University ITSM

We have probably all heard the Lord Kelvin quote, “If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it”. So why not place more emphasis on measuring performance of our IT infrastructure? ITIL gives us key performance indicators, KPIs, as guidance, but I wonder what percentage of university IT departments track where they perform relative to defined indicators. My guess is that nearly all departments do some, but few departments are doing this on a large scale department wide. But why not? Especially since this feedback would foster improvement efforts.

I have some theories on why IT departments may not be as focused on metrics. Some IT departments may be content with their current performance levels, so no real push to improve exists. In essence, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But how do you know when it is “broken”? Another reason is that an IT department may be concerned that its current performance levels are lacking, so it might not want to quantitatively prove what it fears. Images of an ostridge sticking its head in the sand come to mind. My third speculation is that the reasoning has less to do with a department’s self-image, but the situation stems more from the fact that a new hurdle would be set. Why create a benchmark that may come with consequences if the status quo does not have consequences?

The CSI model has a step asking, “Did we get there?” That answer could be “Yes, we’re awesome!” But if the target was not reached, what do we do then? Simply, examine the results, ask why, and make adjustments. The PDCA model gives a similar path. After checking, make adjustments and repeat the cycle. Without this key step of reviewing feedback, the benefits of any improvement effort are less likely to be recognized. I will close with two questions that stuck with me when a speaker asked them as he concluded a presentation yesterday. Was this helpful? Can you tell that I enjoy what I do?