The worst thing about my work is...

[daviejones]

In my experience 'excessive' change and the obligatory change control occurs when planning hasn't happened, usually because useless managers don't think it is necessary.

Most incidents in an organisation happen as a result of unauthorised and badly planned changes....

[snaw]

But Change Control is necessary to stop the cavalier approach from support engineers and developers!!!

Totally agree, but there's a balance either way and where I work it's way way way too much on the excessive side. When you spend significantly more time on change control than on any other aspect of your job then something isn't right.

[daviejones]

Totally agree, but there's a balance either way and where I work it's way way way too much on the excessive side. When you spend significantly more time on change control than on any other aspect of your job then something isn't right.

That is a fault of the process and sounds like a badly designed process.

I work in this area and believe that Change Control has a very strong place in organisations.

[snaw]

In my experience 'excessive' change and the obligatory change control occurs when planning hasn't happened, usually because useless managers don't think it is necessary.

Planning happens. Every change needs a record (Three weeks in advance for any change that's not an emergency) and sign off. Sign off involves anything from 10 - 50 people agreeing to the change - one rejection sets the whole thing back to zero approvals. Every change is peer reviewed (I spend loads of my time doing peer reviews). Every change is represented in a change meeting. Every change requires a change completion report (Either way). Risk one gets represented globally and needs a barrow load of compulsory testers. Any change which deviates from the listed change record must be backed out. Random post audits are performed on changes etc etc etc

I get why it happens - I work in a very large bank, where outages can have serious impact. But the knee jerk reaction is to be more stringent in change control, but that doesn't necessarily stop the problems occurring anyway (Most people who sign off have no idea what they're agreeing too, and some problems are very hard to for-see).

The onorusness of the whole change process results in people not wanting to do any change cause it's such as hassle, and is a cause for quite a few people leaving. Not too mention really big screw ups usually result in people getting sacked (Discreetly or not).

[daviejones]

Planning happens. Every change needs a record (Three weeks in advance for any change that's not an emergency) and sign off. Sign off involves anything from 10 - 50 people agreeing to the change - one rejection sets the whole thing back to zero approvals. Every change is peer reviewed (I spend loads of my time doing peer reviews). Every change is represented in a change meeting. Every change requires a change completion report (Either way). Risk one gets represented globally and needs a barrow load of compulsory testers. Any change which deviates from the listed change record must be backed out. Random post audits are performed on changes etc etc etc

I get why it happens - I work in a very large bank, where outages can have serious impact. But the knee jerk reaction is to be more stringent in change control, but that doesn't necessarily stop the problems occurring anyway (Most people who sign off have no idea what they're agreeing too, and some problems are very hard to for-see).

The onorusness of the whole change process results in people not wanting to do any change cause it's such as hassle, and is a cause for quite a few people leaving. Not too mention really big screw ups usually result in people getting sacked (Discreetly or not).

Sounds like a terribly complicated and onerous process. The process can be strict and stringent without being too complicated. Being too comlicated is the easiest way to encourage people to bypass the process....

They should employ me and I will come and sort it for them...!!!

[beaker]

the unskilled 'managers'

this

[AlfredJPruffock]

Planning happens. Every change needs a record (Three weeks in advance for any change that's not an emergency) and sign off. Sign off involves anything from 10 - 50 people agreeing to the change - one rejection sets the whole thing back to zero approvals. Every change is peer reviewed (I spend loads of my time doing peer reviews). Every change is represented in a change meeting. Every change requires a change completion report (Either way). Risk one gets represented globally and needs a barrow load of compulsory testers. Any change which deviates from the listed change record must be backed out. Random post audits are performed on changes etc etc etc

I get why it happens - I work in a very large bank, where outages can have serious impact. But the knee jerk reaction is to be more stringent in change control, but that doesn't necessarily stop the problems occurring anyway (Most people who sign off have no idea what they're agreeing too, and some problems are very hard to for-see).

The onorusness of the whole change process results in people not wanting to do any change cause it's such as hassle, and is a cause for quite a few people leaving. Not too mention really big screw ups usually result in people getting sacked (Discreetly or not).

In a nutshell it appears to be a Byzantine Rigmarole which by design ensures nothing actually gets done - I can imagine proposed changes being denied for the most trivial of reasons thereby dettering any changes being made to the system.

My advice is keep invoicing - kick back and relax and be thankful you dont have to do any actual work.

[Francko]

That is a fault of the process and sounds like a badly designed process.

I work in this area and believe that Change Control has a very strong place in organisations.

The problem is that the people who design these processes do not have actually any clue about the process and they don't even bother asking the people who are involved with the process, and even if they asked most of them are still unable to understand the complexity of the issues. I think Lucy is right, too many useless managers who do not have the right experience nor knowledge.

[Lucy]

Most incidents in an organisation happen as a result of unauthorised and badly planned changes....

You are right, I was thinking and obviously stuck in my dba days when all changes were as a result of badly planned and built applications, or of my now pmo days where all changes are as a result of badly planned and built applications. I work in projects not operations/run.

[snaw]

In a nutshell it appears to be a Byzantine Rigmarole which by design ensures nothing actually gets done - I can imagine proposed changes being denied for the most trivial of reasons thereby dettering any changes being made to the system.

My advice is keep invoicing - kick back and relax and be thankful you dont have to do any actual work.

Unfortunately things still have to get done, and change control is unavoidable.

And you're right, changes get bounced for the silliest of reasons.