximately a year of action research and four problem solving cycles on the

CAB meetings, five cycles on the RFC, one cycle on the KPI and the Change Master

Plan we were able to reach a number of contributions for practice. A clear pattern

began to emerge from the data in Hyper Research, documenting overall success in

bringing some parts of the process elements to routinization, especially parts from the

CAB and RFC elements. These routinized parts presented highly valued contributions

to practice (according to the organization). However, several other parts (also wanted

by the organization) from the same process elements (CAB and RFC) failed. We

observed that usage stopped after a period, we were not able to reach routinization for

these other parts. From the last two process elements (KPI and Change Master Plan)

we were not able to routinize any parts at all, even though the organization asked for

these several times.

Theoretically, it seemed like our careful application of even the best CSFs and

identified implementation recommendations could not bring the selected process

elements forward to routinization in our particular case. Based on the identified gap in

the literature we set out to test if our implementation might succeed if we managed

the most important factors identified by research. Maybe we did not apply all the

relevant CSFs with sufficient accuracy. To double-check this, we went back and

reflected against all the CSFs and implementation recommendations we identified in

[25] and [26]. Still, we could not see how further or more accurate application of

these could explain or solve the implementation problems in our case.

10

Further retrospective data analysis led to the following theoretical lessons learned. I

started to operationalize known CSFs in [25], [26], but this work can be improved by

even better operationalization of CSFs and more precise coupling towards

background implementation theory to increase ease of use for practice. Lessons

learned showed that additional CSFs focussing on e.g. routinization would have been

useful. However, it was possible to cope with these shortcomings through the action

research approach.

Another lesson learned was related to my role as an action researcher and my

intervention with the field. As I gradually (by purpose) intervened less, process parts

that has initially been put into operation, gradually stopped working and was used

only on an ad hoc basis or not at all. Data analysis revealed for example that the

organization struggled to conduct sufficient following up on actions needed to secure

routinization. This became even clearer, as my intervention was reduced, gradually

we were no longer able to comply with CSFs like ”Being able to maintain

momentum” [16], ”Showing of quick wins” [10] and “Striving for continues

improvement to guarantee sustainablity” [10]. The overall patterns in the data in

Hyper Research were clear, but I needed to understand these more in depth to be able

explain the phenomenon.

Further lesson learned were found during data analysis. Before I started to reduce my

intervention, certain process parts already caused us severe problems. Even with high

focus on following up from my side, it was not possible to routinize these process

parts sufficiently (e.g. parts from the KPI process elements). It seemed like we were

unable to avoid an ‘invisible’ barrier. Invisible, because the organization apparently

was very ITIL friendly and even claimed they wanted these parts, so they showed a

very positive attitude towards these parts. Yet, seemingly because of this ‘invisible’

barrier, the organization never really accepted these parts completely and they were

never put into operation or routinized, no matter how hard we tried.


Even though some patterns in the data were clear, I could not explain this ‘invisible’

barrier and the phenomenon, using only the selected theory. On this background, I

decided to conduct a second and wider literature study before planning the second

major action research cycle.

Theory and method (part II) Besides the ITSM and CSF literature I searched the literature within e.g. resistance to

process implementation due to political reasons, new institutional theory and theory

on process sustainablity, all without finding theory that could explain exactly the

patterns in the data. But from e.g. the institutional theory I was inspired to look

further into the values present in the case organization [25]. These inputs and further

text analysis in Hyper Research, combined with several discussions with research

colleagues, led me towards competing values and culture as an explaining factor. On

this basis, the CSFs and recommendations used were investigated one more time.

During the first cycle we worked with certain CSFs regarding culture and values e.g:

”ITIL friendly culture” [7] and several others for example from [19], which mention

specific recommendations regarding organizational culture like “Establish a central

function for continuous monitoring and follow-up of project progress” and ”It must

have consequences if a process is not followed”. Further data analysis, with cultural

theory about competing values [6] as a lens, led to this assumption: The problems

seemed to be related to a lack of follow-up and consequences. Seen from the

Competing Values Framework theory (CVF) this indicated a lack of rational culture.

When an organization is dominated by a market [rational] culture, the managers rated

as most effective tend to be hard-driving, whip-cracking, backside-kicking

competitors. They are good at directing, producing results, negotiating, and

motivating others” [6]. From another study [3], we know that the rational culture can

be related to two personal traits: ”Assertive1” and ”Task master2”.The leaders in the

1 Assertive: confidently aggressive or self-assured; positive: aggressive.

12

case organization could be described more like clan leaders, which “are warm and

supportive whereas market leaders are tough and demanding.” [6]. “The criteria of

effectiveness most highly valued in a market culture are achieving goals” [6]. On this

background and further analysis, it became clear that I through my intervention

(unconsciously) did add several rational cultural values like e.g. task master traits.

When I gradually reduced my intervention, the lack of these values in the

organization became even clearer.

Further, we know from earlier work that a framework like e.g. CMM has some build

in assumptions seen from a CVF perspective [22]. Inspired from this I compared the

text in the official ITIL books with CVF, from this it became clear that similar build

in assumptions (from a CVF perspective) could be seen in the ITIL framework. The

clearest assumptions were based in the rational culture, but also values from the

hierarchical culture were prominent.

Based on this, it was possible to explain why some of the most rational characterized

process elements from ITIL created implementation challenges in our case

organization, lacking rational cultural values. Further analysis and reflections showed

that the same underlying cultural assumptions recur not only in ITIL, but also in the

related CSF theory. On the above background, the following conjecture was

formulated:

One possible explanation for the implementation problems could be a misfit between

the organizational culture in the case organization and cultural assumptions shaping

ITIL and related CSFs. In this case especially the lack of rational cultural values in

the case organization.

The second literature study revealed a gap in the literature about lack of knowledge

regarding organizational cultural misfit and its implications for successful ITIL

2 Task master: a person whose function it is to assign tasks, especially burdensome ones, to

others. A person who supervises rigorously the work of others. Both from http://dictionary.reference.com


implementation. To contribute to this gap, I set out to investigate the conjecture in the

last part of the action research project.

The question now was how this could be done. Lesson learned showed my

intervention as an action researcher with the field have had a positive effect on the

implementation (adding rational values). Based on this an experiment was set up for

the next intervention, what would happen if I tried to avoid applying rational cultural

values as an action researcher. If ITIL parts with a clear cultural misfit were excluded,

would we be able repeat the success from the first intervention actually bringing some

parts of the process elements (without misfit) to routinization?

This experiment could be set up only because we (unintended) created a particular

suitable context from the first long cycle of intervention, during which we established

an even higher ITIL implementation knowledge in the organization, preventing

problems arising from lack of knowledge. Based on this long period of knowledge

transfer, the organization now should be more fit to implement ITIL. Further, it

additionally was important for the experiment that we now focused on implementing

process parts without obvious cultural misfit.

Such an experiment would be more rigid if a control group could be used,

nevertheless this would be difficult, for example, I was not able split our actors into

two similar groups (some key actors were needed in both groups). Based on these

premises I decided for another way to back up the experiment. Inspired by

triangulation I backed up the experiment with two further investigations:

Semi-structured interviews and observations (1): With plenty of data and observations

from the first intervention and all actors aware of the problems regarding routinization

of the selected ITIL parts, I could ask each actor to mention factors they think could

improve implementation and combine this with our observations. I further could ask

the actors if process parts (without misfit) were routinized to back up my

observations.

14

A survey (2): In the same vein I constructed a survey based on CVF, asking questions

about what could be done to improve rutinization. Answer possibilities were

constructed from CVF (but of course, the CVF relationship was not visible to the

respondents).

If later CVF based analysis on the answers from (1) and (2) showed a relationship

between rational factors mentioned by the respondents and implementation success,

this could back up my observations, the experiment and the conjecture.

Findings (part II) On this background, I went into the second part of the action research project to

continue our ITIL implementation based on CSFs. During this part of the action

research project I conducted the above mentioned experiment and the two back up

investigations in parallel with the implementation efforts.

During the diagnosis phase in the second major cycle, it was important to check my

presumption regarding a lack of rational culture. For this reason, I measured the

culture with the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument3 to get a CVF based

picture of the culture. These measurements confirmed a clear lack of rational culture

(Clan: 32, Hierarchy: 27, Adhocracy: 25 and Rational: 16).

Action planning: To focus our implementation efforts we selected a few of the most

wanted parts from the ITIL process elements (we began to work with during the first

cycle). These few selected and important parts were especially requested from the

organization and needed to reach a successful implementation. Amongst the parts

were the following: “a clear definition of a change”, “better CAB instructions”,

“better stakeholder involvement in the change process” and as far as I could see, these

elements did not have any clear misfit against the measured organizational culture.

3 For more info see e.g. OCAI.dk or OCAI.no


Action taking: We began with actions building on lessons learned from the first part

of the project combined with CSF advice like ”Change in corporate culture by

appointing senior staff as process owners” [28], for which reason a new more senior

process owner was appointed and trained. The role now played a more active part of

the implementation while I, as the action researcher, was careful not to impose

rational values to the organization. However, I still provided guidance regarding

implementation, CSFs etc. In parallel with the continued implementation efforts, I

performed the experiment and the two back up investigations.

Evaluation and reflections of the experiment: Despite a more senior process owner in

place, significantly improved implementation knowledge and experience and

intensive use of CSFs, the organization only succeed partly, and most of the process

parts (without cultural misfit) were still not routinized. I especially expected some of

the process parts to be successfully routinized during the second intervention e.g.

“better CAB instructions”, “better stakeholder involvement in the change process”,

because these process parts easily could be improved during the already established

meeting structures building on the ruling clan culture (high willingness to participate

in meetings, dialogue etc.). The semi-structured interviews in general confirmed my

observations; most of the selected process parts were not routinized at all during the

second intervention. Yet, some high-level process parts (routinized during the first

intervention) were still in use and remained routinized e.g. the CAB meeting structure

and some high-level parts of the RFC process. During the semi-structured interviews,

actors evaluated these routinized process parts (still in use from the first intervention)

valuable and a large improvement compared to previous implementation attempts

(confirming continued motivation (III)), as can be seen from these examples from the

interview transcripts.

The project has been a success; it is ok to make these ITIL changes. When we use the

process, changes will be seen by the CAB. [Translated from interview transcript no.

88].

16

We have always experienced problems documenting our changes. I would state that

40% of our incidents earlier have been caused by our self. The use of the new RFC

process has been very useful and reduced the number of incidents.

[Translated from interview transcript no. 87]

In this way, the results confirmed our efforts to secure a widespread support and

understanding of the importance of implementing the ITIL CM process, confirming

an apparently ITIL friendly culture and normative motivations to implement ITIL

(III).

The semi-structured interviews further confirmed our observations, it was very

difficult to routinize the few selected process parts to bring the ITIL CM process

closer to work properly. Several signs in the interview data indicated this, an example

was “a clear definition of a change”, frustrating several actors (they never received a

promised formal definition of a change).

I can’t remember that I have received any information. It has been unclear what

constitutes e.g. a normal or a major change. [Translation from interview transcript

87].

No, I have not received information, many colleges are still confused and mess them

up. We have had a couple of examples newly. High impact and risky changes were

handled as standard changes. [Translation from interview transcript 85].

Further actors showed frustration about missing information regarding “better CAB

instructions” and “better stakeholder involvement in the change process”, resulting in

a need to re-plan already approved changes or unexpected and unsatisfactory side

effects:

Regarding the CAB meetings, it still seems like the right people are not involved as

early as intended. We had a change on system x that would impact more systems


where I am responsible, but the change was approved without my involvement and the

necessary assessment of impact. [Translated from interview transcript 85].

With several similar statements, how could we explain the implementation and

routinization problems. Further data analysis gave us some indications for example

we could see statements like this:

They delegate RFC to all of us, but nobody has the whip, nobody does the follow up

part. [Translated from interview transcript 87].

[...] we need a ‘slave driver’, some one that can do the follow up part every week.

[Translated from interview transcript 90].

Follow up, follow up, follow up…when we deliver a request for change we are not

involved consequently. Sometimes the request is processed without we even know it,

which is frustrating. [Translated from interview transcript 88].

Based on the analysis and several similar statements [25] maybe the explanation

should not be found only in a direct cultural misfit between the selected ITIL process

parts and the culture, but also in a more general lack of e.g. follow up due to a lack of

rational culture (for example lack of task master traits) in this specific organization. It

seems like other cultural values (e.g. clan) compete with (and win over) rational

values like performance orientation resulting in only diminutive focus on follow up

and goal accomplishment.

ITILs own implementation guidelines builds on Continual Service Improvement

(CSI) and the Edward Deming cycle. We found that the observed lack of follow up

created a barrier towards especially the “check-act” elements, which created problems

adhering to general ITIL implementation guidelines [25]. The lacking follow up and

missing focus on goal accomplishment in this way created problems when we wanted

18

to follow advice from CSFs like e.g. “Striving for continues improvement to

guarantee sustainablity” [10].

The survey, confirmed the results. First, we asked what could be done to improve

routinization. Answers did not bring much new information compared to the

interviews, but confirmed actors requesting e.g.: more follow up during changes and

better evaluation after each change, lack of follow up also caused that the process was

not monitored sufficiently.

Next question was: What do you think could explain the routinization problems?

Actors were asked to score different reasons (-3 little influence, 0 neutral, 3 large

influence). The results confirmed the other results: Lack of follow up (score=15),

Lack of understanding (11), Problems to see the advantages (10), Problems with

willingness to do the work (7), Problems with acceptance (4).

The third question: Choose the three most important actions for better effect? From 12

actions, three from each CVF culture, these were chosen: Rational actions (13),

Hierarchy actions (10), Clan actions (6) and Adhocracy actions (4).

Overall, we did improve implementation compared to earlier attempts, but we still

experienced severe routinization problems. In this way, the two back-up

investigations confirmed the experiment and our observations, further information can

be found in [25]. Rational cultural values seemed to be very important to succeed and

these values were not sufficiently present in the case organization.

Discussion Research and practice mention several positive benefits related to ITIL, however the

implementation, at least in a Scandinavian context, seems to cause unexpected

problems. The question is, could there be some overseen explanations for these

widespread problems. This thought encouraged me to start this quest for a better

explanation, to be able to release the potential benefits for organizations.


Obvious explanations as ‘beginner’s problems’ (I) or misfit against well-known

contingency factors could not explain the problems. Neither could other obvious

explanations (II-IV). During this longitudinal action research project, I set out to

investigate one further possible explanation (V). Researchers previously have

identified a number of CSFs and implementation recommendations, but as far as I

know, these has not yet been tested in practice, this research contributes to fill this gap

in our knowledge.

The findings, further detailed in [25], show that in the beginning of the action

research project the CSFs and recommendations were very useful and we were able to

improve the implementation of ITIL significantly. Surprisingly, no matter how

carefully we applied the CSFs and recommendations, after a longer period, especially

routinization problems occurred.

The CSF theory used could not explain this, but after retrospective data analysis and a

wider literature study, it was decided to test a new possible explanation for the

problems. Even though I initially tested the case organization for an ITIL friendly

culture, which they (as far as I could see) apparently had, a lack of especially rational

cultural values in this organization seemed to create barriers for a successful ITIL

implementation and routinization. There seemed to be a knowledge gap in the

literature regarding this new explanation. I decided to investigate this further in the

last part of the action research project, to contribute to this knowledge gap. As can be

seen in the findings section above, in this case organization, a relationship between

the lack of rational culture and the ITIL implementation problems was found.

On this basis, the patterns in the data could be explained. First we experienced

problems regarding implementation of certain important parts of the selected ITIL

process elements. This could be explained by a misfit between underlying

assumptions in these certain parts of ITIL (and related CSFs) and the organizational

culture present. Later we experienced problems regarding the organizations long-term

20

ability to implement and routinize ITIL process parts in general, this could be

explained by a lack of rational culture causing problems adhering to general ITIL

implementation guidelines and advice from CSFs like e.g. “Striving for continues

improvement to guarantee sustainablity” [10].

Conclusion CSFs to improve ITIL implementation was tested and I have started to operationalize

known CSFs in [25] and [26]. The CSFs showed out to be very useful improving

implementation, for which reason future research should continue to improve CSF

theory. However, according to my results this will not solve all the problems. We still

have to remember ITIL implementation is complex (IV) and future research should

address this as well to solve implementation problems.

Besides the test of CSFs, this work contributes to solve the problems as I confirmed

the conjecture identifying a cultural barrier. I found a misfit between the culture in the

case organization and underlying cultural assumptions in certain parts of ITIL. But

maybe more important also a misfit towards ITILs general implementation guidelines

and related CSFs was identified, causing severe implementation barriers.

These results calls for future research to investigate if this could be the case for other

organizations as well. Based on this work, I begin to distinguish the outline of a

possible relationship between the high level of trust (clan value) typically present in

the Scandinavian countries and the implementation problems.

Researchers claim [31], “There is something special with the so-called Viking

countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Island). No matter which numbers we put

into our models, these populations are more trustful and happy than other countries

populations. It is probably related to Viking social norms building on a high degree of

trust.” [Translated from Danish].


If high degrees of trust are present in Scandinavian organizations (indicating high

levels of clan culture), according to CVF, this could be competing with and leaving

less space for e.g. rational cultural values. Future research could investigate if this

could be part of a better explanation to solve the problems. Could it be that ITIL

builds less on trust and more on command and control elements from competing

cultures (from a CVF perspective) causing a misfit with Scandinavian culture?

I consider several paths for future research to help answering these questions.

One way could be to investigate if these specific clan cultural values, creating misfit

and barriers to successful ITIL implementation, are widespread in Scandinavia

compared to other regions. If yes, it could be interesting to see if this is only a certain

Scandinavian phenomenon.

If this is the case, it could be obvious to continue this research to investigate what

could be done to help Scandinavian organisation to reach higher performance and

harvest benefits from best practice frameworks like ITIL. In previous work [25] I

have already suggested several possible solutions for practice, however, more work is

needed to follow up on this initial work to solve this highly relevant problem.

Finally, future research can investigate other possible explanations (not considered in

this paper) like e.g. unrealistic expectations set by adopting organizations.

References 1. Barafort B. et al. Benefits resulting from the combined use of ISO/IEC 15504 with

ITIL. Product Focused Software Process Improvement, Proceedings 2002; 2559: 314-

325.

2. Baskerville, R., Meyers, M.. 2004. Making is research relevant to practice— foreword. MIS Quarterly 28, (3): 329-335.

3. Belasen A., Frank N. 2008. Competing values leadership. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 29, (2): 127-143.

22

4. Boynton, Andrew C., and Robert W. Zmud. 1984. An assessment of critical success factors. Sloan Management Review 25, (4): 17-27.

5. Bullen C and Rockhart J. A Primer on Critical Success Factors, Center for information systems research. MIT. Cambrigde MA 1981.

6. Cameron K.S, Quinn R. E. 1999. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. based on the competing values framework. Addison-Wesley.

7. Pollard C., Cater-Steel A. Justifications, strategies, and critical success factors in successful ITIL implementations in U.S. and australian companies. 2009: 164 – 175.

8. Cater -Steel A, McBride N. IT service management improvement - actor network perspective. 2007.

9. Cater -Steel A, Tan WG. Implementation of IT infrastructure library (ITIL) in australia: Progress and success factors. 2005.

10. Cater-Steel A. et al.. Transforming IT service management - the ITIL impact. 2006.

11. Cater-Steel et al. Using institutionalism as a lens to examine ITIL adoption and diffusion. ACIS 2009 Proceedings. Paper 73.

12. Cooper R. B., Zmud R.W. Information Technology implementation research: A Technological diffusion approach. Management Science. Vol. 36. No. 2. February 1990.

13. Daniel D. R. 1961. Management information crisis. Harvard Business Review 39, (5): 111-116.

14. Flyvbjerg B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12, (2): 219-245.

15. Galbraith J. 1973. Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley.

16. Ghayekhloo S, et al. Pathology of organizations currently implementing ITIL in developing countries. Second International Conference on Computer and Electrical Engineering, Vol 2, Proceedings 2009; 7-10.

17. Hochstein A, Brenner W. Implementation of service-oriented IT management: An empirical study on swiss IT organizations. 2006; .


18. Iden, J. og Eikebrokk T. R., 2013. Implementing IT Service Management: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Information Management. 33 page 512-523

19. Iden J, Langeland L. Setting the stage for a successful ITIL adoption: A delphi study of IT experts in the Norwegian armed forces. Information System Management 2010; 27: 103-112.

20. ITGI Global status report on the governance of enterprise IT (GEIT) – 2011, IT governance institute, Meadows, IL, US.

21. Mathiassen, L. 2002. Collaborative Practice Research Information Technology & People 15, (4): 321-345.

22. Ojelanki N., Nielsen P.A. 2003. Competing values in software process improvement: IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50, (1): 100-112.

23. Pereira R., da Silva M. 2010. A maturity model for implementing ITIL v3 In Proceedings of the 6'Th World Congres on Services. Maimi: 399-406.

24. Rockart, J. F. 1979. Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review 57, (2): 81-93.

25. Salling Pedersen, A.. 2015. Implementering af ITIL® IT-governance. Når best practice konflikter med kulturen. Ph.d.-afhandling. Copenhagen Business School.

26. Salling Pedersen, A., and Bjørn-Andersen N. Towards a framework for understanding adoption, implementation and institutionalization of ITIL. Proceedings of IRIS 2011. Red. / Timo Leino. Turku : Turku Centre for Computer Science (TUCs Lecture Notes; Nr. 15).: 601-639.

27. Spremic M. Case study of ITIL implementation in finance service industry. Proceedings of the Iti 2008 30th International Conference on IT Interfaces 2008; 243-249.

28. Tan W et al. Implementing it service management: A case study focussing on critical success factors. Journal of Computer Information Systems 2009; 50: 1-12.

29. Wagner H. Managing the impact of IT on firm success: The link between the resource-based view and the IT infrastructure library. 2006; .

30. Zmud, R. 1998. Editor's comments. MIS Quarterly (22:2), 1998, Pp. Xxxix-Xxxii.

24

31. http://www.vikingmagasin.dk/artikler/2008/20080406.htm

Implementation of ITIL best practice in a Scandinavian context. 3.pdf · ·...

Documents

Transcript of Implementation of ITIL best practice in a Scandinavian context. 3.pdf · ·...