Service catalog: Difference between revisions

Service catalog (view source)

Revision as of 09:04, 2 September 2019

509 bytes added , 2 September 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 '''A [[service catalog]], that is to say, is the [[jobsworth's charter]].'''
-It is hard to fault his logic. 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 one function or another. One should ''not'' carry out an uncatalogued service: it is either ([[Q.E.D.]]) unnecessary and unshreddible, or it ''is'' shreddible, but only because it is in someone ''else's'' catalog and therefore it is ''their'' problem, not yours. By all lights, going “off catalog” is wasteful at best and liable to trigger turf-warfare between risk controllers, all of which is meat and drink to the censorious wagging fingers if [[internal audit]] when they come to visit. Self-inflicted wounds, all.
+It is hard to fault this logic, should logic be your constant an 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 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.
-This is part of a wider thrust to [[operationalise]] the organisation and eliminate - by which I mean ''make'' [[redundancies]]. You, dear [[subject matter expert]], cannot fight it, because ''you '''are''' the redundancy the thrust is designed to eradicate''.
+This is part of a wider thrust to [[operationalise]] the organisation and eliminate — by which I mean ''make'' — [[redundancies]]. You, dear [[subject matter expert]], cannot fight it, because ''you '''are''' the [[redundancy]] the thrust is designed to eradicate''.
 ===Come the [[apocalypse]]===
@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 This is the profound difference between humans and machines.  In the [[hive mind]]'s evangelical fervor for AI, this distinction has been lost. We overlook it at our peril. Humans catch the bits that the service catalog didn't anticipate.
-===Lawyers. A special case. ===
+===[[Lawyer]]s. A special case. ===
-If there is one category of employees which is uniquely unsuitable for a service catalogue it is the legal department. It is a misconception that the legal department is there to answer and a pine on all legal questions. In fact, the legal department is there to apply non novel legal questions only 4. Established law, inside normal science, on the tilled and and tended fields of existing practice, is something that the business people and operations staff must understand themselves.
+If there is one bunch of employees who are uniquely unsuitable for a [[service catalog]] it those, like the [[legal eagles]], whose job is to sort out edge cases. The common belief that the [[legal department]] exists to own and answer all legal issues is a canard. Each business owns its own legal issues. It is expected to fully understand, without help, all legal issues that arise in the course of its ordinary daily operations. The legal department is there to advise should the [[playbook]] run out of road; should new or unusual issues arise. Legal is an [[escalation]]. Inside the [[normal science]] of the [[paradigm]], on the tilled and and tended fields of existing practice, is something that the business people and operations staff must understand themselves. These risks one can catalog easily enough, but they are not owned by [[legal]].
-No one is ignorant of the law. Only where you do not know the law should you ask the legal department.
-That is, the legal department is there precisely to answer the questions that the organisation was not expecting to to be asked. These are by definition the questions that do not not match the carved joints of the risk taxonomy or service catalogue bracket unless your legal service catalogue is stated as broadly as to answer all the questions the organisation was not expecting to be asked.
+That is, the legal department is there to answer the questions the organisation ''was not expecting to to be asked''. By definition they will not cleave to [[carving nature at its joints|joints at which risk taxonomy has carved nature]].  unless your legal service catalogue is stated as broadly as to answer all the questions the organisation was not expecting to be asked.
+[[Legal]] owns the legal risks you ''can’t'' catalog in advance.
 {{seealso}}
 *[[Playbook]]
+*[[Turf-war]]
 *[[Service line]]
 *[[Operationalisation]]