We've gotten some good positive feedback about SPACL so far. And we'd love to get more contribution from the ITSM community.
So to help you give us feedback, I thought I'd share a little bit of how we go about thinking what needs to be in the service model. This is a subset of what I wrote in response to a question at spacl.info/
For SPACL, we need to model a "Core set of Definitional Elements,
Attributes, Data Structure and Hierarchy" in one of the three objects
we have decided to tackle first; these are ServiceOffering, RequestableService and ServiceRequest. There are other objects, such as ServiceAgreement, which we may
tackle later or never.
So for any element, like Warranty we run it through a "Core set of Definitional Elements, Attributes, Data Structure and Hierarchy" test. This is why it takes a while to make standards. I'll explain.
First, is it core? Which is a judgment call for sure, but if Warranty not there is the ServiceOffering still valid? If it's not there,
does something important break. And also the opposite, if this gets
added, what compatibility and interchange between systems might get
lost. What complexity might get introduced?
In the SPACL group we are guided by the history of successful
standards, which teaches that the more complex the standard, the less
adoption it receives. X.400 was the ultimate e-mail standard, but the winner
that the internet runs on is Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), and the
X.500 model for directory was too complex so it was replaced by Lightweight Directory
Access Protocol (LDAP), and so on.
So the question of core is a very important one.
Second, is the element Definitional or is it Run-Time? In other words, can
this element or attribute be sent from one party to another without the
party having to know about the service operations? This one trips up more than one ITSM practitioner, yet it's super important. This would exclude having some kind of customer approval workflow in the definition because there's no way for a provider to know the internal approval workflow of customer.
It doesn't mean that a service at company XYZ can't or shouldn't have an approval process. It simply means that a SPACL ServiceOffering cannot require the provider put an approval workflow in the definition.
Third, is this an element or an attribute? An attribute is like
a field. It has a value and a data type; like "$10" is a integer of the type currency.
On the other hand price is an
element of SPACL definitions and has a complex data structure at that.
For example, the price of "$30 per user per month" is one that has
currency time, integer, a unit of measure "per user" which has to be
defined somewhere, and a periodicity that also has to be explained ie.
a year has 12 months, for example.
In SPACL we know we need to define these things. The question is to
what degree? Do we need to create a list of allowable units of measure
for IT, such as byte, kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte, etc? And maintain
them? This is a serious endeavor and one that other e-commerce
standards eventually had to. For fun, check out the UN site where the
global units of measure for international e-commerce are documented.
And finally we have hierarchy. Are some elements required by
other elements? For example, price often requires units; it's $5 per
hot dog. $5 does not tell you enough. You need the unit of measure hot
dog. Thus unit is part of price in this example.
Our goal with SPACL is to take the ambiguity and opinion about service
definitions as much as possible and no more. There will always be the
need to extend the definition for different industries, uses, etc. In
fact SPACL allows for extensions. We see our job as first defining that
core set of elements and attributes which all Services need to share.
So to now answer some of your question (I'm lenghty, ain't I). For
example your third bullet is very much run-time. The decision of how to
display a service is one that a customer can make different from
another customer. So SPACL might include category in the definition,
but would not include display rules.
Ready to make a standard?
So if you think there are elements and attributes we need to consider for SPACL, I encourage you to make your voice heard at spacl.info. Go and make a standard you can be proud of.
Recent Comments