jgimpoli1022
06-23-2003, 02:58 AM
Since Configuration Management/Change Management are more processes rather
than departments in your IT organization - there is not one
person/department that necessarily performs the whole function. A
configuration manager ensures that good CM practices are being followed -
and identifies which people the organization who are best qualified to
perform the particular "best practice" that you want to implement. As part
of a robust CM process, an audit function is required - which implies that
it not be the same person/department as the thing you are auditing. For
example, a developer may establish a source code baseline for a product
build. The audit of this baseline needs to be performed by someone else
(e.g. QA person, build engineer, etc.) - to ensure that it is correct,
addresses the stated defects, etc.
Greg Gimpoli
"Shayne Wissler" <thales000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6f3Ia.22363$Fa6.13915@sccrnsc02... Bogdan Mosu wrote: Hi guys, I am wondering if anybody would be able to provide me with some arguments why Config Mgmt. as well as Change Mgmt have to be "independent bodies" in an IT Organization ( should their loialty reside with QA ? or be part of "operations" or "platform group"). I would think that one argument is the fact that if QA is controling CM in certain instances they can consider CM the bottle neck and bypass it. Any other ideas? It's not so important what labels you have on your organizational entities and who has what official responsibility. The important thing is that your SCM functions are all being accomplished efficiently. If they're not, then that's a problem--regardless of who's doing the job. Shayne Wissler
than departments in your IT organization - there is not one
person/department that necessarily performs the whole function. A
configuration manager ensures that good CM practices are being followed -
and identifies which people the organization who are best qualified to
perform the particular "best practice" that you want to implement. As part
of a robust CM process, an audit function is required - which implies that
it not be the same person/department as the thing you are auditing. For
example, a developer may establish a source code baseline for a product
build. The audit of this baseline needs to be performed by someone else
(e.g. QA person, build engineer, etc.) - to ensure that it is correct,
addresses the stated defects, etc.
Greg Gimpoli
"Shayne Wissler" <thales000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6f3Ia.22363$Fa6.13915@sccrnsc02... Bogdan Mosu wrote: Hi guys, I am wondering if anybody would be able to provide me with some arguments why Config Mgmt. as well as Change Mgmt have to be "independent bodies" in an IT Organization ( should their loialty reside with QA ? or be part of "operations" or "platform group"). I would think that one argument is the fact that if QA is controling CM in certain instances they can consider CM the bottle neck and bypass it. Any other ideas? It's not so important what labels you have on your organizational entities and who has what official responsibility. The important thing is that your SCM functions are all being accomplished efficiently. If they're not, then that's a problem--regardless of who's doing the job. Shayne Wissler