www.FastITILtemplates.

com
Post-Implementation Review
[Company Name]
[Company Name]
[Street Address]
[City State !ip Code]
[Creation "ate]
Notes#
T$e %ollowin& template is provided %or writin& a Post Implementation Review
doc'ment.
[Inside eac$ section te(t in &reen %ont )etween )rac*ets is incl'ded to provide
&'idance to t$e a't$or and s$o'ld )e deleted )e%ore p')lis$in& t$e %inal
doc'ment.]
Inside eac$ section te(t in )lac* %ont is incl'ded to provide a realistic e(ample
in w$ic$ networ* services $ave )een mi&rated to +indows Server ,--. R,.
Inside t$e e(ample te(t in 'nderlined )l'e %ont indicates a possi)le $yperlin*
to a report or doc'ment.
/o' are %ree to edit and 'se t$is template and its contents wit$in yo'r
or&ani0ation1 $owever we do as* t$at yo' don2t distri)'te t$is template on t$e
we) wit$o't e(plicit permission %rom 's.
Copyri&$ts# ITIL3 is a Re&istered Trade 4ar* o% t$e 5%%ice o% 6overnment Commerce in t$e
7nited 8in&dom and ot$er co'ntries.
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
Document Control
Preparation
Action Name Date
Release
Version Date
Released
Change
Notice
Pages
Affected
Remarks
Distribution List
Name Organiation Title
Pa&e ,
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
Ta)le o% Contents
!" #$#C%TIV# &%''AR( 4
)" INTROD%CTION 5
2.1 Background 5
2.2 Objectives 5
2.3 Scope 6
2.4 Post-Impementation "evie# $eam %embers 6
*" +INDIN,& 8
3.1 &ccompis'ment o( project goas )
3.2 Per(ormance %etrics *
3.3 Side-e((ects *
3.4 "esidua risks 1+
3.5 ,ost 1+
3.6 Sc'edue 11
3.- ,ustomers and .sers Satis(action12
-" CONCL%&ION 14
4.1 /essons /earned 14
4.2 "ecommendations 15
." ANN#$17
5.1 0ossar1 1-
5.2 /ist o( $abes 1)
5.3 "e(erences 1*
Pa&e 9
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
!" #/ecuti0e &ummar1
[+rite a )rie% s'mmary o% t$e content o% t$e Post-Implementation Review. T$e
e(ec'tive s'mmary is prod'ced %or )'siness p'rposes wit$ t$e o):ective t$at an
e(ec'tive can read it and 'nderstand t$e messa&e wit$o't $avin& to read t$e
w$ole doc'ment.
7se concise lan&'a&e s'mmari0in& ideas in t$e same order t$at t$ey appear in
t$e detailed contents. T$e s'mmary m'st )e a)le to )e read separately %rom t$e
rest o% t$e doc'ment and transmit t$e messa&e.]
T$is doc'ment is a report wit$ t$e %indin&s o% t$e Post-Implementation Review
t$at $as )een cond'cted to eval'ate t$e res'lts o% t$e pro:ect to mi&rate t$e
server in%rastr'ct're o% t$e or&ani0ation to +indows Server ,--. R,. T$e $i&$-
level &oals o% t$e pro:ect were to red'ce IT costs simpli%y mana&ement improve
sec'rity and increase application per%ormance.
From t$e %indin&s t$e concl'sions o)tained $ave )een#
;. Accomplishment of pro2ect goals# T$e stated initial &oals $ave )een
accomplis$ed.
,. Performance metrics# T$e implementation $as solved t$e pro)lems
t$at previo'sly e(isted wit$ some o% t$e per%ormance indicators. As a
res'lt all o% t$e 8PI are in a&reement wit$ t$e SLA.
9. &ide3effects# 7nder t$e new arc$itect're t$e proprietary client-server
application t$at mana&es t$e C'stomer Relations$ip 4ana&ement
<CR4= o% t$e or&ani0ation is sometimes %ree0in&. A wor*aro'nd $as
)een implemented to temporarily mana&e t$e res'ltin& incidents.
>. Residual risks# T$e predicted ris*s $ave )een e%%ectively mana&ed.
?. Costs# Costs sli&$tly e(ceeded predictions d'e to delays in one step o%
t$e implementation.
@. &chedule# "elays in t$e deployment p$ase were ca'sed )y a %ail're in
S'pply 4ana&ement to en&a&e appropriately a t$ird party s'pplier
responsi)le %or servers.
A. Customers and users satisfaction# C'stomers and clients satis%action
wit$ t$e mi&ration and wit$ t$e %inal o'tcome is at accepta)le levels.
T$e %ollowin& recommendations arise %rom t$is report#
;. Raise a ReB'est %or Comments <RFC= and &enerate a pro)lem tic*et to
resolve t$e incompati)ility in t$e proprietary client-server application.
,. Service Level 4ana&ement and S'pply 4ana&ement m'st revise
'nderpinnin& contracts to %'rt$er s'pport t$e o):ectives o% t$e services.
9. T$e Con%i&'ration 4ana&ement "ata)ase <C4"C= m'st )e revised to
'pdate all t$e relevant dependencies )etween Con%i&'ration Items.
>. Pro:ect proced'res s$o'ld )e improved to %'rt$er diminis$ t$e impact o%
t$e transition on 'sers.
Pa&e >
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
)" Introduction
[T$e Post-Implementation Review report is a doc'ment intended to capt're t$e
res'lts o% an ITIL Post-Implementation Review. T$e Post-Implementation Review
is aimed at determinin& to w$at e(tent a c$an&e or pro:ect $as )een s'ccess%'l
and to identi%y opport'nities %or improvement.
In t$is section yo' e(plain t$e )ac*&ro'nd o):ectives scope o% t$e Post-
Implementation Review and mem)ers o% t$e team w$o e(ec'ted t$e review.]
)"! 4ackground
[D(pose t$e )ac*&ro'nd to t$is c$an&eEpro:ect incl'din& w$y it was la'nc$ed
and $ow it was implemented. /o' can also e(plain $ow t$e Post-Implementation
Review was cond'cted and $ow its res'lts are %eedin& t$is report.]
A%ter an e(tensive analysis o% )ene%its and cons was cond'cted a decision was
ta*en to mi&rate all t$e in%rastr'ct're servers in t$e or&ani0ation to +indows
Server ,--. R,. Some o% t$e )ene%its e(pected were#
Red'ce costs t$ro'&$ e%%icient virt'ali0ation and less power cons'mption.
Simpli%y 4ana&ement.
Improve Sec'rity.
Increase application per%ormance t$ro'&$ new arc$itect'res.
At t$at time most o% t$e servers in t$e or&ani0ation were )ased in +indows
Server ,--9 and +indows Server ,--.. Firt'ali0ation was not still implemented
alt$o'&$ several proposals were made callin& to virt'ali0e eit$er 'sin& Gyper-F
%rom 4icroso%t or DSH %rom F4+are. T$e approved pro:ect called %or a p$ased
mi&ration o% all 4icroso%t servers to +indows Server ,--. R, and t$e
implementation o% a Gyper-F sol'tion.
A%ter s'ccess%'l implementation o% t$e pro:ect a Post-Implementation Review
was cond'cted to eval'ate res'lts si( mont$s a%ter s'ccess%'l mi&ration. T$e
%indin&s %rom t$is review are doc'mented in t$e c'rrent doc'ment.
)") Ob2ecti0es
[An ITIL Post-Implementation Review is per%ormed to con%irm t$at t$e
c$an&eEpro:ect $as met t$e stated o):ectives1 t$at c'stomers 'sers and
sta*e$olders are $appy wit$ t$e res'lts1 and t$at t$ere $ave )een no
'ne(pected side-e%%ects. It is also an important tool to correct co'rse i% needed
and to improve t$e c$an&eEpro:ect process in %'t're rec'rrences.]
T$e o):ectives o% t$is Post-Implementation Review $ave )een#
"emonstrate t$at t$e pro:ect $as ac$ieved its o):ectives and t$e
proposals in t$e )'siness case.
Pa&e ?
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
C$ec* i% c'stomers 'sers and sta*e$olders are satis%ied wit$ t$e
o'tcomes.
"eal wit$ 'ne(pected andEor 'ndesira)le side-e%%ects.
Gelp to decide i% any corrective action is needed.
Learn lessons to improve %'t're c$an&esEpro:ects implementation.
)"* &cope
[D(plain $ere w$ic$ elements o% a review $ave )een incl'ded and w$ic$ ot$ers
$ave )een e(cl'ded. Some o% t$e elements to de%ine t$e scope may )e#
C$an&eEpro:ect $as accomplis$ed t$e desired o):ectives.
7sers c'stomers and ot$er sta*e$olders are satis%ied wit$ t$e o'tcomes.
T$ere are no 'ne(pected or 'ndesira)le side-e%%ects to %'nctionality and
service levels.
T$e reso'rces 'sed to implement t$e c$an&e were as planned.
T$e release and deployment plan wor*ed correctly.
T$e c$an&e was implemented on time and to cost.
T$e remediation plan %'nctioned correctly i% needed.
.]
T$is doc'ment reviews t$e res'lts o% t$e implementation o% t$e pro:ect
I4i&ration to a +indows Server ,--. R, in%rastr'ct'reJ. T$e elements incl'ded
in t$e review $ave )een#
Accomplis$ment o% pro:ect &oals.
Per%ormance metrics.
Side-e%%ects.
Resid'al ris*s.
Costs.
Sc$ed'les.
7sers and c'stomers satis%action.
T$is doc'ment does not incl'de#
RemediationKs plan e%%ectiveness )eca'se its activation was not needed.
)"- Post3Implementation Re0ie5 Team 'embers
[Incl'de $ere t$e mem)ers o% t$e team w$o cond'cted t$e Post-Implementation
Review. I% possi)le mem)ers o% t$e Post-Implementation Review Team s$o'ld
not $ave participated in t$e act'al implementation o% t$e c$an&eEpro:ect
alt$o'&$ people w$o de%ined t$e ori&inal reB'irements or &ave tec$nical advice
co'ld )e incl'ded. T$ey s$o'ld $ave )een selected as impartial reviewers
wit$o't any interest or )ene%it in t$e positive or ne&ative o'tcome o% t$e review.]
T$e personnel t$at participated in t$e Post-Implementation Review are s$own in
Ta)le ;. Post-Implementation Review Team 4em)ers )elow#
Pa&e @
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
Name Position
Lo$n "oe Post-Implementation Review C$ie%
Lane "oe C$an&e Analyst
Lane Smit$ C'siness Relations$ip Analyst
Lo$n Smit$ Senior 7ser
Table !" Post3Implementation Re0ie5 Team 'embers"
Pa&e A
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
*" +indings
[T$e central part o% t$e Post-Implementation Review is to compare t$e ori&inal
&oals o% t$e c$an&eEpro:ect wit$ t$e ac$ieved o'tcomes and t$en learn any
lessons %rom res'lts to improve t$e s'ccess o% %'t're c$an&esEpro:ects.
Comparisons are to )e $eld %ollowin& t$e scopes de%ined in t$e section ,.9
a)ove. Select s')sections in yo'r doc'ment accordin&ly]
*"! Accomplishment of Pro2ect ,oals
["etermine w$et$er t$e implemented system $as ac$ieved its proposed
o'tcome and $as provided t$e desired )ene%its in s'pport o% t$e mission and
&oals.]
To meas're e%%ectively t$e intended )ene%its o% t$e pro:ect a&ainst t$e act'al
o'tcome several 8ey Per%ormance Indicators <8PI2s= and meas'rements were
previo'sly de%ined. T$e res'lts are s$own in t$e Ta)le ,. Initial Pro:ected and
Real 5'tcomes o% t$e 4i&ration.
Ob2ecti0e Initial Pro2ected Outcome De0iation
Red'ce costs
in "atacenter
t$ro'&$
e%%icient
virt'ali0ation
M ?->.. Eday M>-; Eday M>--.N Eday - M-.;
Eday
Less power
cons'mption
in t$e
"atacenter
?@ 8+$ Eday 9,.. 8+$
Eday
9,.N 8+$
Eday
O-.; 8+$ Eday
Simpli%y
4ana&ement
,.? $ E;---
'sersEday
;.? $ E;---
'sersEday
;.; $ E;---
'sersEday
- -.> $ E;---
'sersEday
Improve
Sec'rity
-.-@A
incidents Eday
-.-;-
incidents Eday
-.--??
incidents Eday
- -.-->?
incidents Eday
Increase
application
per%ormance
t$ro'&$ new
arc$itect'res
-.; s
Etransaction
-.@? s
Etransaction
-.?? s
Etransaction
--.; s
Etransaction
Table )" Initial6 Pro2ected and Real Outcomes of the 'igration"
T$e deviations o)served in eac$ o% t$e de%ined *ey indicators are wit$in t$e
accepted ran&es as de%ined in t$e desi&n o% t$e pro:ect.
T$e indicator o% sec'rity improvement may appear to indicate an over-
investment )eca'se meas'rement is %ar )etter t$an predicted. T$is )e$avior is
e(pected and is t$e res'lt o% t$e adoption o% strictest controls t$ro'&$ Federation
Services in a parallel pro:ect.
Pa&e .
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
*") Performance 'etrics
[C$ec* t$at t$e system t'rns to )e or contin'es to )e %it %or p'rpose as de%ined
in t$e ITIL Service Level A&reement Contract or ot$er a&reements. 4etrics can
descri)e per%ormance %actors li*e availa)ility capacity contin'ity or sec'rity.
Provide metrics %or as m'c$ areas as can )e a%%ected )y t$e c$an&eEpro:ect.]
To ens're t$e sta)ility o% t$e networ* services provided a%ter t$e pro:ect t$e
main 8PIs %rom t$e Service Level A&reement <SLA= were selected to c$ec* t$eir
)e$avior )e%ore and a%ter t$e implementation o% t$e mi&ration pro:ect. Res'lts
are s$own in t$e Ta)le 9. Per%ormance 4etrics.
'etric &LA Initial +inal &tatus
Percent o%
"irectory
access wit$in
a&reed
response time
N? N@.? N@.? In compliance
Percent o%
+e) access
wit$in a&reed
response time
N? N;., N@., In compliance
improved
pro)lem solved
Incidents
solved wit$in
a&reed time
N? NA.. NA.@ In compliance
Availa)ility o%
networ*
services
NN.? NN.,N NN.NN In compliance
improved
pro)lem solved
Table *" Performance 'etrics
Res'lts s$ow t$at sta)ility o% t$e system $as )een &'aranteed a%ter t$e
mi&ration and even improved. Some important pro)lems were also solved as a
res'lt. Previo's )reac$es in +e) access services were solved t$ro'&$ mi&ration
o% servers to @>-)it arc$itect're. 6eneral availa)ility was also improved t$an*s to
t$e implementation o% Live-4i&ration tec$niB'es.
Time to solve incidents sli&$tly deteriorate at %irst as a res'lt o% t$e learnin&
c'rve )'t later $as )een improvin&.
*"* &ide3#ffects
[D(plain 'ne(pected or 'ndesired side-e%%ects t$at mi&$t $ave )een appeared as
a conseB'ence o% t$e c$an&eEpro:ect.]
5ne 'ne(pected side-e%%ect arisin& %rom t$e mi&ration is a temporary %ree0in& in
t$e proprietary client-server application t$at mana&es t$e CR4 o% t$e
or&ani0ation. T$is e%%ect was not detected d'rin& t$e Dval'ation p$ase o% t$e
c$an&e and is c'rrently )een investi&ated )y t$e "evelopment Team. A
Pa&e N
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
wor*aro'nd $as )een p't in place to )e e(ec'ted eac$ time t$e incident occ'rs
'ntil a %inal resol'tion can )e mana&e t$ro'&$ Pro)lem 4ana&ement.
*"- Residual Risks
[T$e p'rpose o% t$is section is to eval'ate $ow ris*s identi%ied as part o% t$e
c$an&eEpro:ect $ave )een miti&ated t$ro'&$ t$e selected co'ntermeas'res and
w$ic$ resid'al ris*s remain. Falidate t$at all ris*s $ave )een identi%ied t$at a
plan e(ist to miti&ate t$em and t$at individ'al ris*s $ave )een miti&ated i% t$ey
occ'rred.]
As part o% t$e Dval'ation process t$e proposed c$an&e was eval'ated 'nder
)'siness %inancial and tec$nical impacts. Several ris*s were identi%ied in t$e
doc'ment <"oe PT$e ClientP. IT Service 4i&ration. Ris* Assessment Report.
,-;,= and co'ntermeas'res were desi&ned to miti&ated t$em d'rin& t$e
transition early li%e s'pport and operation p$ases.
T$e ris*s o% insta)ility d'rin& t$e transition p$ase were addressed t$ro'&$
remediation and 'ndo plans. Ris*s d'rin& early li%e s'pport and operations
p$ases were addressed t$ro'&$ a *nowled&e plan aimed to )etter prepare t$e
personnel to %ace 'npredicted conseB'ences. It $as not )een necessary 'ntil t$e
c'rrent date to activate any o% t$e remediation or 'ndo plans e(cept %or test
p'rposes.
Resid'al ris*s remain t$at some insta)ility co'ld still arise %rom t$e 'se o% t$e
new tec$nolo&ies. T$ose $ypot$etical events co'ld de%y t$e capacity o% t$e
personnel to deal wit$ t$em p'ttin& at ris* t$e ac$ievement o% t$e &'aranteed
services levels. T$e pro)a)ility o% s'c$ scenario $as )een calc'lated as )een
)elow -.;Q 'nder t$e ass'mptions in t$e a%orementioned doc'ment.
*". Cost
[Assess w$et$er t$e pro:ect was completed wit$in planned )'d&et and t$at
%inancial estimates were as predicted.]
T$e costs inc'rred as part o% t$e mi&ration pro:ect $as )een as s$own in t$e
Ta)le >. Costs.
Item Predicted Real De0iation
Capital Costs [7S"]
Gardware ,,.-- ,,;@- -@>-
So%tware >?--- >?--- -
Pro:ect desi&n
implementation R
commissionin&
,;--- ,;.?- .?-
5perational costs [7S" per day]
Sta%% 9,- 9,- -
DB'ipment ?, ?, -
S'pplies ,N ,..N --.;
Table -" Costs"
Pa&e ;-
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
As seen in t$e ta)le capital costs d'e to pro:ect desi&n implementation and
commissionin& e(ceeded t$eir )'d&eted %i&'re. T$is $appened d'e to some
delays in t$e time spent in implementation. T$is %i&'re was compensated in
some e(tent )y a decrease in t$e price o% $ardware.
T$e operational costs to operate t$e mi&rated services $ave )een )e$avin& as
predicted.
*"7 &chedule
[Assess w$et$er t$e c$an&eEpro:ect was e(ec'ted wit$in t$e sc$ed'led
time%rame. C$ec* i% all *ey milestones and delivera)les were met in t$e
predicted time.]
T$e predicted and act'al completion date %or eac$ milestone is s$own in t$e
Ta)le ?. 4ilestones Completion.
'ilestone 8
Deli0erable
Planned
completion date
Actual
completion date
De0iation
9da1s:
Fision
- Fision
doc'ment
- Pro:ect
str'ct're
AEAE;, AE@E;, -;
4i&ration plans
- F'nctional
speci%ications
- Pro:ect
sc$ed'le
- Ris*
assessment
AE,;E;, AE;NE;, -,
Prototype
- Prototype
testin& report
AE,.E;, AE,@E;, -,
Pilot
- Pilot testin&
report
.ENE;, .EAE;, -,
"eployment
- "eployment
report
.E;?E;, .E;AE;, O,
Darly li%e s'pport
- Service review
res'lts
.E,;E;, .E,9E;, O,
Table ." 'ilestones Completion"
As indicated in t$e ta)le pro:ect e(ec'tion &ot delayed d'rin& t$e deployment
p$ase. Reason %or t$at set)ac* was an 'ne(pected %ail're in s'pport %rom a
t$ird party s'pplier o% t$e $ardware eB'ipment.
Pa&e ;;
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
*"; Customers and %sers &atisfaction
[S'rveys are cond'cted to sense w$et$er c'stomers and 'sers perceive t$e
res'lts o% t$e pro:ectEc$an&e as satis%actory. +$ile c'stomers are t$e %inal
receivers o% t$e services 'sers are t$ose w$o directly interact wit$ t$e inter%aces
o% t$e service.]
In order to meas're satis%action wit$ t$e mi&ration process and wit$ t$e services
a%ter completion o% t$e pro:ect separate s'rveys were delivered#
A c'stomersK s'rvey was &iven to )'siness mana&ers.
A 'sersK s'rvey was &iven to 'sers directly interactin& wit$ t$e inter%aces
o% t$e services.
A scorin& system was de%ined to meas're satis%action#
?# Fery $appy.
># Gappy.
9# Ne'tral.
,# 7n$appy.
;# Fery 'n$appy.
6lo)al res'lts are s$own in t$e Ta)le @. C'stomers and 'sers satis%action.
Topic &core
"id pro:ect &oals s'pport yo'r needsS >.@
Are yo' seen tan&i)le )ene%its %rom t$e o'tcomesS >..
+as transition adeB'ately mana&ed to minimi0e potential
e%%ects in t$e B'ality o% services receivedS
>.;
Are yo' satis%ied wit$ t$e B'ality o% services a%ter t$e
concl'sion o% t$e pro:ectS
>.?
Table 7" Customers and users satisfaction"
Since t$e t$res$old de%ined %or accepta)le satis%action is > it can )e concl'ded
t$at t$e mi&ration process $as )een accomplis$ed wit$ accepta)le c'stomers
and 'sers satis%action.
4ore emp$asis m'st )e p't into %'t're transition proced'res in order to %'rt$er
minimi0e t$e impact on 'sers.
Pa&e ;,
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
-" Conclusion
["escri)e $ow t$e c$an&eEpro:ect met <or did not meet= t$e o):ectives initially
stated. Gere yo' can incl'de lessons learned and recommendations.]
-"! Lessons Learned
["escri)e any lessons learned in t$is c$an&eEpro:ect t$at can )e $elp%'l %or
%'t're c$an&esEpro:ects. T$e easiest way is to capt're events as t$ey occ'r and
write down w$at can )e learnt %rom t$em.]
From t$e %indin&s t$e %ollowin& lessons can )e e(tracted to serve as a %eed)ac*
into %'t're c$an&es or pro:ects#
;. Accomplishment of pro2ect goals# A clear vision to w$ic$ t$e pro:ect
ad$ered e%%ected a total %'l%illment o% t$e stated &oals wit$ very little
deviation %rom t$e desired o'tcomes.
,. Performance metrics# A care%'l desi&n and p$ased implementation
oriented to t$e )'siness o):ectives res'lted in a positive o'tcome wit$
all t$e *ey indicators wit$in t$e val'es a&reed in t$e SLA and t$e
resol'tion o% some o% t$e previo's per%ormance pro)lems.
9. &ide3effects# An 'ne(pected res'lt was an incompati)ility in t$e
proprietary client-server application t$at mana&es t$e CR4 o% t$e
or&ani0ation. T$at came as a res'lt o% ins'%%icient testin& in t$e
Dval'ation p$ase. Inconsistencies in t$e way t$at t$e CR4 application is
incorporated into t$e Con%i&'ration 4ana&ement "ata)ase <C4"C=
)ro'&$t a)o't a %ail're to predict and test t$e possi)le tec$nical impact
in t$e application service.
>. Residual risks# An e%%ective ris* assessment in t$e initial steps to&et$er
wit$ t$e appropriate selection o% co'ntermeas'res res'lted in t$e
accepta)le miti&ation o% t$e ris*s detected. Tested 'ndo plans were
ready alt$o'&$ t$ere was no need %or real activation.
?. Costs# Costs sli&$tly e(ceeded predictions d'e to delays in one step o%
t$e implementation. Special care m'st )e p't in mana&in& 'ncertainties
to avoid e(ceedin& t$e )'d&et.
@. &chedule# "elays in t$e deployment p$ase ca'sed a moderate %inancial
loss. Reason %or t$e delay was a %ail're in S'pply 4ana&ement to
en&a&e appropriately a t$ird party s'pplier. S'pply 4ana&ement and
Service Level 4ana&ement m'st improve t$eir proced'res to
compromise s'ppliers wit$ t$e desired o'tcome.
A. Customers and users satisfaction# T$e en&a&ement )etween
C'siness Relations$ip 4ana&ement and c'stomers %rom t$e )e&innin&
and a care%'l plannin& res'lted in accepta)le levels o% satis%action %rom
c'stomers and clients. 4ore emp$asis in plannin& %'t're c$an&es and
pro:ects mi&$t improve t$e c'stomers and 'sers perceptions a)o't t$e
transition proced'res.
Pa&e ;9
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
-") Recommendations
[Gere yo' may incl'de )ot$ c$an&eEpro:ect-speci%ic recommendations and
recommendations to improve t$e overall IT c$an&eEpro:ect mana&ement
processes. Recommendation m'st )e as m'c$ actiona)le as possi)le.]
To solve t$e pro)lems detected in t$is Post-Implementation Review and to
improve res'lts in %'t're c$an&es and pro:ects t$e %ollowin& recommendations
are &iven#
;. Raise an RFC and &enerate a pro)lem tic*et wit$ Pro)lem 4ana&ement
to resolve t$e incompati)ility in t$e new arc$itect're o% t$e proprietary
client-server application t$at mana&es t$e CR4 o% t$e or&ani0ation.
,. Service Level 4ana&ement and S'pply 4ana&ement m'st ens're t$at
t$ird party providers )e compromised wit$ t$e o):ectives o% %'t're
pro:ects. 7nderpinnin& contracts s$o'ld )e revised or created i% t$ey do
not e(ist to %'rt$er s'pport t$e o):ectives o% t$e services.
9. T$e C4"C m'st )e revised to 'pdate all t$e relevant dependencies
)etween Con%i&'ration Items.
>. Pro:ect 4ana&ement IT Service Contin'ity 4ana&ement and Release
and "eployment 4ana&ement s$o'ld improve t$eir proced'res to %'rt$er
diminis$ t$e impact o% t$e transition on 'sers.
Pa&e ;>
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
." Anne/
[Insert $ere anyt$in& yo' may li*e to attac$ to s'pport t$e doc'ment.]
."! ,lossar1
[T$is section provides t$e de%initions o% terms acronyms and a))reviations
reB'ired to 'nderstand t$is doc'ment.]
Term Definition
C'siness Case L'sti%ication %or a si&ni%icant item o% e(pendit're. T$e )'siness case incl'des in%ormation
a)o't costs )ene%its options iss'es ris*s and possi)le pro)lems.
C'siness
Relations$ip
4ana&ement
T$e process responsi)le %or maintainin& a positive relations$ip wit$ c'stomers.
Capital Cost T$e cost o% p'rc$asin& somet$in& t$at will )ecome a %inancial asset
C$an&e T$e addition modi%ication or removal o% anyt$in& t$at co'ld $ave an e%%ect on IT services.
Con%i&'ration Item
<CI=
Any component or ot$er service asset t$at needs to )e mana&ed in order to deliver an IT
service.
Con%i&'ration
4ana&ement
"ata)ase <C4"C=
A data)ase 'sed to store con%i&'ration records t$ro'&$o't t$eir li%ecycle.
C'stomer Someone w$o )'ys &oods or services. T$e c'stomer o% an IT service provider is t$e
person or &ro'p w$o de%ines and a&rees t$e service level tar&ets.
"elivera)le A planned o'tp't.
"eployment T$e activity responsi)le %or movement o% new or c$an&ed $ardware so%tware
doc'mentation process etc. to t$e live environment.
Darly Li%e S'pport
<DLS=
A sta&e in t$e service li%ecycle t$at occ'rs at t$e end o% deployment and )e%ore t$e
service is %'lly accepted into operation.
Impact A meas're o% t$e e%%ect o% an incident pro)lem or c$an&e on )'siness processes.
Incident An 'nplanned interr'ption to an IT service or red'ction in t$e B'ality o% an IT service.
IT Service
Contin'ity
4ana&ement
T$e process responsi)le %or mana&in& ris*s t$at co'ld serio'sly a%%ect IT services.
8ey Per%ormance
Indicator <8PI=
A metric t$at is 'sed to $elp mana&e an IT service process plan pro:ect or ot$er activity.
5perational Cost T$e cost res'ltin& %rom r'nnin& t$e IT services
Pilot A limited deployment o% an IT service a release or a process to t$e live environment.
Pa&e ;?
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
Term Definition
Post-
Implementation
Review <Post-
Implementation
Review=
A review t$at ta*es place a%ter a c$an&e or a pro:ect $as )een implemented. It
determines i% t$e c$an&e or pro:ect was s'ccess%'l and identi%ies opport'nities %or
improvement.
Pro)lem A ca'se o% one or more incidents.
Pro)lem
4ana&ement
T$e process responsi)le %or mana&in& t$e li%ecycle o% all pro)lems.
Pro:ect A temporary or&ani0ation wit$ people and ot$er assets t$at is reB'ired to ac$ieve an
o):ective or ot$er o'tcome.
Remediation Actions ta*en to recover a%ter a %ailed c$an&e or release.
ReB'est For
C$an&e <RFC=
A %ormal proposal %or a c$an&e to )e made.
Resol'tion Action ta*en to repair t$e root ca'se o% an incident or pro)lem or to implement a
wor*aro'nd.
Response Time A meas're o% t$e time ta*en to complete an operation or transaction.
Ris* A possi)le event t$at co'ld ca'se $arm or loss or a%%ect t$e a)ility to ac$ieve o):ectives.
Service Level
A&reement <SLA=
An a&reement )etween an IT service provider and a c'stomer. A service level a&reement
descri)es t$e IT service doc'ments service level tar&ets and speci%ies t$e
responsi)ilities o% t$e IT service provider and t$e c'stomer.
Service Level
4ana&ement
T$e process responsi)le %or ne&otiatin& ac$ieva)le service level a&reements and
ens'rin& t$at t$ese are met.
Sta*e$older A person w$o $as an interest in an or&ani0ation pro:ect IT service etc. Sta*e$olders
may )e interested in t$e activities tar&ets reso'rces or delivera)les.
S'pplier
4ana&ement
T$e process responsi)le %or o)tainin& val'e %or money %rom s'ppliers ens'rin& t$at all
contracts and a&reements wit$ s'ppliers s'pport t$e needs o% t$e )'siness and t$at all
s'ppliers meet t$eir contract'al commitments.
7nderpinnin&
Contract
A contract )etween an IT service provider and a t$ird party.
7ser A person w$o 'ses t$e IT service on a day-to-day )asis.
Table ;" ,lossar1"
.") List of Tables
Ta)le ;. Post-Implementation Review Team 4em)ers..................................................A
Ta)le ,. Initial Pro:ected and Real 5'tcomes o% t$e 4i&ration.......................................
Ta)le 9. Per%ormance 4etrics........................................................................................ N
Ta)le >. Costs.............................................................................................................. ;;
Ta)le ?. 4ilestones Completion...................................................................................;;
Ta)le @. C'stomers and 'sers satis%action..................................................................;,
Ta)le A. 6lossary......................................................................................................... ;@
Pa&e ;@
www.FastITILtemplates.com Post-Implementation Review
."* References
"oe L. <,-;,=. "The Client". IT Service Migration. Risk Assessment Report.
I% yo' %ind t$is Post-Implementation Review template $elp%'l yo'2ll %ind many more
$elp%'l ITIL templates at www.FastITILtemplates.com
Pa&e ;A