DAFTAR PUSTAKA

DAFTAR PUSTAKA Aazadnia, M., & Fasangsari, M. (2008). Improving the Information Technology Service Management with Six Sigma. IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.8 No.3, March 2008, 144-150. Alshany, M. M., Elfakharany, E., & Elaziem, M. A. (2012). Information Technology Service Management (ITSM) Implementation on Information Technology Infrastructure Library Ver.3 (ITIL V3). International Journal of Business Research and Management (IJBRM), Volume 3: Issue (3). Baldassarre, M. T., Caivano, D., Pino, F. J., Piattini, M., & Vissagio, G. (2010). A Strategy for Painless Harmonization of Quality Standards: A Real Case. 11th International Conference, PROFES 2010 (hal. 395-408). Limerick: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Cater-Steel, A., Toleman, M., Tan, Wui-Gee. (2006). Transforming IT Service Management – The ITIL Impact. 17th Australasian Confrence on Information Systems. Chan, P. C., Durant, S. R., Gall, V. M., & Raisinghani, M. S. (2008). Aligning Six Sigma and ITIL to Improve IT Service Management. International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications (IJESMA), Vol 01, 62-82. Chang, S. S., & Lin, S. F. (2010). Barries to Implementing ITIL-A Multi Case Study on the Service-based Industry. Contemporary Management Research, Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2010, 53-72. Deutscher, J.-H., & Felden, C. (2010). Concept for Implementation of Cost Effective Information Technology Service Management (ITSM) in Organizations. Network Operations and Management Symposium Workshops (NOMS) Wksps), 2010 IEEE/IFIP (hal. 167-168). Osaka: IEEE. Edgeman, R., L., Bigio, D., & Ferleman, T. (2005). Six Sigma and Business Excellence: Strategic and Tactical Examination of IT Service Level Management at the Office of the CTO of Washinton DC. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2005; 21:257-273, Wiley InterScience. Eikebrokk, T. R., & Iden, J. (2012). ITIL Implementation: The Role of ITIL Software and Project Quality. Database and Expert System Applications (DEXA), 2012 23rd International Workshop (hal. 60-64). Vienna: IEEE. Gacenga, F., Cater-Steel, A., Toleman, M., & Tan, Wui-Gee. (2011). Measuring the Performance of Service Oriented IT Management. Working Paper on Information Systems, ISSN 1535-6078.

http://digilib.mercubuana.ac.id/

Gacenga, Francis., Cater-Steel, Aileen., & Toleman, Mark. (2010). An International Analysis of IT Service Management Benefits and Performance Measurement. ITIL V3, Office of Gevernment Commerce. Haanapel, S., Drost, R., Harmsen, F., & Brinkkemper, S. (2011). IT Performance Management in Five Organizations (a Comparative Study). PRET 2011, LNBIP 89, pp. 1-27, 2011. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. Harris, Michael. D., Herron, David. E., & Iwanicki, Stasia. (2004). The Business Value of IT : Managing Risk, Optimizing Performance, and Measuring Results. An Auerbach Book. Jantti, M. (2011). Improving Incident Management Process in Two IT Service Provider Companies. Database and Expert System Applications (DEXA), 2012 22nd International Workshop (hal. 26-30). Toulouse: IEEE. Jantti, M., & Kalliokoski, J. (2010). Identifying Knowledge Management Challenges in a Service Desk: A Case Study. Information, Process and Knowledge Management, 2010. eKNOW ’10. Second International Conference (hal. 100-105). Saint Maarten: IEEE. Kang, H., & Bradley, G. (2002). Measuring the Performance of IT Services: an Assesment of ServQual. International Journal of Accounting Information, Systems 3 (2002) 151-164. Lahtela, A., Jantti, M., & Kaukola, J. (2010). Implementing an ITIL-Based IT Service Management Measurement System. Digital Society, 2010. ICDS ’10. Fourth International Conference (hal. 249-254). St. Maarten: IEEE. Lino, A. F. (2009). Improving ITIL Process with a Lean Methodology. Instituto Superior Tecnico, Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa. Office, C. (2011). ITIL ® Continual Service Improvement. TSO (The Stationery Office). Office, C. (2011). ITIL ® Service Design. TSO (The Stationery Office). Office, C. (2011). ITIL ® Service Operation. TSO (The Stationery Office). Office, C. (2011). ITIL ® Service Strategy. TSO (The Stationery Office). Office, C. (2011). ITIL ® Service Transition. TSO (The Stationery Office). Potgieter, B. C., Botha, J. H., Lew, C. (2004). Evidence that Use of The ITIL Framework is Effective. Pradeep, D. D., & Prabhu, N. V. (2009). A Case Study of Lean Six Sigma Augmentation. RSM International Journal of Engineering Technology and Management, Vol 1, 71-79.


Sharifi, M., Ayat, M., Rahman, A. A., & Sahibudin, S. (2008). Lessons Learned in ITIL Implementation Failure. Information Technology, 2008. ITSim 2008. International Symposium (hal. 1-4). Kuala Lumpur: IEEE. Simon, K. (2010, February 26). Pareto Chart. Diambil kembali dari iSixSigma: http://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/pareto/pareto-chart-bar-charthistogram-and-pareto-principle-8020-rule/ Simon, K. (2010, February 26). The Cause and Effect (a.k.a Fishbone) Diagram. Diambil kembali dari iSixSigma: http://www.isixsigma.com/toolstemplates/cause-effect/cause-and-effect-aka-fishbone-diagram/ Simon, K. (2010, February 27). Histogram. Diambil kembali dari iSixSigma: http://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/graphical-analysis-charts/histogram/ Stanwick, P., & Stanwick, S. (2002). IT Performance: How Do You Measure a Moving Targer?. The Journal of Corporate and Accounting, Wiley InterScience. Talla, M., & Valverde, R. (2013). An Implementation of ITIL Guidelines for IT Support Process in a Service Organization. International Journal of Information and Electronic Engineering, Vol 3, No 3, 334-340. Wang, H. (2008). A Review of Six Sigma Approach: Methodology, Implementation and Future Research. Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, 2008. WiCOM ’08. 4th International Conference (hal. 1-4). Dalian: IEEE. Wong, W. Y., Lee, C. W., & Tshai, K. Y. (2012). Six Sigma in IT Process, IT Services and IT Products: A Fact or a Fad? Six Sigma Beyond Manufacturing in IT Processes, IT Services and IT Products. Computer and Information Technology (CIT), 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference (hal. 524-531). Chengdu: IEEE.


LAMPIRAN


xv

Lampiran 1. Realisasi Kepuasan Pengguna Terhadap Layanan TI di Supernova Group Triwulan 1 Tahun 2015

Triwulan 1 (April 2015) Department

Tingkat Kepuasan Pelanggan terhadap service & support Layanan IT 5

Fin & Acc Dept

4 10

3 8

2 4

Total

1 3

1

26

38,46% 30,77% 15,38% 11,54%

3,85%

100,00% 77,69%

5

Purc Dept

4 7

3 4

50,00% 28,57%

2 1

Total

1 2

0

14

7,14% 14,29%

0,00%

100,00% 82,86%

5

HRGA Dept

4 7

3 3

2

Total

1

2

1

1

14

50,00% 21,43% 14,29%

7,14%

7,14%

100,00% 80,00%

5

Sales & MKT Dept

4 8

3 6

2 2

Total

1 2

1

19

42,11% 31,58% 10,53% 10,53%

5,26%

100,00% 78,95%

5

QC & SHE Dept

4 8

3 5

2

Total

1

2

1

1

17

47,06% 29,41% 11,76%

5,88%

5,88%

100,00% 81,18%

5

PPIC & WH Dept

4 11

3 4

2

Total

1

3

2

2

22

50,00% 18,18% 13,64%

9,09%

9,09%

100,00% 78,18%

5

Prod Dept

4 21

3 19

37,50% 33,93%

2 5

Total

1 7

4

56

8,93% 12,50%

7,14%

100,00% 76,43%

5

IST Dept

4 8

3

2

Total

1

2

1

1

0

12

66,67% 16,67%

8,33%

8,33%

0,00%

100,00% 88,33%

5

Eng Dept

4 7

3 2

2 4

43,75% 12,50% 25,00%

Total

1 2

16

6,25% 12,50%

1

100,00% 73,75%

5

Design Dept

4 4

3 2

2 1

Total

1 1

9

44,44% 22,22% 11,11% 11,11% 11,11%

1

100,00% 75,56%

Total

84

53

20

11

205

80,00%

KPI User Satisfactions 5

4 91

Total

21

3 55

2 25

1

Total

21

13

205

44,39% 26,83% 12,20% 10,24%

6,34%

100,00%

78,54%


xvi


Triwulan 2 (Juli 2015) Department


Fin & Acc Dept

4 8

3 8

2

1

Total

7

2

1

26

30,77% 30,77% 26,92%

7,69%

3,85%

100,00% 75,38%

5

Purc Dept

4 6

3 5

2

1

Total

2

1

0

14

42,86% 35,71% 14,29%

7,14%

0,00%

100,00% 82,86%

5

HRGA Dept

4 6

3 4

2

1

Total

3

1

0

14

42,86% 28,57% 21,43%

7,14%

0,00%

100,00% 81,43%

5

Sales & MKT Dept

4 9

3 5

2 3

1

Total

3

1

21

42,86% 23,81% 14,29% 14,29%

4,76%

100,00% 77,14%

5

QC & SHE Dept

4 7

3 5

2 4

1

Total

2

0

18

38,89% 27,78% 22,22% 11,11%

0,00%

100,00% 78,89%

5

PPIC & WH Dept

4 9

3 4

2 5

1

Total

3

1

22

40,91% 18,18% 22,73% 13,64%

4,55%

100,00% 75,45%

5

Prod Dept

4 21

3 20

2

1

Total

10

5

3

59

35,59% 33,90% 16,95%

8,47%

5,08%

100,00% 77,29%

5

IST Dept

4 7

3

2

1

Total

2

1

1

1

12

58,33% 16,67%

8,33%

8,33%

8,33%

100,00% 81,67%

5

Eng Dept

4 6

3 4

2

1

Total

5

1

1

17

35,29% 23,53% 29,41%

5,88%

5,88%

100,00% 75,29%

5

Design Dept

4 3

3 2

2 2

33,33% 22,22% 22,22%

1 0

Total 2

9

0,00% 22,22%

100,00% 68,89%

Total

76

55

18

9

212

80,00%


4 82

Total

37

3 59

2

1

Total

42

19

10

212

38,68% 27,83% 19,81%

8,96%

4,72%

100,00%

77,36%


xvii


Triwulan 3 (Oktober 2015) Department


Fin & Acc Dept

4 9

3 6

2 5

1

Total

4

2

26

34,62% 23,08% 19,23% 15,38%

7,69%

100,00% 72,31%

5

Purc Dept

4 7

3 4

46,67% 26,67%

2 1

1

Total

2

1

15

6,67% 13,33%

6,67%

100,00% 78,67%

5

HRGA Dept

4 5

3 5

2 2

1

Total

2

0

14

35,71% 35,71% 14,29% 14,29%

0,00%

100,00% 78,57%

5

Sales & MKT Dept

4 8

3 7

2 3

34,78% 30,43% 13,04%

1 2

Total 3

23

8,70% 13,04%

100,00% 73,04%

5

QC & SHE Dept

4 7

3 5

2 3

1

Total

2

1

18

38,89% 27,78% 16,67% 11,11%

5,56%

100,00% 76,67%

5

PPIC & WH Dept

4 7

3 4

2 5

1

Total

5

1

22

31,82% 18,18% 22,73% 22,73%

4,55%

100,00% 70,00%

5

Prod Dept

4 19

3 18

2 12

1

Total

6

4

59

32,20% 30,51% 20,34% 10,17%

6,78%

100,00% 74,24%

5

IST Dept

4 6

3 3

50,00% 25,00%

2 1

1

Total

2

0

12

8,33% 16,67%

0,00%

100,00% 81,67%

5

Eng Dept

4 5

3 5

2 4

1

Total

3

0

17

29,41% 29,41% 23,53% 17,65%

0,00%

100,00% 74,12%

5

Design Dept

4 3

3 3

2 3

1

Total

1

0

10

30,00% 30,00% 30,00% 10,00%

0,00%

100,00% 76,00%

Total

71

55

26

12

216

80,00%


4 76

Total

35

3 60

2 39

1

Total

29

12

216

35,19% 27,78% 18,06% 13,43%

5,56%

100,00%

74,72%


xviii


Triwulan 4 (Januari 2016) Department


Fin & Acc Dept

4 8

3 5

2 6

1

Total

6

1

26

30,77% 19,23% 23,08% 23,08%

3,85%

100,00% 70,00%

5

Purc Dept

4 4

3 6

2

1

Total

3

1

1

15

26,67% 40,00% 20,00%

6,67%

6,67%

100,00% 74,67%

5

HRGA Dept

4 7

3 4

2

1

Total

3

1

1

16

43,75% 25,00% 18,75%

6,25%

6,25%

100,00% 78,75%

5

Sales & MKT Dept

4 7

3 8

30,43% 34,78%

2 2

1

Total

4

2

23

8,70% 17,39%

8,70%

100,00% 72,17%

5

QC & SHE Dept

4 6

3 6

2 2

1

Total

4

1

19

31,58% 31,58% 10,53% 21,05%

5,26%

100,00% 72,63%

5

PPIC & WH Dept

4 6

3 6

2 5

1

Total

4

1

22

27,27% 27,27% 22,73% 18,18%

4,55%

100,00% 70,91%

5

Prod Dept

4 17

3 19

2 14

1

Total

7

5

62

27,42% 30,65% 22,58% 11,29%

8,06%

100,00% 71,61%

5

IST Dept

4 7

3 2

2

1

Total

3

1

0

13

53,85% 15,38% 23,08%

7,69%

0,00%

100,00% 83,08%

5

Eng Dept

4 6

3 4

2 5

1

Total

3

0

18

33,33% 22,22% 27,78% 16,67%

0,00%

100,00% 74,44%

5

Design Dept

4 3

3 4

2 2

1

Total

1

0

10

30,00% 40,00% 20,00% 10,00%

0,00%

100,00% 78,00%

Total

65

60

29

12

224

80,00%


4 71

Total

40

3 64

2 45

1

Total

32

12

224

31,70% 28,57% 20,09% 14,29%

5,36%

100,00% 366,96%

73,39%


xix


Triwulan 1 (April 2016) Department


Fin & Acc Dept

4 8

3 6

2 7

1

Total

5

2

28

28,57% 21,43% 25,00% 17,86%

7,14%

100,00% 69,29%

5

Purc Dept

4 4

3 6

2 4

1

Total

2

1

17

23,53% 35,29% 23,53% 11,76%

5,88%

100,00% 71,76%

5

HRGA Dept

4 6

3 5

2 2

1

Total

2

1

16

37,50% 31,25% 12,50% 12,50%

6,25%

100,00% 76,25%

5

Sales & MKT Dept

4 8

3 6

2 7

1

Total

5

2

28

28,57% 21,43% 25,00% 17,86%

7,14%

100,00% 69,29%

5

QC & SHE Dept

4 4

3 5

2 4

1 5

Total 2

20

20,00% 25,00% 20,00% 25,00% 10,00%

100,00% 64,00%

5

PPIC & WH Dept

4 6

3 7

2 8

1

Total

3

2

26

23,08% 26,92% 30,77% 11,54%

7,69%

100,00% 69,23%

5

Prod Dept

4 21

3 23

2 13

30,00% 32,86% 18,57%

1 6

Total 7

70

8,57% 10,00%

100,00% 72,86%

5

IST Dept

4 6

3 4

2

1

Total

5

0

0

15

40,00% 26,67% 33,33%

0,00%

0,00%

100,00% 81,33%

5

Eng Dept

4 7

3 6

2

1

Total

6

2

1

22

31,82% 27,27% 27,27%

9,09%

4,55%

100,00% 74,55%

5

Design Dept

4 3

3 5

2

1

Total

3

1

0

12

25,00% 41,67% 25,00%

8,33%

0,00%

100,00%

29

17

76,67%

Total

66

67

254

80,00%


4 73

Total

53

3 73

2 59

1

Total

31

18

254

28,74% 28,74% 23,23% 12,20%

7,09%

100,00%

71,97%


xx


Triwulan 2 (Juli 2016) Department


Fin & Acc Dept

4 6

3 8

2 5

1

Total

7

2

28

21,43% 28,57% 17,86% 25,00%

7,14%

100,00% 66,43%

5

Purc Dept

4 4

3 5

2 3

1 2

Total 3

17

23,53% 29,41% 17,65% 11,76% 17,65%

100,00% 65,88%

5

HRGA Dept

4 4

3 6

2 3

1

Total

2

1

16

25,00% 37,50% 18,75% 12,50%

6,25%

100,00% 72,50%

5

Sales & MKT Dept

4 7

3 7

2 8

1

Total

5

1

28

25,00% 25,00% 28,57% 17,86%

3,57%

100,00% 70,00%

5

QC & SHE Dept

4 4

3 5

2 6

1 3

Total 2

20

20,00% 25,00% 30,00% 15,00% 10,00%

100,00% 66,00%

5

PPIC & WH Dept

4 5

3 9

2 8

1

Total

4

2

28

17,86% 32,14% 28,57% 14,29%

7,14%

100,00% 67,86%

5

Prod Dept

4 18

3 20

2 18

1 12

Total 9

77

23,38% 25,97% 23,38% 15,58% 11,69%

100,00% 66,75%

5

IST Dept

4 5

3 6

2

1

Total

5

1

0

17

29,41% 35,29% 29,41%

5,88%

0,00%

100,00% 77,65%

5

Eng Dept

4 4

3 6

2 5

1

Total

5

2

22

18,18% 27,27% 22,73% 22,73%

9,09%

100,00% 64,55%

5

Design Dept

4 3

3 4

2

1

Total

3

1

1

12

25,00% 33,33% 25,00%

8,33%

8,33%

100,00%

37

21

71,67%

Total

56

70

265

80,00%


4 60

Total

59

3 76

2 64

1

Total

42

23

265

22,64% 28,68% 24,15% 15,85%

8,68%

100,00%

68,15%


xxi

Lampiran 7. Target Manajemen vs Realisasi Kepuasan Pengguna Terhadap Layanan TI di Supernova Group

Lampiran 8. Konversi Perhitungan Pencapaian Kepuasan Pengguna Terhadap Layanan TI dengan KPI & Insentif Legend for Triwulan GAP <5 % GAP <10% GAP <20% GAP <40% GAP <50%

Incentif 80,00% 60,00% 40,00% 20,00% 0,00%

KPI A B C D E

Lampiran 9. Realisasi Pencapaian Kepuasan Pengguna Terhadap Layanan TI, KPI & Insentif dalam 6 Periode Pengukuran Periode Insentif Triwulan 1 2015 Triwulan 2 2015 Triwulan 3 2015 Triwulan 4 2015 Triwulan 1 2016 Triwulan 2 2016

Standar Realisasi 80,00% 78,54% 80,00% 77,36% 80,00% 74,72% 80,00% 73,39% 80,00% 71,97% 80,00% 68,15%

GAP Insentif -1,46% 80,00% -2,64% 80,00% -5,28% 60,00% -6,61% 60,00% -8,03% 60,00% -11,85% 40,00%


KPI A A B B B C

xxii

Lampiran 10. Pareto Causes of Problem Periode Pengukuran Triwulan 2 Tahun 2016 No

List of Contents

1

Akses ke server internal lambat / Capacity Mgmt

2

Akses ke server internal mudah error / Problem Mgmt

3

Penanganan gangguan lama dan berulang / Problem Mgmt

4

Pendekatan service desk dalam penanganan gangguan tidak baik/terstandar / Service Desk

5

Hardware mudah hang/error dan banyak keluhan terkait penggunaannya / Release & Deployment Mgmt

6

Akses internet lambat / banyak spam dan atau virus / Information Security Mgmt

7

Gangguan minor (tidak koneksi ke printer sharing, dsb) / Incident Mgmt

8

Penangan hardware rusak tidak terstandar dalam hal time resolutionnya / Service Validation & Testing

9

Change/request tidak tertangani dengan baik / Access Mgmt SOP internal TI terkait penanganan problem, request dan change policy tidak dilakukan dengan baik dan terstandar / Design Coordination

10

Total : No

List of Contents

1

Problem Mgmt (4)

2

Incident Mgmt (4)

3

Service Desk (4)

4

Service Validation & Testing (3)

5

Access Mgmt (4)

6

Design Coordination (2)

7

Capacity Mgmt (2)

8

Release & Deployment Mgmt (3)

9

Information Security Mgmt (2)

Total :


Qty 8 16 76 57 7 5 64 12 11

% 3,02% 6,04% 28,68% 21,51% 2,64% 1,89% 24,15% 4,53% 4,15%

Accumulate 3,02% 9,06% 37,74% 59,25% 61,89% 63,77% 87,92% 92,45% 96,60%

9

3,40%

100,00%

265

100,00%

Qty

%

Accumulate

92 64 57 12 11 9 8 7 5 265

34,72% 24,15% 21,51% 4,53% 4,15% 3,40% 3,02% 2,64% 1,89% 100,00%

34,72% 58,87% 80,38% 84,91% 89,06% 92,45% 95,47% 98,11% 100,00%

xxiii

Lampiran 11. Pareto Hasil Survei Triwulan 2 Tahun 2016 Penyebab Ketidakpuasan Pengguna Terhadap Layanan TI


xxiv

Lampiran 12. List Tiket Insiden/Problem Layanan TI Supernova Group Periode 1st Jan 2015 – 30th Jun 2016 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Jenis Insiden N Log in user by domain di PC/laptop terkunci Tidak dapat akses ke file sharing supernova.co.id/file-sharing Akses internet putus/lambat Akses Pro-Int HRIS System error/lambat Email error/penuh/tidak bisa dibuka CCTV gambar blur/tidak bisa diakses/tidak muncul gambar DOS system bugs ERP system bugs Antivirus tidak sesuai standar/inactive/expired Data error/tidak bisa dibuka/hilang Data ERP/DOS belum terkini Smart printer error (tidak bisa print/copy/scan data) PC/laptop lambat/malfungsi/rusak User tidak bisa terkoneksi ke web tertentu EXT tidak bisa digunakan/kualitas suara buruk Vicon tidak bisa digunakan/kualitas video buruk WHM Web Server lambat/tidak dapat diakses Other devices problem Wifi problem/tidak mendapat coverage sinyal Server problem Network problem Total Insiden Average Waktu Resolusi


Jumlah Insiden n 187

RerataWaktu Resolusi H M S 3 26 37

72

4

34

12

31 45 54

12 7 3

13 6 17

56 22 23

14

10

7

45

47 58 35 10 49 81 66 24 29 7 72 58 28 16 11 994

4 5 1 5 3 4 26 2 6 2 6 21 14 17 8

48 19 13 40 10 17 55 30 52 4 8 18 24 37 44

6 40 24 6 8 32 19 14 25 43 35 49 16 53 20

7,686

xxv

Lampiran 13. List Tiket Insiden/Problem Layanan TI Supernova Group Periode 1st Jan 2017 – 31st Mar 2017 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Jenis Insiden N Log in user by domain di PC/laptop terkunci Tidak dapat akses ke file sharing supernova.co.id/file-sharing Akses internet putus/lambat Akses Pro-Int HRIS System error/lambat Email error/penuh/tidak bisa dibuka CCTV gbr blur/tidak bisa diakses/tidak muncul gbr DOS system bugs ERP system bugs Antivirus tidak sesuai standar/inactive/expired Data error/tidak bisa dibuka/hilang Data ERP/DOS belum terkini Smart printer error (tidak bisa print/copy/scan data) PC/laptop lambat/malfungsi/rusak User tidak bisa terkoneksi ke web tertentu EXT tidak bisa digunakan/kualitas suara buruk Vicon tidak bisa digunakan/kualitas video buruk WHM Web Server lambat/tidak dapat diakses Other devices problem Wifi problem/tidak mendapat coverage sinyal Server problem Network problem Total Insiden Average Waktu Resolusi


Jumlah Insiden n 13

RerataWaktu Resolusi H M S 2 13 10

6

2

48

36

4 6 7 5 4 3 7 0 1 4 6 2 6 2 2 12 3 3 4 100

10 5 2 7 3 5 1 0 4 4 8 3 4 3 5 6 5 9 7

27 7 25 49 36 44 37 0 53 6 26 10 12 40 27 21 9 30 12

44 28 41 16 8 25 52 0 19 52 43 24 37 25 9 6 53 55 4

4.884

xxvi

Lampiran 14 USER SATISFACTION IT SERVICES SURVEY Dear our internal customer: We hope the support and service to you from Supernova Group IST team since first April 2016 untill the end June 2016, have been supportive and helpful to your Department and/or activities. Please complete the attached user satisfaction survey. Your opinions and feedback on our support and service are important to us. Your answers give us the opportunity to make improvements necessary to meet our internal customer’s ongoing-needs. Thank you for helping us serve you better. Sincerely, Iwan Tjandra Widjaja IST General Manager

SURVEY KEPUASAN PENGGUNA LAYANAN TI Kepada Rekan-Rekan Supernova yang berbahagia, Kami sangat berharap bahwasanya layanan dan dukungan dari Tim IST Supernova Group sejak awal April 2016 sampai dengan akhir Juni 2016, kepada rekan-rekan semua, sudah cukup baik dan membantu. Kiranya rekan-rekan sekalian dapat memberikan masukan/komentar terhadap layanan dan dukungan dari kami selama ini. Masukan/komentar dari rekan semua akan sangat membantu kami untuk memberikan layanan lebih baik lagi di masa mendatang. Dengan demikian, masukan dari rekan-rekan akan memberikan kami kesempatan untuk melakukan perbaikan yang diperlukan, sehingga kami dapat terus memenuhi kebutuhan dari rekan-rekan semua. Terima kasih banyak atas partisipasinya. Salam hangat, Iwan Tjandra Widjaja IST General Manager


xxvii Respondent name (optional) /Nama :

________________________

(please put “X” beside the box for your response /berikan tanda silang pada jawaban Anda)

1.

Overall, how satisfied were you with the current Supernova Group IST Team support and services since first April 2016 untill the end June 2016? Secara umum, bagaimana kepuasan Anda terhadap tim IST (Information System Technology) Supernova Group dalam memberikan layanan dan dukungan sejak awal April 2016 sampai dengan akhir Juni 2016? Very satisfied /Sangat puas (5) Satisfied /Puas (4) Somewhat satisfied /Cukup puas (3) Slightly satisfied /Kurang puas (2) Not satisfied at all /Tidak puas (1)

2.

Did we meet your expectations? Apakah layanan dari kami telah dapat memenuhi harapan Anda? Exceed /Sangat memenuhi (5) Meet most /Memenuhi (4) Meet some /Cukup (3) Meet few /Kurang (2) Does not meet /Tidak memenuhi (1)

3.

Please check one for each statement: Silakan berikan pendapat Anda terhadap pernyataan dibawah ini

PC related support Servis yang berhubungan dengan PC/laptop

Excel. Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Was the IST team responsive to help you? Apakah tim IST responsive dalam membantu Anda? Did the IST team meet your expectations? Apakah tim IST telah dapat memenuhi harapan Anda? Business System/Foxpro ERP related support Servis yang berhubungan dengan Foxpro ERP/Sistem bisnis Was the IST team responsive to help you? Apakah tim IST responsive dalam membantu Anda? Did the IST team meet your expectations? Apakah tim IST telah dapat memenuhi harapan Anda? 1. What did we do especially well? Menurut Anda, Dalam hal khusus apakah, tim IST telah melakukan sesuatu dengan baik?

2. What could we have done to improve our quality of the work? Menurut Anda. Apakah yang dapat kami lakukan untuk meningkatkan mutu kerja kami ?


xxviii 4.

Overall, what is your complaint in terms of the use of IT services in Supernova Group since first April 2016 untill the end June 2016? Secara umum, apa yang menjadi keluhan anda dalam hal penggunaan layanan TI Supernova Group sejak awal April 2016 sampai dengan akhir Juni 2016? Access to internal server slowly Akses ke server internal lambat / Capacity Mgmt Access to internal server usually error Akses ke server internal mudah error / Problem Mgmt Problem handling too long and repeatable Penanganan gangguan lama dan berulang / Problem Mgmt Service desk approach on problem handling NOK and not standardized Pendekatan service desk dalam penanganan gangguan tidak baik/terstandar / Service Desk Easily damaged hardware and a lot of complaints regarding its usage Hardware mudah hang/error dan banyak keluhan terkait penggunaannya / Release & Deployment Mgmt Access to internet slowly / many spam and or virus Akses internet lambat / banyak spam dan atau virus / Information Security Mgmt Minor Problem Gangguan minor (tidak koneksi ke printer sharing, dsb) / Incident Mgmt No standardization in resolution time to handling hardware problem Penangan hardware rusak tidak terstandar dalam hal time resolution-nya / Service Validation & Testing Change/request are not handled properly Change/request tidak tertangani dengan baik / Access Mgmt IT internal SOP for problem handling, request and change policy not well done and standardized SOP internal TI terkait penanganan problem, request dan change policy tidak dilakukan dengan baik dan terstandar / Design Coordination


xxix

Lampiran 15 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Upaya Peningkatan IT Performance Berdasarkan Metode DMAIC & Frame Work ITIL v.3 1. Latar Belakang Supernova Group saat ini adalah merupakan pemain terbesar kedua di Indonesia dalam hal perusahaan manufaktur flexible packaging di Indonesia. Tumbuh dan berkembang dengan pesat sampai dengan saat ini sejak tahun 1981. Mempunyai 4 plant di Kawasan Industri Ancol. Kawasan Jababeka 2 dan 6 serta yang terbaru berada di Kawasan Industri MM2100. Pencapaian pangsa pasar yang luar biasa sampai dengan sekarang ini adalah hasil kerja keras semua elemen perusahaan sejak lama, terutama organisasi TI-nya. Sejalan dengan visi perusahaan yaitu Menjadi Industri kemasan terkemuka di Indonesia, Asia Tenggara dan Dunia melalui perkembangan teknologi, menjadikan teknologi informasi dipercaya sebagai salah satu motor penggerak kemajuan bisnis perusahaan ke depan. Oleh karenanya, organisasi TI Supernova Group sudah harus allignment dengan tujuan bisnis yang akan dicapai perusahaan ke depan. Namun perkembangan bisnis yang semakin baik, tidak diimbangi oleh organisasi TI dalam hal memberikan layanan TI yang berkualitas kepada penggunanya. Tren hasil pengukuran yang dilakukan manajemen menunjukkan bahwa terjadi penurunan tingkat kepuasan pengguna terhadap layanan TI ayng digunakan dari periode awal Januari 2015 sampai dengan akhir Juni 2016. GAP semakin besar antara target manajemen dibandingkan realisasi pencapaian


xxx

kepuasan pengguna terhadap layanan TI, pada periode pengukuran pertama didapat GAP sebesar 1,46% dan semakin besar pada periode pengukuran terakhir didapat GAP sebesar 11,85%. Berikut digambarkan dalam Gambar 1 mengenai buruknya kepuasan pengguna terhadap layanan TI yang digunakan dari periode Januari 2015 sampai dengan periode Juni 2016, bahkan terjadi tren penurunan dalam kurun periode tersebut.

Gambar 1 Target Manajemen vs Realisasi Kepuasan Pengguna Terhadap Layanan TI di Supernova Group Sumber: Supernova Group/IST Dept, 2016 Untuk mendapatkan gambaran terkait hal yang menyebabkan buruknya pencapaian kepuasan pengguna terhadap layanan TI, manajemen organisasi TI Supernova Group melakukan assesment tambahan terkait hal di atas, yang isinya ditambahkan di dalam form survei kepuasan pengguna pada periode evaluasi triwulan kedua tahun 2016. Berikut digambarkan dalam Gambar 2 mengenai penyebab/alasan pengguna layanan TI di Supernova Group kurang/tidak puas


xxxi

terhadap layanan TI.

Gambar 2 Pareto Hasil Survei Triwulan II Tahun 2016 Penyebab Ketidakpuasan Pengguna Terhadap Layanan TI Sumber: Supernova Group/IST Dept, 2016 Tidak tercapainya target manajemen dalam hal kepuasan pengguna terhadap layanan TI, secara garis besar dari gambar di atas dapat ditinjau dari IT performance organisasi TI (hasil survei triwulan terakhir menunjukkan pareto 3 terbesar berasal dari bagian service operation). Hasil pareto di atas menunjukkan bahwa penyebab masalah buruknya kinerja organisasi TI dalam hal penanganan layanan TI terhadap penggunanya, 3 terbesar disebabkan oleh buruknya problem management, incident management dan service desk. Untuk mengatasi permasalahan yang sudah dipaparkan di atas, peneliti akan menggunakan teknik pengumpulan data yang bersifat kualitatif yaitu Focus Group Discussion (FGD) dengan sumber informasi adalah karyawan di Organisasi TI


xxxii

Supernova Group Grade IV-VII dan karyawan di bawah Grade IV yang berfungsi sebagai helpdesk dengan acuan baku yaitu Frame Work ITIL v.3 dan teknik process improvement DMAIC. Dimana dengan metode atau teknik Focus Group Discussion (FGD) digunakan untuk mendapatkan data terkait IT maturity dalam hal proses problem management, proses incident management dan fungsi service desk terhadap manajemen organisasi TI Supernova Group secara keseluruhan dengan menggunakan konsep acuan baku yaitu ITSM Self-Assesment.

2. Tujuan a.

Untuk mengetahui tingkat kematangan (maturity level) dari proses problem management, proses incident management dan fungsi service desk yang ditinjau dari tolok ukur ISTM self-assesment.

b.

Untuk mengetahui cara/upaya perbaikan IT performance yang tepat bagi Organisasi TI Supernova Group dalam hal problem management, incident management dan service desk untuk mencapai kepuasan pengguna terhadap layanan TI berdasarkan acuan standar frame work ITIL v.3 dan metode process improvement DMAIC.

3. Hasil Yang Diharapkan a.

Terstruktur dan terstandarnya organisasi TI Supernova Group dalam hal memberikan layanan yang berkualitas kepada semua pengguna sesuai dengan acuan baku frame work ITIL v.3.


xxxiii

b.

Peningkatan persentase bahkan pencapaian target manajemen Supernova Group terhadap kepuasan pengguna terhadap layanan TI pada periode evaluasi berikutnya.

4. Rangkaian Kegiatan & Jadwal Pelaksanaan FGD dalam penelitian ini dilakukan sebanyak 5 kali. Tahap pertama adalah diskusi terkait pemaparan fenomena yang terjadi serta pembahasan keilmuan mengenai konsep acuan IT Management yang digunakan dan mengukur IT maturity dari 3 dimensi permasalahan yang diketahui dan dijadikan prioritas untuk perbaikan. Tahap kedua adalah diskusi mengenai pemaparan service desk function, dibahas didalamnya mengenai bagaimana service desk function yang standar, analisa kematangan GAP service desk function antara kondisi saat ini dan standar yang akan diharapkan, serta saran dan masukan terkait perbaikan service desk function. Sama dengan tahap kedua di atas, pada tahap ketiga dan keempat proses dan hal pembahasan adalah sama. Yang membedakan adalah objek penelitiannya saja. Tahap ketiga adalah incident management process dan tahap keempat adalah problem management process. Dan pada tahap akhir, dibahas terkait improvement yang tepat sesuai kasus yang ada dan kemampuan organisasi TI Supernova Group. Ke semua tahapan FGD dilakukan di Head Office Supernova Group. Informan yang dilibatkan dalam FGD ini adalah karyawan di Organisasi TI Supernova Group Grade IV-VII dan karyawan di bawah Grade IV yang berfungsi sebagai service desk. Sehingga narasumber dalam kegiatan FGD ini berjumlah 10 orang.


xxxiv

Tabel. Rangkaian Kegiatan dan Jadwal Pelaksanaan FGD Jadwal Pelaksanaan No

Langkah-langkah Pelaksanaan

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Penyusunan jadwal, materi & narasumber Mengedarkan Formulir Pendaftaran Menginisiasi undangan kehadiran & detail kegiatan FGD via email (tahap-1) Pelaksanaan kegiatan FGD tahap-1 Menginisiasi undangan kehadiran & detail kegiatan FGD via email (tahap-2) Pelaksanaan kegiatan FGD tahap-2 Menginisiasi undangan kehadiran & detail kegiatan FGD via email (tahap-3) Pelaksanaan kegiatan FGD tahap-3 Menginisiasi undangan kehadiran & detail kegiatan FGD via email (tahap-4) Pelaksanaan kegiatan FGD tahap-4 Menginisiasi undangan kehadiran & detail kegiatan FGD via email (tahap-5) Pelaksanaan kegiatan FGD tahap-5

13

Menyusun laporan hasil FGD tahap 1 sampai dengan 5 serta memberikan rekomendasi improvement yang tepat untuk permasalahan IT performance Supernova Group

W1- W2- W3- W4- W1- W2- W3- W4Nov16 Nov16 Nov16 Nov16 Des16 Des16 Des16 Des16

Sumber: Data diolah, 2016


xxxv

Hasil pertemuan berupa notulensi dan rekaman suara akan dianalisa dan dibuat laporannya.

5. Penulisan Laporan Laporan ditulis berdasarkan notulensi dan rekaman suara selama proses FGD. Masukan atau pendapat dari peserta yang tidak sesuai dengan pertanyaan FGD tetap akan dicatat dan dilaporkan sebagai data tambahan.

6. Tim Pelaksana No

Nama

Tugas

1

Alvian Guntur Perdana K

Fasilitator

2

Devi

Fasilitator


xxxvi

Lampiran 16 ITIL Service Support Self Assessment: Service Desk

M

Level 1 - Pre-requisites 1. Does a Service Desk exist which manages, coordinates and resolves incidents reported by customers? 2. Is the Service Desk the recognised point of contact for all customer/user queries? 3. Does the Service Desk provide information to customers regarding planned changes? Minimum score to achieve this level: 'Y' for all mandatory ('M') questions + 1 other answer 'Y'

(Y)es or (N)o Before

(Y)es or (N)o After

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

PASS

PASS

Level 1.5 - Management Intent

M

4. Is the business need for a Service Desk clearly identified and understood?

Y

Y

M

5. Is there sufficient management commitment, budget provision and resource available for the effective operation of the Service Desk?

Y

Y

6. Is the Service Desk perceived as a strategic function by Senior Managers?

Y

Y

7. Has the purpose and benefits of the Service Desk been disseminated within the organisation?

Y

Y

8. Has an education and/or training programme been conducted for customers and users in the use of the Service Desk and its benefits

N

N

Minimum score to achieve this level: 'Y' for all mandatory ('M') questions + 1 other answer 'Y'

PASS

PASS

Y

Y

M

Level 2 - Process Capability 9. Have the functions of the Service Desk been agreed?

M

10. Do Service Desk operators have a procedure or strategy for obtaining the required information from customers whilst call handling?

N

Y

M

11. Does the Service Desk provide the customer/user with information on service availability, an incident number or reference for use in follow-up communications, and progress updates on any request being managed by the service team?

Y

Y

M

12. Does the Service Desk make an initial assessment of all requests received, attempting to resolve appropriate requests or referring them to someone who can, based on agreed service levels?

N

Y

13. Does the Service Desk communicate planned and short-term changes of service levels to customers?

N

Y

14. Does the Service Desk provide a status update to the customer on the closure of incidents?

Y

Y

15. Does the Service Desk provide management information and make recommendations for service improvement?

N

Y

16. Has a study of the workload mix been conducted to determine the required staff levels, skill type and the associated costs of the Service Desk?

N

N

17. Are customer satisfaction surveys carried out by the Service Desk?

N

N

18. Is the Service Desk notified of new services or changes to existing services?

Y

Y

FAIL

PASS

Minimum score to achieve this level: 'Y' for all mandatory ('M') questions + 2 other answers 'Y'

Level 2.5 - Internal Integration


xxxvii

M

19. Does the Service Desk provide a single point of contact for all customer queries?

Y

Y

20. Does the Service Desk have access to a library of all product, hardware and software documentation and reference material used by customer / users?

N

Y

21. Are major incidents/problems/changes from the previous week reviewed with customers?

N

N

22. Does a customer list exist and is it used to monitor customer satisfaction levels? 23. Are second-line support staff involved in the Service Desk, either on a full time or a rotational basis?

N

N

Y

Y

FAIL

PASS


Level 3 - Products

M

24. Is a single source of customer / user and supplier details maintained?

N

N

M

25. Are standard pro-forma's available for capturing customer / user details and identification?

N

N

M

26. Are the services offered by the Service Desk clearly defined for customers and other parties?

N

N

27. Are reports regularly produced for all the teams contributing to the service provision process, concerning types of customer contacts?

N

Y

28. Is a workload analysis produced to help determine staffing levels?

N

N

29. Are weekly management reviews held to highlight service availability, customer satisfaction and major incident areas?

N

N

30. Do management review Service Desk’s recommendations for service improvements?

N

N

FAIL

FAIL


Level 3.5 - Quality Control

M

31. Are the standards and other quality criteria applicable for the registration of incidents and for call handling made clear to Service Desk operators?

N

N

M

32. Are Service Level Agreements available and understood by Service Desk operators

N

N

M

33. Are the personnel responsible for Service Desk activities suitably trained?

N

N

34. Does the organisation set and review either targets or objectives for the Service Desk?

N

N

35. Are there suitable tools in use to support the Service Desk function?

Y

Y

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL


Level 4 - Management Information

M

36. Do you provide management with information concerning customer satisfaction with services?

M

37. Do you provide management with information concerning operational performance of the Service Desk? 38. Do you provide management with information concerning customer awareness/ training needs? 39. Do you provide management with information concerning trend analysis in incident occurrence and resolution? Minimum score to achieve this level: 'Y' for all mandatory ('M') questions + 1 other answer 'Y'

Level 4.5 - External Integration


xxxviii

M

40. Do you hold regular meetings with interested parties in which Service Desk matters are discussed?

M

41. Does the Service Desk control the Incident Management function and have the interfaces between the Service Desk and Incident management been defined and communicated? 42. Does the Service Desk receive information from Change Management regarding impending changes to services? 43. Does the Service Desk exchange information with Service Level Management concerning breaches in service level agreements and the service and support commitments they contain? Minimum score to achieve this level: 'Y' for all mandatory ('M') questions + 1 other answer 'Y'

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

Level 5 - Customer Interface

M

44. Do you check with the customer if the activities performed by the Service Desk adequately support their business needs?

M

45. Do you check with the customer that they are happy with the services provided?

M

46. Are you actively monitoring trends in customer satisfaction?

M

47. Are you feeding customer survey information into the service improvement agenda?

M

48. Are you monitoring the customer's value perception of the services provided to them? Minimum score to achieve this level: 'Y' for all mandatory ('M') questions

Sumber: FGD Tahap Ke-2 (ITSM Self-Assesment Kategori Service Desk Function), 2017


xxxix

Lampiran 17 ITIL Service Delivery Self Assessment: Incident Management (Y)es or (N)o

(Y)es or (N)o

Before

After

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

PASS

PASS

Y

Y

Y

Y

6. Have Incident Management been made aware of the business drivers and needs which will drive the priority for dealing with incidents?

N

Y

7. Has an education and training programme been conducted for the Service Desk and incident managers outlining their relationships and interfaces with each other and with problem, change and configuration management?

Y

Y

PASS

PASS

Level 1: Pre-requisites

M

1. Are incident records maintained for all reported incidents? 2. Are incidents currently assessed and classified by the Service Desk prior to referring them to a specialist? 3. Is there an incident manager responsible for managing and escalating incidents? Minimum score to achieve this level: 'Y' for all mandatory ('M') questions + 1 other answer 'Y'

Level 1.5: Management Intent

M M

4. Is the business committed to reducing the impact of incidents by their timely resolution? 5. Have management commitment, budget and resource been made available for incident management?


Level 2: Process Capability

M

8. Is an incident database maintained recording details for all reported incidents?

Y

Y

M

9. Are all incidents managed in conformance with the procedures documented in SLAs?

N

N

M

10. Is there a procedure for classifying incidents, with a detailed set of classification, prioritisation and impact codes?

N

Y

M

11. Is there a procedure for assigning, monitoring and communicating the progress of incidents?

Y

Y

M

12. Does incident management provide the Service Desk or Customer/User with progress updates on the status of incidents?

Y

Y

M

13. Is there a procedure for the closure of incidents?

Y

Y

14. Does incident management provide the Service Desk with management information and recommendations for service improvement?

N

Y

15. Are incident managers empowered to enforce agreed customer service levels with second line support and third party suppliers?

N

N

16. Do incident managers co-ordinate problem management, support staff and IT services management when a major incident occurs?

N

Y

17. Has a study of the workload mix been conducted to determine the required staff levels, skill type and the associated costs of incident management?

N

N

FAIL

FAIL

N

Y


Level 2.5: Internal Integration

M

18. Does incident management match incidents against the problem and known error database?


xl

19. Does incident management inform the Service Desk and problem management of work-arounds?

N

Y

20. Are incidents which breach agreed service level targets identified and the incident resolution team informed of the breach?

N

N

FAIL

PASS


Level 3: Products

M

21. Are incident records maintained for all reported incidents (including resolution and/or workaround)?

N

Y

M

22. Are requests for changes produced, if necessary, for incident resolution?

N

N

M

23. Are resolved and closed incident records updated and clearly communicated to the Service Desk, customers and other parties?

Y

Y

24. Are reports regularly produced for all the teams contributing to the incident resolution process, concerning incident status?

Y

Y

25. Is a workload analysis produced to help determine staffing levels?

N

N

26. Are management reviews held to highlight escalated incident details?

N

N

FAIL

FAIL

N

N

N

N

29. Are the personnel responsible for incident management suitably trained?

N

N

30. Does the organisation set and review either targets or objectives for incident management?

N

N

31. Are there suitable tools in use to support the Incident Management function?

N

Y

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL


M M M

Level 3.5: Quality Control 27. Are the standards and other quality criteria applicable for the registration of incidents and for call handling made clear to the incident management team? 28. Are Service Level Agreements available and understood by incident management?


Level 4: Management Information

M

32. Do you provide management with information concerning trend analysis in incident occurrence and resolution?

M

33. Do you provide management with information concerning escalated incidents? 34. Do you provide management with information concerning percentage of Incidents handled within agreed response time 35. Do you provide management with information concerning percentage of incidents closed by Service Desk without reference to other levels of support Minimum score to achieve this level: 'Y' for all mandatory ('M') questions + 2 other answers 'Y'

Level 4.5: External Integration

M

36. Do you hold regular meetings with the Service Desk to discuss incidents raised, progressed, escalated and closed?

M

37. Have the interfaces between the Service Desk and incident management been defined and communicated?


xli

M

38. Does incident management exchange information with Problem Management concerning related problems and / or known errors? 39. Does incident management exchange information with Configuration Management regarding ease of use of configuration records, configuration anomalies and the potential flagging of configuration item, e.g. as 'failed' (or equivalent)? 40. Does incident management receive information from Change Management regarding impending changes to services? 41. Does incident management exchange information with Change Management regarding the details of possible changes to resolve particular incidents / problems? 42. Does incident management exchange information with Service Level Management concerning breaches in service level agreements and the service and support commitments they contain? Minimum score to achieve this level: 'Y' for all mandatory ('M') questions + 2 other answers 'Y'

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

Level 5: Customer Interface

M

43. Do you check with the customer if the activities performed by Incident Management Management adequately support the business needs?

M


M


M


M

47. Are you monitoring the customers value perception of the services provided to them? Minimum score to achieve this level: 'Y' for all mandatory ('M') questions

Sumber: FGD Tahap Ke-4 (ITSM Self-Assesment Kategori Incident Management Process), 2017


xlii

Lampiran 18 ITIL Service Support Self Assessment: Problem Management Level 1: Pre-requisites

M

(Y)es or (N)o

(Y)es or (N)o

Before

After

1. Are at least some problem management activities established in the organisation, e.g. problem determination, problem analysis, problem resolution?

N

Y

2. Are problem management activities assigned to specific individuals or functional areas?

N

Y

3. Is there a procedure by which significant incidents are escalated by incident management?

Y

Y

4. Are potential problems formally assessed and identified prior to disruption occurring?

N

Y

FAIL

FAIL

5. Has the purpose and benefits of problem management been disseminated within the organisation?

N

Y

6. Does the organisation have procedures for the registration of problems and their resolution?

N

Y

7. Is there management commitment to support staff allocating sufficient time for structural problem solving activities?

Y

Y

8. Is the organisation committed to reducing the total number of problems and the number of incidents that interrupt the conduct of business?

Y

Y

9. Is there management support for problem management staff only accepting support requests from authorised sources?

N

N

FAIL

FAIL


Level 1.5: Management Intent

M


Level 2: Process Capability

M

10. Have responsibilities for various problem management activities been assigned?

N

Y

M

11. Is there a procedure for analysing significant, recurring and unresolved incidents and identifying underlying problems?

N

N

M

12. Is there a procedure by which potential problems are classified, in terms of category, urgency, priority and impact and assigned for investigation?

N

Y

13. Do problem owners have adequate guidelines for identifying and recording the nature of a problem? 14. Are complex problem investigations across for example, several technical areas adequately coordinated? 15. Is there a procedure for problem closure?

N

N

N

N

N

Y

16. Do you have a mechanism for tracking problem resolution?

N

Y

17. Do you monitor the effectiveness of problem support areas?

N

N

FAIL

FAIL

N

N


Level 2.5: Internal Integration

M

18. Is the nature of the problem always documented as part of the problem record?


xliii

M

19. Is Problem Management responsible for the completeness of all problem records?

N

Y

20. Does problem management escalate problems with severe impact to the CAB to increase the priority of the RFC or to implement an urgent change as appropriate.

N

N

21. Are proposed solutions to a problem reviewed and authorised by a third party?

N

N

22. Are problem records updated to reflect the progress in resolving the problem?

N

Y

23. Is the Problem Manager responsible for reviewing the problem records?

N

Y

FAIL

FAIL

24. Are standard reports concerning problems produced regularly?

N

N

25. Are problem records updated on resolution of a problem?

N

Y

26. Are requests for change raised on the basis of problem analysis?

N

Y

27. Do problem management reports comment on the results of proactive problem management?

N

N


FAIL

FAIL


Level 3: Products

M

Level 3.5: Quality Control

M

28. Are the standards and other quality criteria made explicit and applied to problem management activities?

N

N

M

29. Are the personnel responsible for problem mangement activities suitably trained?

N

N

30. Does the organisation set and review either targets or objectives for Problem Management?

N

N

31. Does the organisation use suitable tools to support the problem management process?

N

Y


FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

Level 4: Management Information

M

32. Does Problem Management provide management with information concerning analysis of problem records?

M

33. Does Problem Management provide management with information concerning recurring problems of a particular type or with an individual item? 34. Does Problem Management provide management with information concerning the need for more customer training or better documentation? 35. Does Problem Management provide management with information concerning trends in problem distribution and potential 'hot' spots? Minimum score to achieve this level: 'Y' for all mandatory ('M') questions + 1 other answer 'Y'

Level 4.5: External Integration

M

36. Do you hold regular meetings with interested parties in which Problem Management (PM) matters are discussed? 37. Does PM exchange information with Configuration Management regarding the quality of configuration records, highlighting any issues, and the potential flagging of items as 'failed' (or equivalent)? 38. Does PM exchange information with Change Management regarding the details of any changes to resolve problems or on emergency actions undertaken?


xliv

39. Does PM exchange information with Incident Management for identification of significant incidents or multiple incidents exhibiting common symptoms in order to identify problems? 40. Does PM exchange information with the Service Desk concerning related incidents, or follow-up on initial handling and possible feedback to users (e.g. via urgent bulletins for major incidents)? 41. Does PM exchange information with Service Level Management regarding priority handling of problems and potential impact on service level agreement performance? 42. Does PM exchange information with IT Service Continuity Management regarding possible contingency actions in the event of a major outage? 43. Does PM exchange information with Availability Management for detection and avoidance of problems and incidents? 44. Does PM exchange information with Release Management (if applicable) regarding current CIs and for possible association of problems with specific CIs? 45. Does PM exchange information with Capacity Management for potential implications of planning options, and the likely effect on problem trends? Minimum score to achieve this level: 'Y' for all mandatory ('M') questions + 4 other answers 'Y'

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

Level 5: Customer Interface

M

42. Do you check with the customer that the activities performed by Problem Management adequately support their business needs?

M


M


M


M

46. Are you monitoring the customer's value perception of the services provided to them? Minimum score to achieve this level: 'Y' for all mandatory ('M') questions

Sumber: FGD Tahap Ke-3 (ITSM Self-Assesment Kategori Problem Management Process), 2017


DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Recommend Documents