ITIL Adoption Model Based on UTAUT

Faten Qutaifan, Azza Al HilaIi and Noha Tarek

American University of SharjahP.O. Box 26666Sharjah, UAEe-mail: g00014365@aus.edu, g00035377@aus.edu and g00023380@aus.edu

Abstract

As organizations implement ITIL to enhance the IT governance they either study critical success factors, or take consultants advice on best practices for maximum probability of succeeding with the organizational culture change. Meanwhile, the adoption of such change is not widely discussed owing to the lack of adoption models that address governance frameworks.  This paper proposes the use of the technology adoption model UTAUT as an adoption model of IT governance frameworks, specifically ITIL. In order for the model to specifically cater to ITIL adoption, it was supported by critical success factors of ITIL implementation. These critical success factors are proposed to have a direct impact on constructs that define the adoption. The proposed model was then implemented by applying it to a case study of a company where the ITIL implementation project failed. As a result to analyzing the case study in light of the adoption model, a road map to successful implementation of ITIL is proposed.

Keywords

Information Technology Infrastructure Library, ITIL, ITIL Success Factors, ITIL Adoption, UTAUT, implementation road map

1 Introduction

As managements recognize that the role of IT is essential to their core business, their demand increases for a governance model or a quality improvement framework such as Six Sigma Total Quality Management (TQM) or Business Process Reengineering (BPR). Two problems lie in adopting conventional quality models, first they are basically designed for products not services, secondly, they are very general in scope. These two issues were addressed by researchers and governmental bodies resulting in the development of governance frameworks targeting IT such as CMMI, ITIL and COBIT.

Another interest started forming in the IT community directing companies towards a service- based approach rather than the technology focus, forming the IT Service Management (ITSM) concept. Among the three stated IT governance models, ITIL proved best adherence to ITSM. [7]

Implementing ITIL however has proven challenging and dependent on various critical factors each of which might compromise the implementation project in all. This statement might seem generic and pessimistic; however, many papers conclude very similar sets of critical success factors (CFS) which imply that each of these factors have equal contribution weight to the success of ITIL implementation. Based on this, it was found that a large number of the CSFs are not technology-based, that is, it doesn’t depend on the vendor or application selected to aid in implementing ITIL. On the contrary, most of the CSF relate to user acceptance of the framework. To aid in reducing the friction of implementing ITIL, a methodology needs to be employed that takes into consideration both human and technological factors. Accordingly, this paper will first study ITIL implementation challenges, then technology adoption models in order to propose a roadmap for ITIL implementation.

John Q. Student, 2011: I grant the American University of Sharjah the non exclusive right to use this work for the University's own purposes and to make single copies of the work available to the public on a not-for-profit basis if copies are not otherwise available.

1.1 Contribution

The limited research found on ITIL implementation concentrates on describing success factors and best implementation practices. On the other hand, adoption models such as TAM and UTAUT are proposed for new technologies but not frameworks. This paper aims to apply UTAUT technology adoption model to an IT management framework, namely, ITIL. To do so, a roadmap for implementing ITIL in light of UTAUT is proposed. Critical Success Factors (CSF) of implementing ITIL are identified through a comprehensive literature review. CSFs are then related to the UTAUT adoption model which is then applied to a case study. The case study portrays the initiative of implementing ITIL in a relatively young stock exchange market.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL)

ITIL as stated by the ITIL on its official website is a documentation of process-based best practices that when implemented successfully improve quality of IT services. ITIL provides guidance to a number of generic managerial objectives; align IT with business; reduce IT cost and increase efficiency [1]. To summarize, researchers concluded two major reasons explaining the move towards implementing ITIL one being the increased focus on customer service [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Another reason stated is the increased interest in effective and transparent IT governance [5]. Historically, ITIL –V1 framework was constructed after research and interviews with IT experts conducted by the Office of Government Commerce, UK (previously named: Central Communication and telecom Agency) in 1980s. [5] [6] [7] ITIL-V2 was released in 2000 were the service concept was incorporated into the model [2]. Being a quality improvement framework, ITIL is similar to other quality frameworks in the aspect that it “reorganizes work, not staff” [1]. Hence, reduction in IT operational cost is not a short-term achievement, also, simply because ITIL adoption may take years. The difference between ITIL and other frameworks is mainly in 1) being designed specifically for Information technology management 2) the service quality concentration. ITIL implementation is not spelled out in documentations, leaving managers wandering, what is the best practice to implement the best practice. [1] For that, consultants, vendor, deep training are essential. Another unappealing trait of ITIL is the resistance it receives by staff due to poor change management, a study even showed that an organization opted against ITIL after assessing their ability to implement it; the reason stated was “Not enough of the organization would participate”. [1] To overcome, or at least reduce ITIL implementation limitations and setbacks, researchers studied critical success factors (CSF), and how users perceive IT frameworks.

2.2 Critical Success Factors for implementation of ITIL

A literature review is conducted to identify critical factors for successful implementation of ITIL. The first paper used is a meta-analysis of previous studies on critical success factors (CSF) [2].Two of the papers reviewed were multi-case studies of organizations that have implemented ITIL were the authors interviewed ITIL stakeholders in studied organizations [3] [4] [8]. Another paper used to identify CSFs was based on results of a questionnaire completed by itSMF National Conference delegates [5]. The final paper studied was also a multi-case study where authors interviewed ITIL projects stakeholders, however, the findings of this paper present barriers instead of success factors- to successfully implement ITIL [6]. Hence we will negate these factors to their positive counterpoints to use them as CSFs.

Management Support

Top management support is essential for successful implementation of any initiatives that might alter the organization culture. Hence, as the case is with all quality improvement frameworks, the study conducted by [8] shows that ITIL demands management involvement. Management support and commitment play two important roles, first it endorse policy and enforce compliance to following newly implemented standard processes. The other essential role management support plays is guaranteed funding needed for consultancy, tools, and training [3]. As top management put their weight behind an initiative they trigger communication between stakeholders [1]. As management support is only granted after solid proof of concept, management will be aware of the time lag between investing resources in ITIL project and achieving goals [6], hence this critique aspect could be spared.

ITIL Awareness and Training

General training of ITIL fundamentals allows stakeholders to effectively communicate about ITIL processes [1]. Training and awareness reduced employee resistance [3] and increased cooperation and adoption of new processes [1]. Besides formal training, learning, awareness and knowledge sharing comes in several forms; (1) lessons from other organizations through consultants, (2) existing knowledge shared in workshops, cross functional teams and job rotations 3) learning from completed implementation phases; lessons learned and feedbacks after every implemented ITIL process [4].

Interdepartmental Collaboration

Interdepartmental collaboration is identified as a CSF by two papers [2] [3], the authors explain that this specific CSF is needed to maximize knowledge sharing and communication that is essential for ITIL adoption. Collaboration will make modifying –when needed- cross-functional process smoother, hence, enhances the throughput of and minimizing the risk of implementation project from running overtime. On the long run, effective collaboration supports adoption [2].

Process Priority

From analysis of four organizations of different sizes, sectors and at disperse locations, authors of [3] concluded that accurate process definition has priority over tool selection. Relating to Business Process Reengineering (BPR), defining process accurately is fundamental as it might eliminate the need to go thought with a reengineer initiative.

Tool Selection

Toolset is critical in terms of time of selection; before or after processes are defined, for the IT department might end up with an underutilized tool [3]. The same study presents another case were timely selection of a toolset was not problematic, on the contrary, it allowed for easier integration of processes. On a different front, tool selection is identified as critical by [1] because of its influence on perceived usefulness (PU).

Change Management

Alongside management support and appointment of skilled project champion CSFs, change management practices (acknowledgement of organizational readiness, quick wins and marketing campaign of ITIL framework, etc) proved to be result definers for several cases [4] [6]. Proper change management execution is critical in situations where big bang (revolutionary) implementation strategy is adopted. Change management sits in the middle tying two CSFs together: training and staff awareness facilitate smooth change within an organization, [3], which in turn influences users’ perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU) [1].

Customer Orientation

In the reviewed literature, three different perspectives were found in relation to customer. one paper suggest that setting customer-oriented metrics is key to successful ITIL implementation, this paper advocates service-based statistics over machine-based for instance; server downtime [3] [6]. The other paper that identified customer focus as a CSF stressed on the need to keep customer/user best interest in consideration before and implementing ITIL [4]. The final perspective in customer-orientation might seem to contradict with the previous paper in claiming that focusing on process quality shouldn’t be the ultimate goal, however, it should be product quality. Authors of this paper believe that as long as IT-customer interaction occurs after problems occur, then, ITIL efforts are classified as firefighting rather than proactive [6].

Use of Consultants & Consultant selection

Throughout ITIL implementation, consultants’ role might go from strictly being trainers to IT/project managers or going all the way to being process owners [4]. The involvement level of consultants’ is decided by the implementation strategy, that is, a clean slate (implementing ITIL as a project replacing all legacy processes) requires- and is recommended from an Business Process Reengineering- heavy consultant intervention. Knowledge transfer to permanent staff becomes critical once implementation is completed.

Implementation Strategy and Design

Two implementation strategies were discussed in [4] incremental and revolutionary, the first is implementing ITIL processes one at a time, and the other describes implementing ITIL as a project of several major concurrent activities. Authors of this paper relate the choice of implementation strategy to initiation trigger; either genuine business needs identified by the IT body or an opportunity to document systematic practice with in the IT body (here, the decision making is autocratic as it comes from outside the IT body). The paper concludes by suggesting contingency approach to ITIL implementation where a proper assessment of IT needs is carried out in order to define ITIL implementation goals. With the contingency approach, the authors argue minimizing risk. Looking at the same implementation strategies from a different view, paper [4] first related the strategy choice to sector type; public and private. However, the authors eventually concluded that principles of good project management are to be adhered to regardless of the sector, and of the ITIL implementation strategy choice. The same is stressed on project management skills as argued by [1] as it directly impacts perceived usefulness (PU)

Project Champion

Out of 109 of itSMF conference questionnaire respondents, 77 strongly agree and 29 agree that in addition to having senior management commitment, assigning a project champion to advocate and promote ITIL is critical to the success of ITIL initiative implementation [5].

Ability of IT staff to adapt to change

Out of 108 of itSMF conference questionnaire respondents, 65 strongly agree and 37 agree that ability of IT staff to accept change is critical to the success of ITIL initiative implementation [5].

Quality of IT staff allocated for ITIL

Out of 108 respondents to the questionnaire distributed at the itSMF conference, 65 strongly agreed and 37 agreed that competency of ITIL staff association with implementing ITIL is a CSF [5]. If ITIL training general training positively impacts communication and collaboration on ITIL processes [1], it can be drawn that competent knowledge in ITIL is critical to smoother implementation. Further proof is some organizations’ preference to hire external consultants with longer firsthand experience.

Monitoring and Evaluation of ITIL Implementation

IT staff feedback on implementation performance ultimately effects attitude toward use ATU [1]. The concept of Knowledge creation (or learning from completed implementation phases) in [4] can reasonably be viewed as an evaluation method.

The table below summarizes the conducted comparison between five different research papers in terms of reported critical success factors:

Table 1: Identified CSF for successful ITIL implementation

Identified Critical Success Factor Paper [2]

Paper [3]

Paper [4]

Paper [5]

Paper [6]

Paper [7]

Paper [8]

Paper [9]

1 Management Support X X X X X X X

2 ITIL Training, Awareness and Knowledge management

X X X X X X X

3 Interdepartmental Collaboration X X X

4 Process Priority X X

5 Tool Selection X X X

6 Change Management X X X X X

7 Customer Orientation X X X X

8 Use of Consultants & Consultant selection X

9 Implementation Strategy and Design X X X X X

10 Project Champion X X X

11 Ability of IT staff to adapt to change X

12 Quality of IT staff allocated for ITIL X X

13 Monitoring and evaluation of ITIL Implementation

X X

14 Realization plan X X X

In Table 2, the 14 identified CSFs for implementing ITIL are grouped into seven key classes of factors. The 7 key CSFs were originally proposed by [2] as the main CSF relevant to ITIL implementation after conducting a qualitative meta-analysis of available ITIL research. These factors were then used as input influencing the TAM adoption model used by the paper which is explained in section 2.3. In this paper, however, the list of identified CSF is extended to 14 in an attempt to have a comprehensive-and simultaneously detailed- set of factors. The same 7-class classification will be used as follows:

Table 2: Classification of identified CSFs

CSFs Key Classes Identified CSFs

1 Top management support Management Support

2 Change management and organizational cultureChange Management

Ability of IT Staff to Adapt to Change

3 Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring And Evaluation of ITIL Implementation

4 Communication and cooperationInterdepartmental Collaboration

Realization Plan

5 Project management and governanceProject Champion

Customer Orientation

6 Training and competence of involved stakeholder in ITIL project

ITIL Training, Awareness & Knowledge Management

Quality of IT Staff Allocated tor ITIL

7 ITIL process implementation and applied technology

Implementation Strategy and Design

Process Priority

Tool Selection

Use Of Consultants & Consultant Selection

As can be noted from table 2, and as was suspected, only two classes mapped one-to-one to the identified CSFs; Top management support and Monitoring and Evaluation. These two factors as very essential and basic to any quality improvement framework in any context whether it was ITSM or manufacturing. The remaining 5 key factors are

expanded into more specific and differentiated factors. Change Management and Organization Culture besides conventional change management includes the ability of individual members in an organization to accept and then adapt to change. Communication and Cooperation factor is achieved by interdepartmental collaboration and further supported by means of Benefits Realization Plans. Project Management and governance suggest two critical factors to be considered, assigning a project champion, following customer-oriented strategy when defining implantation scope of ITIL and finally setting customer-oriented metrics are all essential to the success of an ITIL project. As for the training factor, two CSFs are involved for a successful implementation, first the ITIL knowledge which covers the flow if ITIL knowledge throughout the project (starting from stakeholders acquiring appropriate training, to spreading awareness among staff through workshops to gaining first-hand knowledge from completed implementation phases). The second part being quality of IT staff allocated to ITIL initiative is a critical factor that is a responsibility of management. Lastly, the key factor of ITIL Process Implementation and Applied Technology is constructed of 4 CSF: Implementation Strategy and Design, Process Priority, Tool Selection and finally, the Use Of Consultants and Consultant Selection, each of which are discussed in the earlier.

2.3 Adoption of ITIL

In fact few studies were conducted to determine the success factors that affect the implementation of ITIL; even fewer researchers studied the adoption of ITIL.[2] is one of the very few studies which examined the effect of critical success factors of implementing ITIL on the adoption factors represented by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). This study had synthesized seven key success factors for Implementing ITIL including: (1) top management support, (2) communication and cooperation, (3) training and competence of involved stakeholder in ITIL project, (4) change management and organizational culture, (5) project management and governance, (6) ITIL process implementation and applied technology, (7) monitoring and evaluation. The study had used Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to study the adoption of ITIL. TAM was developed by Davis in [10] and [11] and it simply posits that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are major determinants for a user’s intention to use a technology where, perceived usefulness is defined as the extent to which an individual believes that using technology will enhance his/her job. Whereas, perceived ease of use is defined as the degree to which an individual believes that using a technology will require minimum effort.The paper [2] didn’t only examine the critical success factors and their effect on adoption drivers but it also explored the relationship between the critical success factors themselves. The study concluded that in terms of critical success factors top management support has an impact on communication and cooperation, change project and governance, monitoring and evaluation, change management, organizational culture, as well as an indirect influence on IT staffs’ acceptance. The study also reported that Training and competence of involved stakeholders influence change management and organizational culture. In addition, the study found out that project management and governance is affected by Communication and Cooperation and it has an impact on ITIL process implementation and applied technology and also monitoring and evaluation. On the other hand, [2] indicated that in terms of adoption factors perceived ease of use is affected by Training and competence of involved stakeholders and Change management and organizational culture. While perceived usefulness is impacted by competence of involved stakeholders, top management support, Project management and governance and also Change management and organizational culture. Moreover, [2] reported that Monitoring and evaluation has an impact on Attitude towards Use as depicted in the figure 1 below.

Figure 1: ITIL Adoption Model Based on TAM

Despite being the most widely applied technology adoption model, TAM has some limitations and according to [12] the most common criticism of TAM is the lack of actionable guidance or interventions to practitioners. Therefore this paper will use an upgraded version of TAM, which considers a unified view of user acceptance, to study the adoption of ITIL. The adoption model of choice is the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model developed in [13]. The UTAUT model is a result of synthesizing and reviewing eight different technology acceptance models and it presents a unified view of user acceptance which has four main constructs: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions [13]. Also, the study in [13] had compared the synthesized UTAUT model to all of the individual models which were used in developing this model and the results of the empirical studies showed that UTAUT did better than any of the models in explaining the variance in user acceptance.

Also, the UTAUT model considers four moderators for the key relationships: age, gender, experience and voluntariness of use [13] as depicted in figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

According to Venkatesh in [13] performance expectancy is defined as the degree to which an individual believes that using the system will help him or her to attain gains in job performance. While effort expectancy is defined as the degree of ease associated with the use of the system. In addition, Venkatesh defines the social as the degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use the new system whereas facilitating conditions is defined as the degree to which an individual believes that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support.

This paper will review the critical success factors (CSFs) for implementation of ITIL in the literature review and use the synthesized CSFs to qualitatively study their effect on the constructs of the UTAUT adoption model in terms of ITIL adoption.

The relationship between the critical success factors and the UTAUT model is proposed in the below table:

UTATU Constructs definition Affected By CSFsPerformance expectancy

The degree to which an individual believes that using the system will help him or her to attain gains in job performance.

(1) communication and cooperation(2) project management and

governance(3) change management and

organizational culture

Effort expectancy The degree of ease associated with the use of (1) change management and

the system. organizational culture(2) training and competence of

involved stakeholder in ITIL project

(3) ITIL process implementation and applied technology

Social influence The degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use the new system

(1) top management support(2) monitoring and evaluation

Facilitating conditions The degree to which an individual believes that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system

(1) top management support(2) training and competence of

involved stakeholder in ITIL project

(3) ITIL process implementation and applied technology

The proposed model is depicted in the figure 3 below:

2.4 Case Study: ITIL implementation at a developing stock exchange.

ITIL has taken the world by a storm and has become one of the most widely implemented approaches for Information service management worldwide. Companies of different sizes and from different industries are venturing into ITIL implementation; hoping to achieve the alignment of IT with business goals, the higher efficiency levels and the operational cost cuts promised by ITIL. According to Forrester research, in 2004 20% of the billion dollar companies had adopted ITIL and according to the same source ITIL adoption was expected to reach 40% by end of 2006 and was expected to grow up to 80% by end of 2008 [12]. Also, according to a more recent study in 2008 Data dimensions reported that 59% of companies in United States (US) and 66% of organizations outside the US had adopted ITIL [13]. This case study examines the experience of ITIL implementation at a developing stock exchange in an attempt to identify the factors that drive success of ITIL implementation and highlight the pitfalls which could impede the adoption of this framework.

Figure 3 ITIL adoption Model Based on UTAUT

2.4.1 How ITIL Implementation Was Initiated

The stock exchange of interest is fairly young; it was established about 11 years ago. From the conception of the idea to the launching date in 2000, one year passed during which the exchange was set up and ad-hoc processes emerged and evolved based on the constantly changing business needs; there was no formal planning for business processes in general and for the IT processes in particular. Consequently, none of the processes reached maturity level; scoring low on efficiency and service quality. At first, the lack of properly planned and defined processes had no significant impact on the performance of the daily activities, but not until the year 2004 when the stock market had experienced a strong economic growth. During the boom period, which started in 2004 and had stretched throughout the year 2005, the stock market became active. There was a large number of trading activities with large trading volumes which added an extra load on the trading system and increased the network traffic. This rapid increase in the number of active traders and their trading activities rendered the trading engine inoperative and caused the network to experience some technical glitches during the critical trading hours. Interrupting a trading session is considered disastrous for a stock market as a split of a second can mean a loss of invaluable trades and therefore a downtime during trading hours is deemed extremely costly. Unfortunately, the disruption of the trading service doesn’t only translate to monetary losses but it can easily shake the investors’ confidence in the reliability of exchange as well.

When the trading session was suspended due to the technical problems, everybody on the IT team was literally running around trying to resolve the issue. No one had a clear idea of where to start from or how to tackle the problem as no defined procedures were available. This major event caused a fuss which made its way to the press specially that some investors panicked over losing deals while brokers complained about losing connection to the trading system. The whole situation was a big mess top management was dissatisfied while investors and trading members were frustrated. The helpdesk was showered with phone calls and even office phones and personal mobile phones of the IT team didn’t stop ringing. This all had added up to the lack of defined processes and aggravated the pressure placed on the IT personal which made it even harder for them to solve the problem in a timely manner. Eventually, the issue was resolved but after that top management started posing questions as in what had caused the issue? Why did it take so long to solve the problem? Was it a temporary fix or a permanent solution? Will the same issue ever occur again? The operational manager who happened to be the IT manager as well was facing so many questions that he had answers to none.

The Information Technology Department was listed under the Market Operations Division and consisted of eight sections namely IT Quality Assurance and Complaint section, Office Technology section, Infrastructure section (Network & Helpdesk), Clearing Settlement & Depositary System section, Trading System section, Information Dissemination and Provision section, Business Process & Project Management section and Security & Business Continuity section. The heads of the eight aforementioned sections report directly to the head of the Market Operations Division.

The operational manager got an advice from a friend who happened to be visiting the company. This visitor was the Chief Information officer (CIO) of HSBC bank which at that time had already implemented ITIL. The CIO of HSBC bank had advised the operational manager to implement ITIL as it will fix the situation. The CIO of HSBC promised the operational manager that ITIL will help increase the efficiency, minimize the downtime, cut the operational cost and improve the service quality. The operational manager acted upon this recommendation and appointed one of IT team members to be responsible for the implementation of ITIL in the exchange. That was how the ITIL initiative started at this exchange.

2.4.2 The Implementation Journey

The employee who was nominated to lead the ITIL implementation didn’t initially know what ITIL is and had no clue what it does and how can it be deployed therefore he contacted a consultancy company to help with the implementation of ITIL in the exchange.

During that time period, the year of 2005, ITIL-V2 was around and ITIL-V3 wasn’t planned yet. The ITIL implementation coordinator along with the consultancy company planned for the implementation of ITIL. As part of plan, the consultancy recommended sending the employees for ITIL training courses. The IT team was assigned to a three day crash course training for ITIL. Afterwards, they were asked to take the ITIL exam certification.

Unfortunately, the IT team didn’t take the training seriously and as a result the majority wasn’t able to pass the exam and some of them required extra training sessions by the consultancy company. The reason why the IT team took the training lightly was because they were not part of the decision of implementing ITIL. The IT team wasn’t informed of the perused goals of ITIL implementation. No one had explained to them why did the company go for ITIL nor had anyone informed them of their new positions on the restructured IT organization. In addition, no clear or defined roles were given to IT team thus none of the team members was aware of his/her responsibilities. The operational manager didn’t formally inform the team about the intentions of deploying ITIL which explains the lack of commitment towards the training.

As the implementation plan progressed, the appointed ITIL implementation coordinator and consultancy team reached to a stage where the IT processes needed to be tailored to have them adhere to ITIL-V2 standards. That is when the implementation team realized that no clearly defined processes exist and no documentation was available on any of the processes. Consequently, the project coordinator decided to start a reengineering initiative with the help of the internal IT quality officer in which they made two major mistakes. The first mistake was that they have not sorted out all the available processes nor did they prioritize their need for reengineering. Instead they went ahead reengineering every possible process. Moreover, people who work on these processes were not involved during the reengineering phase and this was the second mistake. The reengineering initiative took a lot of time and effort and as result, the ITIL implementation was delayed.

2.4.3 ITIL Tool Selection

After the bases of the ITIL implementation was laid down i.e. processes were defined and tailored to comply with the ITIL-V2 standards. It was the time for actual implementation, however the defined processes according to ITIL are somehow complex and time consuming to be implemented manually or without an underlying system to automate and streamline the processes thus, the company decided to purchase a service desk tool that has ITIL compliant processes and are able to be customized to fit the functional requirement of the company. The company chose two of the available suppliers in the market namely: HP and CA to evaluate their service desk management tools. Obviously and like all other processes there were no defined procedures for tool or supplier selection in the company. The team who was nominated to recommend one tool out of the two available tools consisted of two people who couldn’t reach consensus so they had to go back to the IT manager to help break the tie. The IT manager recommended HP since it is the largest IT Company in the world and therefore their products should be trusted.

2.4.4 ITL tool Implementation

At the point of implementing the ITIL compliant service desk tool, vendor related issues surfaced. HP was the chosen vendor for the tool implementation and the selected tool was HP Open view. The main problem with HP was that their technical team lacked the skills required to customize the new version of the tool which is to be implemented at the exchange. The HP technical team couldn’t tailor the system to fit the processes as required by the exchange. Also, they claimed that the required customization cannot be reflected in the system which opposed HP’s initial promises of the system capabilities to adjust to all the mandatory functional requirements. This forced the exchange to redesign most of the processes so that it can be implemented by the tool. The changes started as minimal and then started to build up till it reached a stage were the processes became complex and almost entirely changed. At that point, the exchange got into a conflict with the HP which this resulted in suspending the ITIL implementation for an entire year. The need for documenting and implementing standardized processes persisted, forcing the exchange to resume ITIL implementation however, limited to Incident management, Problem management and Change management.

2.4.5 ITIL Adoption

After the HP Open view was rolled out, implementing only limited processes, it was not welcomed by IT employees and the other business employees. Users initially refused to use the system and it took a lot of patience and planning to make them utilize the system for posting their requests. At some point the ITIL implementation coordinator requested all IT staff to deny any request that doesn’t get through the defined processes. Even the IT members themselves didn’t follow the newly imposed procedures. For example, firewalls and anti-virus software would be updated and network switches would be upgraded without following the proper change management process. The IT

manager had to discuss such cases during the IT team’s weekly meeting and had to ask the responsible people for justification on why changes were made without following the defined procedures. Consequently, the IT team had finally started to follow the new procedures as no one wants to answer to the manager. Besides, the software customization was poorly tested and most of the bugs appeared during actual usage of the system which discouraged users to continue using the system and because experiencing bugs had them view it as unreliable. Moreover, the changes that were applied to processes in order to implement them using the system rendered the processes flow to be too long and complex for users to follow. In addition to the process complexity introduced by the system inability to map the processes as is, the user experience of HP Open view can be described as poor because the system was complex and not user friendly.

At the end, it took the company a total of five years to implement few selected processes of ITIL. One of the reasons why is the way the ITIL implementation was handled; the ad hoc, event driven and reactive approach because the company doesn’t have any project management strategies nor follows any project management methodologies.

2.4.5.1 Performance expectancy

Performance expectancy is the degree to which an individual sees that the new system is helping him/her in performing his tasks in an easy and efficient way [11]. According to the modified UTAUT model shown above in figure 3, performance expectancy is affected by project management and governance, communication and cooperation, and change management and organizational culture.

It goes without saying that project management is essential for a successful implementation of IT projects [Error:Reference source not found]. According to [15], project management is one of the ‘real’ success factors of a project. Applying proper tools and techniques of project management would help employees realize the benefits of the new system [16], thus, increase the perceived usefulness of ITIL. Besides, according to [3], incremental implementation of ITIL would help employees experience the benefits of the system over a shorter period of time.

Communication and cooperation is a critical success factor. ERP, like all IT projects, have communication and cooperation in the 6th rank of the list of its critical success factors for project implementation [3]. Communication is important between management and employees to make them realize the usefulness of ITIL [2].

Finally change management and organizational culture counts towards performance expectancy of the employee. The organization is better off representing ITIL as a project rather than a usual business [9]. This means that ITIL implementation should go through a business case representing benefits, risks, costs and schedule, a solution development and a service design for continuous improvement [9]. The highlighted benefits of ITIL in the business case shall be aligned with the employees’ interests. Alignment of ITIL benefits with the employees’ interests shall help them better realize the benefits of the execution of their daily duties through ITIL [17].

2.4.5.2 Effort Expectancy

According to [11], effort expectancy is defined as the degree to which an individual sees how easy it is to use the new system. According to the proposed model, effort expectancy is affected by three main factors; training and competence of stakeholders, change management and organizational culture, ITIL process implementation and tool selection.

Implementing ITIL is like many other projects implies major organizational change and therefore faces the challenge of overcoming the obstacle of organizational culture acceptance [18]. Therefore Change management is quite essential for facilitate the acceptance of ITIL implementation by the employees. In fact training of stakeholders is part of proper change management process. Training and awareness of stakeholders is also ranked as the second most important factor after top management support to gain the interest of stakeholders [3]. Training does not only help employees to cope with the new system, in addition, it provides them with a sense of involvement throughout the implementation journey [3]. In other words, training will help employees learn what ITIL means how it will impact their jobs consequently affecting their idea of how easy is it to use/ follow ITIL processes and standards.

ITIL process implementation and tool selection, like other success factors is critical for a proper implementation of ITIL. Proper tool selection criteria will ensure that the selected tool for implementing ITIL is user friendly and therefore users will not view the system s hard to use. Also, it is important to study the current IT critical processes

and conduct a gap analysis between their current status and the desired ITIL adherence status. This will eventually result in a simplified focused process which is easy to perform; thus requiring less effort [2].

2.4.5.3 Social Influence

Social Influence as defined in [13] is the degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use the new system. According to the model proposed in this paper Social Influence is affected by two of the synthesized critical success factors namely top management support and monitoring and evaluation.

Usually, top management controls the communication activities in IT/IS projects [19] consequently when employees see that top management is interested in the success of the project they will tend to be more committed to the project as they care about what the management thinks of them. In addition, if the project succeeds the employees would want the top management to acknowledge their efforts while incase the project fails or was delayed they don’t want to be blamed for not being cooperative.

Likewise, when the employees become aware that their feedback will be solicited for the evaluation and monitoring process to review the implementation performance of ITIL and determine whether or not it is achieving the business goals [2]; the employees will feel more obliged to cooperate and support the implementation of the project.

2.4.5.4 Facilitating Conditions

Facilitating conditions as defined in [13] is the degree to which an individual believes that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system. According to the proposed model in this paper, this construct is influenced by three of the synthesized critical success factors in [2]. The critical success factors of interest are top management support, training and competence of involved stakeholder in ITIL project and TIL process implementation and applied technology. As a matter of fact, the reason why the aforementioned critical success factors may have effect on the construct, i.e. facilitating conditions, is that they actually makeup this construct. In other words, the above mentioned critical success factors resemble the technical and organizational aspects of the work environment that if they were made available will help eliminating barriers to use the system.

If top management commitment is present it would result in granting a project the required funding for resources, consultants, employee training and acquiring required technology [2]. The presence of these critical success factors turns the environment into one that fosters a sense of urgency among the employees to be part of the wheel which is pushing the project forward.

3 Applying the proposed UTAUT adoption model to the Case Study

3.1 Effort Expectancy

For an attempt to relate the above to the case study presented, the related success factors were not properly implemented. First, training was not mandatory by management. In addition, the goals of the training were not communicated properly resulting in many employees not taking it seriously. Second, the company didn’t spend enough effort in understanding its culture. However, the company should have implemented the right strategy to meet its stable environment. This can be done through phased implementation. Finally, the developing stock exchange organization didn’t implement the right methodology for tool and vendor selection which resulted in a one year delay trying to customize the tool.

3.2 Performance expectancy

In regards to the case study presented above, the three corresponding critical success factors were missing. There was no proper project management involved in the ITIL implementation in the company. The absence of project management highly contributes to the failure of projects [Error: Reference source not found]. In addition, the management neither did communicate nor chased feedback from employees throughout the implementation process of ITIL. Finally, the management didn’t account for the stable organizational culture and attempted to implement

ITIL as part of the business not as a project. This resulted in the employees looking at it as an extra work load. Therefore, handling ITIL as a project may help the employees realize the benefits of it [9].

3.3 Social Influence

With reference to the case study of ITIL implementation at the developing stock exchange, matching critical success factors were missing which contributed to the employee lack of interest to adopt the implementation of the ITIL framework. Top management didn’t communicate the need for ITIL implementation in the company to the employees nor did it ask for the employee feedback during the implementation. Consequently, the employees didn’t feel the urge to commit for the project implementation.

3.4.1 Facilitating Conditions

Referring back to the ITIL implementation in the developed stock exchange, although management had approved the purchasing of an ITIL compliant tool, hired a consultant to guide the implementation process and provided the required training for the employees, the acceptance of ITIL was not as high as it is expected to be according to the adoption model. The reason behind that is the absence of other critical factors that affect other adoption constructs. The management only provided financial support to the project but not the required organizational empowerment and full support. As discussed earlier the lack of properly defined change management procedures, project management methodologies and effective communication had played a role in poor adoption of ITIL in the exchange.

4 Proposed Roadmap for ITIL Implementation

After presenting critical success factors for ITIL implementation and examining their effect on the determinants of user’s willingness to adopt the governance framework, this paper proposes a comprehensive road map for a successful implantation and adoption of the ITIL framework. Figure 5 depicts the proposed ITIL road map. 

RolesProcesses &Functions

Understanding Current Processes

Understanding the social sub-system people, competencies, behavior, attitudes, beliefs, values and norms

Select a Consultancy Company

Transition Plan +

ITIL compliant Tool Selection & Customization

Identifying the Key Customers, Collect and

analyze their requirements

Re-design processes to adhere to ITIL standards

Obtaining Employees’ Commitment

Obtaining Management’s Commitment

Construct a Project plan

Process Identification & Selection

The implementation starts by obtaining both management and employee commitment. First, the management commitment will give importance to the project which will eventually help in getting employees commitment. Moreover, employees will get committed to get noticed by management. In addition, management commitment shall facilitate the implementation of ITIL by providing the needed support like funding, resources, and required training.

After that, the organization shall spend enough time and effort in selecting the appropriate consultancy company. The consultant is required to provide the needed expertise for a smooth ITIL implementation. Next, the organization and the consulting company shall work hand in hand to identify and select the main IT processes to be changed to adhere to ITIL standards. In parallel to that, the culture of the organization along with the roles of the people needs to be understood to prepare for a smooth change management process.

Subsequently, the IT employees will be involved in requirements gathering in an attempt to make comprehensive ITIL re-engineered processes. Then, a project management methodology should be followed and a proper implementation plan following quick wins strategy. After that, the selected processes should be re-engineered to adhere to ITIL standards. This activity will require involvement from management, employees and the consultancy company. To further smooth the implementation of ITIL processes, a proper tool shall be selected from the proper vendor. Next, the transition plan and training activities should be designed to support change management and equip both the culture and the employees’ skills for the new processes. At the end, the organization shall roll out the new processes incrementally with detailed monitoring for proper observation and continuous improvement.

5 Conclusion

In this paper, ITIL synthesized critical success factors were identified from a comprehensive literature review in an attempt to link it to technology adoption model, namely UTAUT. The model proposed advances the existing literature by improving the process of ITIL implementation and adoption. The model was verified by proper studying of the literature and linking it to a case study of a company that suffered from implementing ITIL.

Following the proposed work, several tracks exist for future work. First, the proposed model can be verified using empirical studies. Another track could be to further enhance the practicality of the road map. This can be achieved by applying it to a real life scenario(s).

11 References

[1] H. Marquis, “Itil: What it is and what it isnt,” Business Communications Review, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 49–52, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://ezproxy.aus.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/224971428?accountid=16946

[2] N. H. Sarvenaz Mehravani and M. Haghighinasab, “Itil adoption model based on tam,” in IPEDR, vol. 5, no. 1. IACSIT Press,Singapore, 2011, pp. 33–37.

[3] C. Pollard, “Justifications, strategies, and critical success factors in successful itil implementations in u.s. and australian companies: An exploratory study,” Information systems management, vol. 26, no. 2, p. 164, January 2009.

[4] K. Pedersen, P. Krوmmergaard, B. Lynge, and C. Dalby Schou, “Itil implementation: critical success factors a comparative case study using the bpc framework,” Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, vol. 12, no. 2, 2010. [Online]. Available: http://ezproxy.aus.edu/login?url=http://-search.proquest.com/docview/608836648?accountid=16946

[5] A. Cater-steel and W. gee Tan, “Implementation of it infrastructure library (itil) in australia: progress and success factors,” in in Australia: Progress and Success Factors, IT Governance International Conference, 2005.

[6] S. S. C. Shang and S.-F. Lin, “Barriers to implementing itil-a multi-case study on the service-based industry,” Contemporary Management Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 53–70, 2010. [Online]. Available: http://-ezproxy.aus.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/749780585?accountid=16946

[7] J. Iden and L. Langeland, “Setting the stage for a successful itil adoption: A delphi study of it experts in the norwegian armed forces,” Inf. Sys. Manag., vol. 27, pp. 103–112, March 2010. [Online]. Available: http://-dx.doi.org/10.1080/10580531003708378

[8] W.-G. Tan, A. Cater-Steel, and M. Toleman, “Implementing it service management: a case study focussing on critical success factors,” The Journal of Computer Information Systems, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 1–12, 2009. [Online]. Available: http://ezproxy.aus.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/232573145?accountid=16946

[9] A. Cater-steel, “Transforming it service management – the itil impact,” Service Management, p. 11, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://eprints.usq.edu.au/1612/

[10] F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. pp. 319–340, 1989. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/249008

[11] F. D. Davis, R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw, “User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models,” Management Science, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. pp. 982–1003, 1989. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2632151

[12] Y. Lee, K. A. Kozar, and K. R. T. Larsen, “The technology acceptance model : Past , present , and future,” Communications of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 12, pp. 752–780.

[13] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. pp. 425–478, 2003. [Online]. Available: http://-www.jstor.org/stable/30036540

[14] M. Keil, A. Rai, J. E. Cheney Mann, and G. P. Zhang, “Why software projects escalate: The importance of project management constructs,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 251–261, 2003. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=1236001

[15] T. Cooke-Davies, “The “real” success factors on projects,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 185–190, 2002. [Online]. Available: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/-S0263786301000679

[16] R. Atkinson, “Project management: cost time and quality two best guesses and a phenomenon, it is time to accept other success criteria,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 337–342, 1999. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9V-3XD3JRK-3&_user=1682380&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000011378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1682380&md5=0a737a02b6dcd4456424bfdef20e4a16

[17] A. Cater-Steel and N. McBride, “It service management improvement - actor network perspective.” in ECIS, H. ضsterle, J. Schelp, and R. Winter, Eds. University of St. Gallen, 2007, pp. 1202–1213. [Online]. Available: http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/ecis/ecis2007.html#Cater-SteelM07

[18] S. K. Grewal and U. of Canberra. School of Information Sciences & Engineering, “EnglishIssues in it governance & it service management : a study of their adoption in australian universities / by sandeep kaur grewal,” 2006, thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science in Information and Technological Sciences at the University of Canberra, ACT, January 2006.

[19] S. J. L. Bueno Salvador, “Tam-based success modeling in erp,” Interacting with computers, vol. 20, no. 6, p. 515, 12th January 2008.