I recently published an article on LinkedIn that identifies 5 questions to be asked by any one who designs or implements change within an organisation. These questions will help them identify scenarios in which ITAM risks are likely, so that they can request a more detailed risk analysis from the ITAM experts.
The article was, entirely coincidentally, complemented nicely by an article by David Foxen on the importance of engaging with Change Management to manage SAM risks associated with server hardware changes.
Both articles are pointing to a change that is required in the way IT Asset Managers, as well as those who manage them, view the function. Traditionally it has very much been an operational function – focused on doing what is required to ensure there is accurate data, that organisations are compliant and running reports to help management make decisions.
These things do indeed need to happen, but we need to move away from the idea that it is IT Asset Managers that do them. We need to separate the ideas of ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’ and recognise that we are accountable for ensuring these things happen, not necessarily doing them.
Automation and clever processes are critical – but we already knew this. But what is also critical is implementing assurance processes to ensure that the processes work, and that other functions are doing what they need to do to achieve our ITAM goals – whether that is compliance, or cost optimisation or provide MI.
This is the thrust of the ITAM by Design article – we need to provide ‘change agents’ in our organisation – Programme and Project Managers, Architects and Business Analysts, with tools they can use to recognise when there might be ITAM related risks that need to be managed, and then we need to ‘assure’ ourselves that they are using those tools, and using them in the right way. This is the only way IT Asset Managers will prevent the ‘SNAFU’s’ that plague us today from happening in future. That is truly proactive IT Asset Management.