As promised, here we are back with news on the SIAM Health Assessment, due for launch by the end of September.
In the second blog ‘From the Architect’s desk’ series, Michelle Major-Goldsmith and Simon Dorst are sharing more details about the creative process of the SIAM Health Assessment, more specifically how the assessment was created.
Thank you Michelle and Simon for sharing the SIAM Health Assessment journey with everyone!
As promised in our first blog we are back with more news about the SIAM Health Assessment. Last time we explained our wish for this assessment to be very different and certainly we didn’t want any semblance of an old school maturity assessments which focus on how an organisation fairs against others or how they rate against an industry approved scale and the mythical benchmark number that it generates.
The SIAM Health Assessment is all about improvements. When you are doing any kind of improvement it is important to start where you are. In other words, to understand what you are currently doing. This can help you to create a snapshot, identify and prioritise specific problem areas, and also consider what good would/should/could look like and monitor progress towards that. Like your own health a SIAM environment is something that needs constant attention, regular check-ups and continuous improvement.
The creative process
With this in mind, let us explain a little about how the assessment was created. Similar to the creation of the SIAM Bodies of Knowledge, we assembled a team of subject matter experts from all over the world, who happily committed their own time and knowledge.
From these we appointed smaller author teams to focus on the actual creation of content, like the questions, level descriptions and guidance. These teams could check each other’s contribution, but all content was constantly being reviewed by all volunteers using Dropbox.
The assessment was created following a ‘cycle’ approach where in 3-week blocks (or sprints) we tasked the authors to create specific content (and then for the others to review in the next cycle). We started with agreement on the purpose and structure of the assessment, which as we discussed in our last blog (link again here) is focused on improvement and organised around the SIAM practices (plus Governance & Strategy).
Our first creation-cycle was to develop SIAM-specific yet still generic descriptions for each of the levels and to determine the topics within each practice to be assessed. We could then create specific descriptions of each level for each topic.
For instance, at level 2 of the governance model topic we would expect the customer retained capabilities to remain active in operational (management) activities, rather than governing the service integrator. This because at this level they haven’t quite managed to remove the need to keep a check on the integrator and trust is still developing (see also the challenge of control in the SIAM Foundation Body of Knowledge).
Based on these descriptions, specific guidance could be created that would show an organisation, that achieved one level, how to get to ‘the next level’ and this guidance could then be linked to the SIAM Bodies of Knowledge to provide further content.
And then the questions…
And finally, the questions could be created. As we’ve mentioned previously in the first blog we decided to move away from the rather ‘boring’ yes/no questions which only allow a black-and-white response (i.e. it’s there or it’s not), since quite often some of it is, and some isn’t!
For instance, “Do you own a dog?” is a black-and-white question, but “Do you walk you dog every day?” may seem like one but there is a difference between walking your dog almost every day (but occasionally forgetting it) and never walking it. In this example a question like “How often do you walk your dog?” and a scale (from never to always) may provide a more nuanced and thus more useful answer.
Things are not always black and white. So, within the analysis different types of questions, the grading of the answers and rich logic allow us to delve further, quicker, gather more nuanced information.
This means that when a SIAM environment is still developing the assessment doesn’t drag you through unnecessary questioning around elements which are unlikely to exist or be relevant within the context of the organisation.
Checks and balances
Once the content was complete, we could collate this into central template, before an end to end review took place to maintain consistency as well as follow grammar and spelling conventions. Finally, an interface was created to allow the assessment to be used online (as a self-assessment).
The result is an assessment that asks more questions the more capable you are and uses the ‘grey’ answers in graded questions to more specifically determine whether at least some aspects are present. This creates a shorter assessment (for those with a lower level) and a more granular outcome.
That’s all for now…
Next time, in our third blog, we will explain a little more about the results of doing the assessment, the outcomes generated and how they can be used to support improvement.
Remember, improvement and not numbers are the objective here. Knowing what you have and generating information on what you might need, underpinned with the guidance in the SIAM Bodies of Knowledge, will help to create clarity around organisational objectives, and how to improve.
So, check in with us soon to hear more about the assessment results and be sure to follow us on Twitter.
About the authors
Managers, Service Management – Kinetic IT. With a combined experience of over 50 years in service management, Michelle and Simon are well known in the industry. They are Lead Architects for the Scopism Service Integration and Management Professional Body of Knowledge (BoK) and founder members of the SIAM Foundation BoK architect team, as well as Subject Matter Experts for both EXIN and BCS in developing the accreditation around this.
The team was awarded Thought Leaders of the Year at the Professional Service Management Awards by the itSMF UK (in 2017). Both have been an active committee member of various service management groups and forums for many years, including the itSMF in WA. They shared the award of ITSM Thought Leader of the Year in 2018 and were both the Service Management Champion of the Year (Michelle in 2017, Simon in 2018) from itSMF Australia. Michelle was also awarded HDIs Top 25 Thought Leaders in Technical Support and Service Management for 2020. They are both passionate about service management and keen to share their knowledge.
