Service catalog: Difference between revisions

It is hard to fault this logic, should logic be your constant and only frame of reference. All my “services” cost something, and must be [[shredding|allocated]] back to a cost centre. The starting assumption must be that all valuable services have been catalogued and assigned to a particular group in the organisation. One should ''not'' carry out an uncatalogued service: it is either ([[Q.E.D.]])<ref>Ironic use of [[Q.E.D.]] here, by the way.</ref> unnecessary and as such unshreddible, or it ''is'' shreddible, but only because it is in someone ''else’s'' [[service catalog]] and therefore it is ''their'' problem, not yours. By all lights, going “off catalog” is [[waste]]ful at best and liable to trigger [[turf-war]]fare between [[risk controller]]s, all of which will be meat and drink to the censorious wagging fingers of your [[internal audit]] folk when they come to visit. Self-inflicted wounds, all.  

The point at which a [[service catalog]] becomes irresistible is the [[tipping point]] where your organisation has become so sprawling that the potential [[redundancy|economies of scale]] outweigh the costs of disenfranchising all your local [[subject matter expert]]s by jamming them into a universal model that won’t ''quite'' fit ''any'' of their day-to-day experiences, and depriving them of the autonomy to use their subject matter expertise to make pragmatic decisions on the hoof to keep the organisation moving. That autonomy of course, is exactly the sort of risk management you need to manage a [[complex system]] like a multinational financial services organisation. Yet again, we find that greatest of management follies: like a [[playbook]], a [[service catalog]] speaks to the aspiration to manage a ''[[complex]]'' operation as if it were a merely ''[[complicated]]'', or even ''[[simple]]'' one.