Total Quality Management, 2017

Vol. 28, No. 3, 238 –265, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1075872

Strategising IT service management through ITIL implementation:

model and empirical test
∗
Tom R. Eikebrokka and Jon Idenb
a
Department of Information Systems, University of Agder, Service box 422, NO-4604
Kristiansand, Norway; bDepartment of Strategy and Management, Norwegian School of
Economics, Helleveien 30, NO-5045 Bergen, Norway

Research on the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) lacks

appropriate theories and models that capture the distinct characteristics and
implications of the ITIL implementation practice. The purpose of this study is to
close this gap. Based on a literature review, we develop and empirically validate a
theoretical model: the ITIL Implementation Project Model. The model includes
significant antecedents, which provide a foundation upon which an effective ITIL
implementation project can be built, as well as the pertinent effects of implementing
ITIL. The results contribute to the current research stream on the strategising of IT
service management as well as to an improved understanding of the IT function in
organisations. The model provides IT executives with practices for improving ITIL
implementation quality and for assessing the benefits of their efforts.
Keywords: IT service management; ITSM; Information Technology Infrastructure
Library; ITIL; the ITIL implementation project model; IT function; information
systems strategising

1. Introduction
There has been a steady increase in research on the concept of service in the Information
Systems (IS) discipline (Bose & Luo, 2011; Fielt, Böhmann, Korthaus, Conger, & Gable,
2013; Jia & Reich, 2013). IT services is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the service
economy. One recent stream of this research is IT service management (ITSM), which
focuses on the servitisation of the IT function and the organisation and management of
IT service provision (Fielt et al., 2013). In order to establish an ‘organisational infrastruc-
ture’ (Galliers, 1993) for IT services, IT practitioners strategise IT service delivery by
developing and implementing a reference process: the Information Technology Infrastruc-
ture Library (ITIL). Interestingly, IT professionals are collaborating in this endeavour
through the IT Service Management Forum (itSMF), a global non-profit community.
Research reports that IT executives worldwide consider ITIL to be a suitable organis-
ational infrastructure for IT services (de Espindola, Luciano, & Audy, 2009; Marrone,
Gacenga, Cater-Steel, & Kolbe, 2014; Zajac & Soja, 2012).
ITSM as a management concept places emphasis on IT services, customers,
service-level agreements, and the handling of the daily activities of an IT department
through processes. As such, it contrasts more technology-centred approaches to IT
operations by focusing on the quality of IT services and the relationship with custo-
mers, rather than on technology and internal IT organisation (van Bon, 2002). Of
the reference processes to achieve quality of IT services, ITIL is the most accepted

∗
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

 Total Quality Management 239

and used (Cater-Steel, Tan, & Toleman, 2009). ITIL version 1 was developed in the
1980s by a British public body (the Central Computer and Telecommunications
Agency, CCTA) as a collection of best practices observed in the industry. Ten
years later the popularity of ITIL had grown substantially, and between 2000 and
2002, version 2 was released. At that time ITIL was regarded as a de facto standard
for ITSM worldwide. Today, ITIL version 3 details 25 processes that explain how the
various tasks of a supplier of IT services must perform to move an IT service through
its life cycle from design, validation, test to deployment, and how events along the
path should be handled and operational problems solved.
ITIL implementation is a typical example of how IS functions are actively approach-
ing the challenge of creating strategic IT benefits. Following Galliers’ framework for
understanding IS strategising (Galliers, 2011, p. 331), ITIL implementation represents
the intention to realise benefits through the adoption of reference processes that
explain how IT should be exploited and delivered as IT services. These ITIL processes
represent aggregated knowledge of best practice, developed through experience and
shared in a community of IT practitioners working to servitise the IT function. As
such, ITIL implementation can be seen as both an approach and a tool adopted by IT
executives for realising a service-oriented strategy. The phenomenon of ITIL – its refer-
ence processes, its implementation, and its community – is attractive to the strategic IS
field for several reasons. First, ITIL and its implementation are rarely studied within the
strategic IS field despite ITIL’s popularity among practitioners: ‘There is still much
potential for further advancing the knowledge base on phenomena related to IT-based
services’ (Fielt et al., 2013, p. 46). Second, and even more motivating, is the fact
that practitioners themselves see ITIL as an important strategic initiative and tool to
secure a reliable organisational infrastructure and reliable IT services (Teubner, Pellen-
gahr, & Mocker, 2012). ITIL can increase our understanding of the nature of strategis-
ing in general and within ITSM in particular. Finally, the worldwide community of IT
practitioners cooperating in this effort represents a network of practice that undoubtedly
influences strategising, and as such should receive increased interest from strategic IS
researchers as an example of how collaboration can influence strategising (Buhl,
Fridgen, König, Röglinger, & Wagner, 2012).1
ITIL and other examples of strategy as practice are current topics in the strategic IS
literature (Peppard, Galliers, & Thorogood, 2014). These initiatives represent a micro-
focus on how companies in practice develop and implement their strategies, and they
can increase our understanding of IT strategy in general (Peppard et al., 2014; Whittington,
2014). In this regard, the adoption and implementation of ITIL represent an area where
strategy as practice influences the delivery of IT services and creates IT benefits in
many companies. Despite its potential, reports indicate that implementing ITIL is not
straightforward, but rather a challenging undertaking (Cater-Steel, 2009; Cater-Steel &
Pollard, 2008; Iden, 2009; Pollard, Gupta, & Satzinger, 2009) with the potential to
reduce the quality of companies’ strategising (Galliers, 2011). Many organisations fail.
Many others keep implementing ITIL long after the planned deadline. Research reveals
that IT executives frequently underestimate the time, effort, risk, and costs of implement-
ing ITIL (Pereira & da Silva, 2010). However, the prevailing research provides little
empirical evidence or guidance on how to conduct an ITIL implementation project suc-
cessfully. Although ITIL implementation research is increasing, most ITIL studies to
date are not based on a theoretical framework (Iden & Eikebrokk, 2013), which makes
theoretical progress in this area difficult. In light of this fact, our specific research ques-
tions are as follows:
240 T.R. Eikebrokk and J. Iden

RQ1: What elements are central in an ITIL implementation project, and how can these
elements be conceptualised and measured?
RQ2: What elements influence the progress and outcomes of ITIL implementation projects?
The study’s unit of analysis is the ITIL implementation project, which encompasses the
project’s driving forces, its implementation progress, and its outcomes. The purpose of
this research is to develop and validate a model of the ITIL implementation project as
an important step in learning more about the strategising of ITSM. Practitioners may
address the model, its dimensions, and its measures when planning and evaluating their
strategic ITIL initiatives. In research, this model can serve as a basis for further improve-
ments in both theorising and instrumentation as steps to understand more of the strategis-
ing role of ITIL implementation.
This paper proceeds as follows. First, it combines interviews in context with a
review of major research streams to derive a theoretical model, articulate hypotheses,
and develop operational measures. Next, it validates the model using quantitative
methods and survey data. Finally, it concludes by suggesting implications and
avenues for further research.

2. Literature review
At its heart, ITIL is service centred and prescribes an organisational infrastructure for deli-
vering IT services through processes (Marrone & Kolbe, 2011). The latest version, ITIL
V3, published in 2007 and revised in 2011, explains in five volumes (Service Strategy,
Service Design, Service Transition, Service Operation, and Continual Service Improve-
ment) the set of processes that an IT service must perform. These processes delineate
how an IT service moves through its life cycle: how the IT service should be planned
for and built; how the IT service and related changes should be validated, tested, and
deployed; how events and requests regarding the IT service should be handled; how the
basic configuration supporting the IT service should be controlled; and how operational
problems should be solved (Taylor, 2007).
An important question regarding process reference models such as ITIL is what makes
them applicable (vom Brocke & Thomas, 2006). An IT department will acknowledge the
usefulness of process reference models: using the reference models reduces the effort
needed for the construction of its own processes. However, the more specific a reference
process model is, the fewer the IT departments to which it can be applied: ‘the dilemma of
reference modeling’ (Becker, Delfman, Knackstedt, & Kuropka, 2002). The authors of
ITIL have chosen the less specific approach, and thus have made ITIL attractive to a
large number of IT departments around the world. Research attests to its attractiveness.
In a 2009 survey, 45% of US IT managers were using ITIL and 15% were in the planning
stages (Winniford, Conger, & Erickson-Harris, 2009). Similar evidence is found in other
countries (de Espindola et al., 2009; Zajac & Soja, 2012).
The ITIL contextualises itself within the perspective and evolution of process reengi-
neering and business process management (BPM) (van Bon, 2002). The process perspec-
tive has become an accepted approach to the way organisations think about and manage
their business (Harmon, 2010). In its early days, process thinking (then called process
reengineering) was positioned as an episodic, rather than an ongoing, effort (Hammer,
2010). Gradually, process orientation has evolved to what is today understood as BPM,
a discipline that encompasses not only the redesign and deployment of business processes,
but also the ongoing administrative and supervisory control to ensure that they remain
compliant with business objectives and customer needs (Smith & Fingar, 2003).
 Total Quality Management 241

Despite considerable investments in the area, most reviews report as many as 60 –80%
of process-reengineering initiatives as unsuccessful (Trkman, 2010). Consequently, criti-
cal success factors (CSFs) are the most actively researched topics in this field (Grover,
Jeong, Kettinger, & Teng, 1995; Trkman, 2010). The research literature offers similar
CSFs for process reengineering, and top management involvement is frequently con-
sidered the most important factor. A second major research theme is outcome, the organ-
isational benefits that businesses achieve by taking a processes-oriented view of
organisational improvement (Gulledge & Sommer, 2002; Kohlbacher, 2010; Larsen &
Myers, 1997; Mansar & Reijers, 2007). Although early researchers argue that firms
should strive for radical changes with dramatic effects on productivity and costs
(Hammer & Champy, 1993), current research has found that most projects find the
radical approach too challenging, and therefore realise more modest benefits (Albizu &
Olazaran, 2006; Grover et al., 1995), whether effectiveness or efficiency gains.
Implementing the ITIL reference processes in an IT department differs from traditional
process reengineering in that the goal of an ITIL implementation project is to adapt exist-
ing organisational practices to those prescribed by ITIL, while a standard process-reengi-
neering project has more freedom in its analysis and redesign activities. While the ability
to think outside the box is a sought-after quality in process reengineering, the ITIL project
is dependent on project members’ in-depth knowledge of the ITIL reference processes and
their ability to introduce these processes effectively in the IT department. ITIL pragmati-
cally acknowledges the design challenges in process reengineering by offering prede-
signed processes. Scope is another issue. Implementing ITIL may involve a large
number of processes, and is thus an organisation-wide initiative; a process-reengineering
project may limit itself to one or a few processes. Apart from this, the methodological
approaches of process reengineering and ITIL process implementation are basically equiv-
alent as presented in the process-reengineering and ITIL literature: (a) definition, (b)
analysis, (c) design, (d) implementation, and (e) management (Adesola & Baines, 2005;
Taylor, Case, & Spalding, 2007). However, their differences must be reflected in a theor-
etical model for the ITIL implementation project.
ITIL implementation research is increasing. Through a literature review, Iden and
Eikebrokk (2013) find that the research sorts itself into the following categories: antece-
dents to implementation, implementation progress, and consequences. Within the antece-
dent category, the most popular research question is related to factors for successful
implementation, which is also the most frequently asked research question overall. Exist-
ing research studies implementation progress on three different levels of analysis: the
national level (if and to what extent IT functions in a country are implementing or planning
to implement ITIL); the firm level (the overall implementation progress in firms); and the
process level (the implementation progress for each ITIL process in a firm). In terms of
consequences, the research focuses primarily on the outcomes and benefits of ITIL
implementation. The relationship between ITIL and process management is less explored
and represents a gap in the research literature (Iden & Eikebrokk, 2013). In general, the
ITIL literature includes few studies that are based on a theoretical framework (Iden &
Eikebrokk, 2013).

3. The ITIL implementation project model

This paper provides a theoretical basis for ITIL research by developing a conceptual model
of the ITIL implementation project. The model describes a process where antecedents
influence outcomes of an ITIL implementation project, via process implementation. In
242 T.R. Eikebrokk and J. Iden

developing the ITIL Implementation Project Model (ITIL-IPM), we used a recent litera-
ture review on ITIL implementation (Iden & Eikebrokk, 2013) and introduced the litera-
ture on business process reengineering (BPR), BPM, and project management (PM). We
included BPR and BPM due to ITIL’s process orientation, and PM was included due to the
project nature of ITIL implementation. Based on this literature, we identified several ante-
cedents and outcomes of ITIL implementation.

3.1. ITIL implementation progress

The five ITIL V3 volumes describe a set of processes that suggest how an IT function
should design, build, and deliver IT services to its customers (see Table 1 for an overview
of ITIL processes). The goal of the ITIL implementation project is to implement these pro-
cesses in the organisation (Conger, Winniford, & Erickson-Harris, 2008) and the progress
can be tracked by measuring the implementation status of the selected ITIL processes
(Cater-Steel et al., 2009; Iden, 2010; Marrone & Kolbe, 2011). Based on this literature,
we define ITIL implementation progress as the extent to which the IT function has
implemented ITIL processes.

3.2. Antecedents to ITIL implementation

3.2.1. Senior management involvement
Research highlights senior management involvement as an antecedent to organisational
development success. McDonough (2000) suggests that top managers help projects
through a variety of means, such as demonstrating commitment, helping the project to sur-
mount obstacles, making things happen, and providing encouragement to the team. Senior
management involvement is found to be the number one key factor for success in process
reengineering and process management (Balaji, Ranganathan, & Coleman, 2011; Grover
et al., 1995; Trkman, 2010). This involvement must manifest itself in ongoing leadership
and project support and a senior manager who champions the initiative (Grover et al.,
1995). Similar evidence can be found in PM (Fortune & White, 2006).
Within ITIL, senior management involvement means that IT executives commit them-
selves and provide strong support, guidance, and feedback to the project during implemen-
tation (Cater-Steel et al., 2009; Conger et al., 2008; Marrone & Kolbe, 2011; Pollard &
Cater-Steel, 2009). However, as Iden and Langeland (2010) point out, IT managers at
all levels must have ownership of the goal of redesigning their own processes in accord-
ance with the processes prescribed by ITIL, although it is normal for a single person from
IT management to champion and advocate for ITIL. Based on the above literature, we
define senior management involvement in the context of ITIL as IT executives’ commit-
ment to the ITIL implementation effort by providing support to the project from initiation
to its completion. We hypothesise the following:
H1: There is a positive relationship between senior management involvement and ITIL
implementation progress.

3.2.2. Organisational commitment

Organisational commitment has been repeatedly identified as an important variable in under-
standing the behaviour of employees in organisations and the effects of improvement initiat-
ives (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Definitions of organisational commitment vary, but
tend to focus on employees’ behaviour (Salancik, 1977; Sheldon, 1971; Staw, 1977).
 Total Quality Management 243

Table 1. Constructs with definitions, indicators, and response format.

Indicators Response format: 1 (low validity) to 5
Antecedents (high validity)
Senior management involvement: commitment SMI1 – Senior management is strongly involved
of senior management to the ITIL in the project
implementation effort SMI2 – Senior management provides continuous
feedback and guidance to the ITIL project
SMI3 – A member of senior management
champions the ITIL project
Organisational commitment: org.’s willingness OC1 – Sufficient resources have been allocated
to exert considerable effort in the ITIL project for the ITIL project
OC2 – Key people are staying on the ITIL
project from start to finish to maintain
continuity
OC3 – The IT staff strongly supports the ITIL
project
Group efficacy: belief that the ITIL team can GE1 – The project group has sufficient
implement ITIL effectively knowledge of ITIL
GE2 – The project group is using a formalised
method for developing ITIL processes
GE3 – The project members are working hard to
implement ITIL
PM capability: ability of ITIL project to comply PMC1 – The project has managed to stay within
with budget, time, and expectations budget
PMC2 – The project has managed to stay within
time limits
PMC3 – Management is satisfied with the ITIL
implementation
PMC4 – IT staff is satisfied with the ITIL
implementation
Software quality: ability of ITIL software to SQ1 – ITIL software makes it easier to align own
ease, speed up, and improve outcomes of the needs with ITIL’s recommendations
ITIL project SQ2 – ITIL software helps implement ITIL
faster
SQ3 – ITIL software improves the results of the
ITIL implementation
SQ4 – ITIL software helps perform the processes
more efficiently
SQ5 – It is easy for staff to use the ITIL software
Org. resources: the organisation’s access to OR1 – Number of full-time IT professionals in
monetary and human resources to support the the organisation
ITIL project OR2 – Budget allocated to the ITIL project
ITIL implementation progress: the extent the Response format: not started (0%), early stage,
org. has implemented ITIL processes halfway (50%), advanced stage, or completed
(100%)
ITIL service strategy ISS1 – Financial management
ISS2 – Service portfolio management
ITIL service design ISD1 – Service catalog management
ISD2 – Service level-management
ISD3 – Capacity management
ISD4 – Availability management
ISD5 – IT service continuity management
ISD6 – Information security management
ISD7 – Supplier management

(Continued)
244 T.R. Eikebrokk and J. Iden

Table 1. Continued.
Indicators Response format: 1 (low validity) to 5
Antecedents (high validity)
ITIL service transition IST1 – Transition planning and support
IST2 – Change management
IST3 – Service asset and configuration
management
IST4 – Release and deployment management
IST5 – Service validation and testing
IST6 – Evaluation
IST7 – Knowledge management
ITIL service operation ISO1 – Event management
ISO2 – Incident management
ISO3 – Request fulfilment
ISO4 – Problem management
ISO5 – Access management
ISO6 – Service desk
ITIL continual service improvement CSI – The seven-step improvement process
Outcomes Response format: 1 (low validity) to 5 (high
validity)
Benefits achieved: the degree the ITIL project BA1 – IT operations have been improved
has created positive outcomes for the BA2 – The organisation has been more effective
organisation BA3 – The processes have been improved
BA4 – Roles and responsibilities have been
clarified
BA5 – Service orientation has been improved
BA6 – Customer satisfaction has been improved
BA7 – IT costs have been reduced
BPM practices: executive, administrative, and BPM1 – Processes are well standardised
supervisory controls that secure business BPM2 – Processes are well documented
processes’ compliance with objectives BPM3 – Process ownership is well established
BPM4 – Performance goals are set for the
processes
BPM5 – Process performance is systematically
being monitored
BPM6 – Processes are continuously being
improved
BPM7 – The IT department is certified (ISO
9000 or ISO 20000)

High commitment presents itself as a strong belief in and acceptance of the firm’s goals and
values, and a willingness to exert considerable effort in reaching them. Organisational com-
mitment, in the form of broad participation, is also found to be one of the key success factors
for process reengineering (Balaji et al., 2011; Ranganathan & Dhaliwal, 2001; Sedera, Gable,
Rosemann, & Smyth, 2004). Grover et al. (1995) found that organisations often fail to commit
the required human and financial resources needed to carry out the reengineering effort. These
findings are backed by research on PM in general (Fortune & White, 2006).
In the context of ITIL, organisational commitment means broad support for the ITIL
implementation effort, as indicated by the presence of sufficient resources (Cater-Steel
et al., 2009), organisation-wide involvement (Iden, 2009), and marketing campaigns
within the organisation to create acceptance and understanding of what ITIL entails
(Hochstein, Zarnekow, & Brenner, 2005). It also means involving key people in the
process design and improvement activities and keeping them on the project to maintain
 Total Quality Management 245

continuity (Iden & Langeland, 2010). The need for organisational improvement must be
strongly recognised by the organisation’s employees and the ITIL project members must
try their hardest to implement ITIL in order for it to succeed (Iden, 2009). Based on the
above arguments, we define organisational commitment in the context of ITIL as the
organisation’s willingness to exert considerable effort towards the ITIL project. We
advance the following hypothesis:
H2: There is a positive relationship between organisational commitment and ITIL implemen-
tation progress.

3.2.3. Group efficacy

Group efficacy represents the project team’s belief in its ability to perform effectively
(Gibson, 1999). Enhanced task performance is the most significant result of a strong
state of efficacy perception (Sadri & Robertson, 1993). Through observational and self-
reporting techniques, researchers have found group efficacy to be a meaningful group attri-
bute that varies among groups (Gibson, 1999). Because group efficacy reflects what a
group thinks it can accomplish, the perception of group efficacy is often related to how
much effort the group expends (Gibson, 1999). This follows logically from social cogni-
tive research on individual work behaviour, which has demonstrated that the higher the
level of self-efficacy, the better an individual performs (Bandura, 1997). With respect to
process reengineering, knowledge, expertise, and appropriate training are frequently high-
lighted as essential components of a successful outcome (Grover et al., 1995; Sedera et al.,
2004; Trkman, 2010). It is also evident that an appropriate reengineering methodology is
necessary in order for reengineering to be performed well (Grover et al., 1995; Sedera
et al., 2004; Trkman, 2010). Resistance, lack of motivation, and poor communication
among reengineering team members reduce project members’ efforts (Grover et al.,
1995). Competence and suitable method are found to be crucial factors for PM success
(Fortune & White, 2006).
In the context of ITIL, group efficacy means that the project members are sufficiently
trained, possess sufficient knowledge about ITIL and process thinking (Cater-Steel et al.,
2009; Hochstein et al., 2005; Iden & Langeland, 2010), and have the necessary skills to
identify, analyse, and improve processes through a well-defined method. They must be
dedicated to the effort and must try their hardest to implement ITIL in order for the
implementation to succeed (Iden, 2009). Based on this literature, we define group efficacy
as the project group’s belief in its ability to implement ITIL effectively. We hypothesise
the following:
H3: There is a positive relationship between group efficacy and ITIL implementation
progress.

3.2.4. PM capability
Firms organise ITIL implementation as a project. The standard criteria for evaluating a
project are time, budget, and quality (Kerzner, 2013). Quality is problematic to conceptu-
alise in this context. Consequently, we suggest that the degree of IT management satisfac-
tion and IT staff satisfaction be used as quality indicators. Based on the above arguments,
we define PM capability as the ability of the ITIL implementation project to comply with
budget and time limits as well as the expectations of management and staff. We suggest
the following hypothesis:
246 T.R. Eikebrokk and J. Iden

H4: There is a positive relationship between PM capability and ITIL implementation progress.

3.2.5. Software quality

In the process-reengineering literature, IT is regarded as an important enabler for process
redesign and implementation (Davenport, 1993; Hammer, 1990), as well as for process
management (Hammer, 2010). Technology that has been proven effective is found to
be an important antecedent for project success in general (Fortune & White, 2006). In
ITIL, specialised software packages are used for logging and tracking cases and include
a database comprising key ITIL elements, such as assets, configuration items, capacities,
and availabilities. ITIL software is module based; most commonly, there is one module per
ITIL process, although not all processes are supported. In addition, companies are devel-
oping their own software tools based on open-source software (Iden, 2009). Based on this,
we define software quality as the ability of the ITIL software to ease, speed up, and
improve the outcomes of the ITIL implementation project. We propose the following
hypothesis:
H5: There is a positive relationship between software quality and ITIL implementation
progress.

3.2.6. Organisational resources

Organisational resources are critical for ITIL implementation success. Several studies
have documented the importance of the budget allocated to the ITIL project (Cater-
Steel et al., 2009; Cater-Steel, Toleman, & Tan, 2006). Nah, Janet, and Kuang (2001)
found that not only were managers and project team members required for successful
implementation of ERP systems, but also so were other implementation partners, includ-
ing IT specialists and external consultants. Firms with monetary resources and access to
these partnerships are believed to be more successful. Based on this view, we define organ-
isational resources in the context of ITIL implementation as the organisation’s ability to
provide monetary and human resources to support the ITIL project. We propose the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
H6: There is a positive relationship between organisational resources and ITIL implemen-
tation progress.

3.3. Outcomes of ITIL implementation

We include two types of ITIL implementation outcomes in organisations: benefits
achieved and BPM practices.

3.3.1. Benefits achieved

This construct reflects the degree to which the ITIL implementation project has created
positive outcomes for the organisation. The first reports on benefits from process reengi-
neering emphasised more streamlined processes, and thus rationalisation and cost
reduction (Davenport & Short, 1990; Hammer, 1990). More recent research has discussed
a number of effects, such as reduced cycle time, reduced time to market, and increased
productivity (Balaji et al., 2011; Küng & Hagen, 2007; Mansar & Reijers, 2007),
meaning that the organisation has been more effective (Kohlbacher, 2010) and has
clearer organisational roles (Küng & Hagen, 2007), a more service-oriented business
 Total Quality Management 247

(Bask, Tinnilä, & Rajahonka, 2010), and improved customer satisfaction (Balaji et al.,
2011; Kohlbacher, 2010).
Based on a review of prevailing research, Iden and Eikebrokk (2013) found that ITIL
may lead to a variety of benefits, of which improved service orientation and customer sat-
isfaction seem to be the most frequently mentioned. Findings also indicate that ITIL leads
to improved structure and coordination within the IT function. This conclusion is sup-
ported by findings like improved, standardised, and documented processes and clarified
roles and responsibilities. Based on this literature, we define benefits achieved as the
degree to which the ITIL implementation project has created positive outcomes for the
organisation. We hypothesise the following:
H7: There is a positive relationship between ITIL implementation progress and benefits
achieved.

3.3.2. BPM practices

Since ITIL is about delivering IT services through a set of standardised processes, BPM
practices are a requirement (Marrone & Kolbe, 2010). Without process management,
ITIL will not be a success beyond its initial implementation. Although the literature
offers various models for BPM (Fisher, 2004; Hammer, 2007; Rosemann, de Bruin,
& Power, 2006), a number of characteristics are representative (Iden, 2012). Based
on this literature, we define BPM practices in the context of ITIL implementation as
the executive, administrative, and supervisory control that ensures that the organis-
ation’s processes are compliant with business objectives. We advance the following
hypothesis:
H8: There is a positive relationship between ITIL implementation progress and BPM
practices.

Figure 1. The ITIL implementation project model (ITIL-IPM) with hypotheses.

248 T.R. Eikebrokk and J. Iden

The variables and hypotheses introduced above are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 represents
the ITIL-IPM that conceptualises the antecedents and outcomes of the ITIL implemen-
tation project.

4. Methods
4.1. Exploratory interviews and sampling frame
In parallel with the literature study, we conducted interviews with 13 ITIL experts: nine IT
professionals who have actively been working with ITIL in their organisations and four IT
consultants who have been helping organisations with ITIL implementation projects.
Their experience with ITIL varies from 2.5 years to 15 years, with an average of seven
years. The purpose of these interviews, which were recorded and transcribed, was three-
fold: (a) to provide insight into the nature of the ITIL implementation project, and thus to
validate our selection of constructs for our conceptual model (Figure 1); (b) to discuss the
design and content of our subsequent survey; and c) to identify a target population for our
survey. The results of the interviews were constructive and made significant contributions
to our model and survey design. Regarding the sampling frame, the interviewees directed
us to the itSMF, as almost all firms implementing ITIL are members of this organisation.

4.2. Data collection

Based on the recommendation of our interviewees, we contacted the four Nordic chapters
of itSMF (Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway) and received their permission to
involve their members in the survey. Each chapter sent us a list of e-mails for the
contact person for each member company. The itSMF board considered these identified
contacts to be the right audience for this research. This gave us a total sample of 950
firms. We e-mailed each firm an invitation containing an introduction letter (in their
native language and in English). In the letter, we explained the purpose of the survey,
emphasising that participation was anonymous, and thus motivated them to participate.
The survey was active for three weeks in January and February 2012, and we conducted
two reminders. The survey instrument was pretested on four ITIL experts to verify
wording and consistency, which resulted in some minor changes (see appendix for the
survey instrument).

4.3. Operationalisation and measurement

To observe and empirically test the relationships between antecedents to and outcomes
from ITIL implementation, we used multi-item scales to operationalise and measure the
constructs of the research model. The operationalisations were adopted from the literature
as much as possible, and thus were based on previous research. Table 1 provides an over-
view of the constructs, their definitions and indicators, and response formats used in the
survey instrument.
In measuring the constructs, we include both formative and reflective indicators. The
use of formative indicators reflects the nature of ITIL implementation projects in organis-
ations, where the organisation typically selects some processes to implement based on its
own preferences. The final measure of implementation progress will thus appear as a com-
posite measure containing the selected processes as formative indicators. The organis-
ations’ selection of ITIL processes will also influence which outcomes are relevant,
thus creating a composite measure formed by the relevant types of outcomes as formative
 Total Quality Management 249

indicators. The indicators of the antecedents are all reflective and the construct measures
are created based on the inter-correlations of their reflective indicators.

4.4. Analyses
In validating the ITIL-IPM with constructs and indicators, we analyse two types of validity
related to the instrument and one type of validity for the research model. Content validity
and construct validity are used to measure the quality of the instrument in operationalising
the research model. To validate how well constructs were represented by their respective
indicators, we used separate procedures for formative and reflective indicators as
suggested by Götz, Liehr-Gobbers, and Krafft (2010), Gefen and Straub (2005), and
Straub, Boudreau, and Gefen (2004).
In validating the research model, we will test its predictive validity as its ability to
predict ITIL implementation progress and outcomes. This also involves testing the
hypotheses.
As the method of analysis, we chose partial least square (PLS) in XLSTAT-PLSPM
(http://www.xlstat.com) due to its ability to handle complex models and both formative
and reflective indicators (Barroso, Carrion, & Roldán, 2010).

5. Results
This section is organised as follows: first, we present the final sample with descriptive data.
We then validate the instrument with separate procedures for formative and reflective indi-
cators before we continue to the validation of our research model, the ITIL-IPM, with a
test of the hypotheses.
Of the 950 e-mails sent, we received 160 responses: 25 from Finland, 63 from Sweden,
24 from Denmark, and 48 from Norway, representing a response rate of 17%. The result-
ing sample represents a wide range of firms. Fifty-eight per cent belong to the private
sector and 42% to the public sector. Over 50% of the sample represents large companies
with more than 2000 employees. Twenty-five per cent of the respondents work in firms
with more than 300 IT professionals. Still, firms of various sizes and with varying
numbers of IT personnel are well represented. The respondents represent different roles
in their ITIL projects: project managers, project members, and process owners. Ninety-
three per cent of the respondents have ITIL training certificates, most of them at the
ITIL Foundation level.2 About 70% of the respondents have at least four years of experi-
ence with ITIL. Overall, our sample represents a variety of firms and project character-
istics, and we find that the respondents are well qualified to answer the survey. Table 2
shows the characteristics of the final sample with its respondents and their organisations.

Table 2. Respondents and their organisations.

# of # of IT
respondents Respondents’ roles Business sector # of employees professionals
Denmark 24 Process owner 31% Public sector 42% ,100 9% ,50 34%
Norway 48 Project manager 38% Private sector 58% 100–499 22% 50 –99 14%
Sweden 63 Process member 32% 500–2000 13% 100–300 26%
Finland 25 .2000 55% .300 25%
250 T.R. Eikebrokk and J. Iden

Descriptive data showed that most companies in our Nordic sample were not able to
provide accurate information on the budget allocated to the ITIL project, and most com-
panies had not yet adopted the ITIL processes of service strategy (ISS1 and ISS2) and con-
tinual service improvements (CSI). As a result, the indicator for budget could not be used
as partial operationalisation of organisational resources, and it was not possible to test
hypotheses for processes involving ITIL service strategy and ITIL CSI.

5.1. Instrument validation

Content validity is present if the indicators capture the full domain and scope of their
respective construct. As described in the previous section, the first step of content
validity involved operationalising the constructs with indicators from previously
published research. The second step involved a pretest with a qualitative assessment
through interviews and expert statements, as Götz et al. (2010) suggest. These pro-
cedures indicated that the ITIL-IPM and the instrument were both relevant and had
content validity.
The next step of validation involves construct validity, which reflects whether the
instrument has sufficient discriminant and convergent validity.

5.1.1. Constructs with reflective indicators

In validating constructs with reflective indicators, we investigated their discriminant and
convergent validity. At the construct level, discriminant validity is sufficient if the average
variance extracted (AVE) is higher than the squared cross-loadings between constructs,
and the convergent validity is sufficient if the coefficient alpha is above 0.7. Table 3
shows that all AVEs are higher than the squared cross-loadings and that all coefficient
alphas are above 0.7, indicating sufficient discriminant and convergent validity at the con-
struct level.
The reliability for each reflective indicator is expressed by its standardised loading.
Table 4 shows these values and their significance. Three indicators (OC3: the IT staff
strongly supports the ITIL project; PMC1: the project has managed to stay within
budget; and SQ5: it is easy for our staff to use the ITIL software) were slightly
below the recommended level of 0.707, indicating insufficient reliability at the indi-
cator level. These indicators were removed in the subsequent validation. Organisational
resources and sector had only one indicator each, and these values could not be
calculated.

5.1.2. Constructs with formative indicators

Theoretical and conceptual considerations and evaluations of content validity are the
basis for developing the formative indicators, and indicators cannot be removed
without the risk of altering their constructs. To validate the psychometric properties
of the formative indicators, we start by inspecting the degree of multicollinearity
between the indicators of each construct before we inspect their contribution to
forming their latent constructs.
Multicollinearity poses a serious threat to discriminant validity, since collinearity
can influence multiple regression analyses where formative indicators lead to variance
of their constructs (Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001; Petter, Straub, & Rai, 2007).
Table 5 reflects the degree of multicollinearity through bivariate correlations between
 Total Quality Management 251

Table 3. Discriminant and convergent validity for constructs with reflective indicators.
Senior
mgmt. Org. Project
involve- commit- Group mgmt. Softw. Org.
ment ment efficacy capability quality Resources AVE
Senior mgmt. 1 0.35 0.19 0.20 0.07 0.02 0.81
involvement
Org. commitment 0.35 1 0.24 0.27 0.07 0.01 0.63
Group efficacy 0.19 0.24 1 0.15 0.06 0.06 0.65
Project mgmt. 0.20 0.27 0.15 1 0.09 0.01 0.67
capability
Software quality 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.09 1 0.01 0.66
Org. resources 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 1 –
Cronbach’s alpha 0.89 0.71 0.74 0.83 0.87 –

formative indicators of each construct. Two indicators of service design correlated

above 0.8 (ISD3: capacity management, and ISD4: availability management), and
four other formative indicators showed bivariate correlations close to 0.8 (ISO2: Inci-
dent management; ISO6: Service desk; BA1: Our IT operations have been improved;
and BA2: Our organisation has been more effective). We kept these indicators for con-
siderations of content validity, but chose PLS regression as the regression method for
XLSTAT-PLSPM in the remaining validation because of its robustness in situations
with multicollinearity between formative indicators of the same construct (Vinzi,
Trinchera, & Amato, 2010).
As the second step in validating formative indicators, we inspected their contributions
to forming their latent variables. We followed the guidelines suggested by Cenfetelli and
Basselier (2009) and Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2014) and inspected the weights and
loadings for insignificance and co-occurrences of both negative and positive weights for
indicators of each construct. Table 6 shows the weights, loadings, and significance for
the formative indicators of each construct.
Tables 5 and 6 show a co-occurrence of negative and positive weights for some
indicators of the same construct, and a different valence of weights and loadings
even though the inter-correlations between indicators are positive. This is difficult
to interpret and complicates validation. Cenfetelli and Bassellier (2009, p. 696)
argue that this situation can occur when the correlations between the indicators
increase, even when collinearity is not a threat. They suggest suppression effects as
a probable explanation, since suppression is caused by substantial overlap between
predicting indicators. This overlap reduces the common variance between the predict-
ing indicator and the construct and can result in indicators with very low or even nega-
tive partial correlations or beta weights. If, however, indicator loadings are
simultaneously substantial and significant for all formative indicators, as they are
here, they reflect that the indicators have an absolute, partial contribution to
forming the latent construct. This pattern of inconsistency between partial corre-
lations, weights, and indicator loadings indicates that suppression is active, and we
conclude that there is evidence for a suppression effect rather than that the formative
indicators themselves are not valid.
To further validate the indicators, we inspected each formative indicator’s contribution
to forming its latent construct, as shown in Table 6 by the indicator weight and signifi-
cance, expressed as the critical ratio. The table shows that service design has two processes
252 T.R. Eikebrokk and J. Iden

Table 4. Standardised loadings and significance for reflective indicators.

Standardised Critical
Latent variable Indicator loading ratio
Senior management Senior management is strongly 0.896 30.213
involvement involved in the project
Senior management provides feedback 0.858 22.555
and guidance
A member of senior management 0.938 52.264
champions the project
Organisational Sufficient resources have been 0.868 18.214
commitment allocated
Key people are staying on the ITIL 0.804 14.768
project
The IT staff strongly supports the ITIL 0.702 12.782
project
Group efficacy The project group has sufficient 0.714 12.358
knowledge
The project group is using a formalised 0.864 27.485
method
The project members are working hard 0.835 18.957
to implement
PM capability The project has managed to stay within 0.702 5.982
budget
The project has managed to stay within 0.860 14.373
time
Management is satisfied with the ITIL 0.868 22.472
implementation
The IT staff is satisfied with the ITIL 0.835 20.511
implementation
Software quality ITIL software makes it easier to align 0.859 23.669
needs
ITIL software helps us implement ITIL 0.804 11.575
faster
ITIL software improves the results of 0.867 23.023
ITIL implementation
ITIL software helps us perform 0.806 19.392
processes effect
It is easy for our staff to use the ITIL 0.703 9.289
software
Organisational resources Approx. how many full-time IT 1.00 –
professionals

(ISD2: service-level management and ISD4: availability management) that contribute sig-
nificantly to forming the latent construct. Of these, availability management has the great-
est relative contribution. For service transition, two indicators are significant (IST2:
change management and IST7: knowledge management), and of these, change manage-
ment has the highest weight, showing that it contributes relatively more to forming the var-
iance of service transition. For service operation, there are two significant indicators
(ISO2: incident management and ISO3: request fulfilment), with incident management
being the most important. Of the weights for benefits achieved, only the weight of BA1
(our IT operations have been improved) is significant, with the highest relative contri-
bution. For BPM practices, two weights are significant, BPM2 (our processes are well
documented) and BPM6 (our processes are continuously improved), with the first
having the highest relative contribution.
 Total Quality Management 253

Table 5. Bivariate correlations between formative indicators.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ITIL service design (ISD)
ISD1 Service catalog management 1.000
ISD2 Service-level management 0.482 1.000
ISD3 Capacity management 0.367 0.561 1.000
ISD4 Availability management 0.423 0.602 0.812 1.000
ISD5 IT service continuity management 0.335 0.419 0.700 0.639 1.000
ISD6 Information security management 0.404 0.475 0.572 0.603 0.705 1.000
ISD7 Supplier management 0.380 0.404 0.481 0.452 0.540 0.644 1.000
ITIL service transition (IST)
IST1 Transition planning and support 1.000
IST2 Change management 0.464 1.000
IST3 Service asset and configuration 0.507 0.509 1.000
management
IST4 Release and deployment management 0.589 0.594 0.485 1.000
IST5 Service validation and testing 0.598 0.437 0.482 0.704 1.000
IST6 Evaluation 0.730 0.415 0.454 0.587 0.657 1.000
IST7 Knowledge management 0.546 0.438 0.518 0.449 0.507 0.614 1.000
ITIL service operation (ISO)
ISO1 Event management 1.000
ISO2 Incident management 0.345 1.000
ISO3 Request fulfilment 0.434 0.592 1.000
ISO4 Problem management 0.592 0.519 0.508 1.000
ISO5 Access management 0.459 0.368 0.513 0.481 1.000
ISO6 Service desk 0.293 0.771 0.579 0.465 0.443 1.000
Benefits achieved (BA)
BA1 Our IT operations have been 1.000
improved
BA2 Our organisation has been more 0.772 1.000
effective
BA3 Our processes have been improved 0.641 0.663 1.000
BA4 Roles and responsibilities have been 0.493 0.515 0.682 1.000
clarified
BA5 Service orientation has been 0.489 0.537 0.583 0.578 1.000
improved
BA6 Customer satisfaction has been 0.588 0.617 0.504 0.505 0.571 1.000
improved
BA7 Our IT costs have been reduced 0.465 0.482 0.311 0.306 0.349 0.459 1.000
Business process Mgmt. (BPM) practices
BPM1 Our processes are well standardised 1.000
BPM2 Our processes are well documented 0.739 1.000
BPM3 Process ownership is well 0.619 0.669 1.000
established
BPM4 Performance goals are set for the 0.563 0.591 0.578 1.000
processes
BPM5 Process performance is being 0.535 0.543 0.543 0.759 1.000
monitored
BPM6 Our processes are continuously 0.477 0.477 0.568 0.513 0.526 1.000
improved
BPM7 IT department is certified (ISO9000/ 0.071 0.056 0.136 0.168 0.126 0.148 1.000
20000)
254 T.R. Eikebrokk and J. Iden

Table 6. Weights, loadings, and significance for formative indicators.

Latent variable Indicators Weights Critical ratio Stand. loadings Critical ratio
ITIL service design ISD1 0.01 1.63 0.67 6.76
ISD2 0.01 2.38 0.79 10.89
ISD3 20.01 21.76 0.66 5.44
ISD4 0.02 3.50 0.85 12.03
ISD5 0.01 1.15 0.67 5.89
ISD6 20.01 20.78 0.63 6.69
ISD7 0.01 1.30 0.66 5.67
ITIL service transition IST1 0.00 0.51 0.67 7.52
IST2 0.02 3.37 0.86 14.18
IST3 0.00 0.45 0.66 7.68
IST4 0.01 1.55 0.82 12.01
IST5 0.01 1.35 0.74 10.22
IST6 20.01 20.79 0.61 5.81
IST7 0.01 2.07 0.71 8.72
ITIL service operation ISO1 0.00 20.03 0.50 4.67
ISO2 0.04 5.50 0.87 14.66
ISO3 0.01 2.63 0.80 9.26
ISO4 0.01 1.83 0.68 8.94
ISO5 0.00 1.08 0.53 4.49
ISO6 20.02 23.49 0.56 6.14
Benefits achieved BA1 0.51 2.20 0.86 14.27
BA2 20.12 20.42 0.77 8.28
BA3 0.44 1.51 0.83 8.94
BA4 0.25 1.41 0.75 8.64
BA5 20.05 20.24 0.63 5.70
BA6 0.34 1.79 0.78 9.76
BA7 0.23 1.12 0.61 4.14
BPM practices BPM1 0.22 1.56 0.82 13.35
BPM2 0.49 3.51 0.88 17.38
BPM3 20.03 20.22 0.73 8.20
BPM4 20.01 20.07 0.73 10.09
BPM5 0.22 1.45 0.76 10.81
BPM6 0.30 2.40 0.76 11.51
BPM7 0.08 1.32 0.22 1.81

The relative contributions of the indicators in forming their constructs cannot be used
to disregard any indicators. Rather, the significant loadings of the indicators make it more
likely that the low weights observed for ITIL implementation progress reflect substantial
overlap between indicators, and that most indicators do not contribute other than to influ-
ence the other indicators of the construct. What can the reason be for this overlap? The
obvious assumption is theoretical overlap between the indicators. Closer inspection of
the indicators gives us no clear sign of such an overlap. ITIL implementation progress
indicators reflect different processes and practices, described in detail in the five ITIL
volumes. For the outcome of ITIL implementation, we can see a possible overlap
between the indicators of benefits achieved, where BA2 (our organisation has been
more effective) is highly correlated with BA1 (our IT operations have been improved).
The wording in the items can be interpreted as reflecting the same effect, thus explaining
the negative weight for BA2. The same is possible for BA5 (service orientation has been
improved), which also has a negative weight. One indicator of BPM practices, BPM7 (IT
department is certified), seems less relevant due to its simultaneous lack of significant
 Total Quality Management 255

loading and weight. This indicator might be removed. Such discrepancies are to be
expected in this early research.

5.2. Model validation

In total, our research model, the ITIL-IPM, accounted for 20% and 46% of the variance in
the dependent variables, respectively. The antecedents in the model accounted for 20–
25% of the observed variance of ITIL implementation progress for the three groups of
ITIL processes. For the outcomes of ITIL implementation, our research model captured
36% of the observed variance for benefits achieved and 46% for process management
practices. Overall, the results show that the ITIL-IPM with its constructs is theoretically
relevant and able to account for a substantial part of the observed variance of both ITIL
implementation progress and outcomes. Following Ringle, Sarstedt, and Straub’s (2012)
recommendation to use better statistical criteria to make a stronger case for a model’s pre-
dictive capability, we have included the Stone – Geisser criterion (Q2) that tests this degree
of predictive relevance of the model. Values . 0 indicate predictive ability (Götz et al.,
2010), which is the case for all predicted dependent variables in our test of the ITIL-
IPM. Table 7 provides an overview of the predictive ability of our research model and
details of the hypotheses tests with path coefficients and significance levels. Since too
few companies had implemented ITIL service strategy and ITIL continual service
improvement, the related hypotheses (labelled a and e) could not be empirically tested.

5.2.1. Hypothesis test results: antecedents

The test of the remaining hypotheses revealed the following: Hypothesis H1 states that
senior management involvement is positively related to ITIL implementation progress,
which was confirmed for (H1b) Service design (0.11; p , .00); (H1c) Service transition
(0.09; p , .00); and (H1d) Service operation (0.09; p , .002).
Hypothesis H2 states that organisational commitment is positively related to ITIL
implementation progress, which was supported for (H2b) Service design (0.14; p , .00);
(H2c) Service transition (0.16; p , .00); and (H2d) Service operation (0.13; p , .00).
Hypothesis H3 describes a positive relationship between group efficacy and ITIL
implementation progress, which received empirical support for (H3b) Service design
(0.13; p , .00); (H3c) Service transition (0.17; p , .00); and (H3d) Service operation
(0.16; p , .00).
Hypothesis H4 states that PM capability is positively related to ITIL implementation pro-
gress. This was supported for all the ITIL processes: (H4b) Service design (0.14; p , .00);
(H4c) Service transition (0.15; p , .00); and (H4d) Service operation (0.13; p , .00).
Hypothesis H5 assumes a positive relationship between software quality and ITIL
implementation progress. This was partially supported. (H5b) showed that software
quality was not sufficiently related to service design and did not receive empirical
support (0.006; n.s.). (H5c) found that software quality showed a positive relationship
to service transition and was supported (0.10; p , .004). Finally, (H5d) found that soft-
ware quality was positively correlated with service operation and thus was also supported
(0.09; p , .006).
As the last antecedent to ITIL implementation, Hypothesis H6 states that there is a
positive relationship between organisational resources and ITIL implementation progress.
This received empirical support for (H6b) Service design (0.06; p , .03); (H6c) ITIL
Service transition (0.08; p , .009); and for (H6d) Service operation (0.11; p , .002).
256 T.R. Eikebrokk and J. Iden

Table 7. Hypotheses tests with path coefficient, significance, and explained variance.
Path Critical Dependent Explained Stone –
Hypotheses coefficient ratio variable variance R2 Geisser Q2
H1b Senior mgmt. 0.11 4.61∗∗ ITIL service 0.20 0.15
involvement design
H2b Organisational 0.14 5.42∗∗
commitment
H3b Group efficacy 0.13 4.63∗∗
H4b PM capability 0.14 4.82∗∗
H5b Software quality 0.06 1.49n.s.
H6b Org. resources 0.06 1.93∗
H1c Senior mgmt. 0.09 3.24∗∗ ITIL service 0.25 0.22
involvement transition
H2c Organisational 0.16 6.92∗∗
commitment
H3c Group efficacy 0.17 6.50∗∗
H4c PM capability 0.15 5.35∗∗
H5c Software quality 0.10 2.82∗∗
H6c Org. resources 0.08 2.47∗∗
H1d Senior mgmt. 0.09 3.15∗∗ ITIL service 0.22 0.19
involvement operation
H2d Organisational 0.13 6.08∗∗
commitment
H3d Group efficacy 0.16 5.11∗∗
H4d PM capability 0.13 5.51∗∗
H5d Software quality 0.09 2.67∗∗
H6d Org. resources 0.11 3.10∗∗
H7b ITIL Service 0.09 0.65n.s. Benefits 0.36 0.34
design achieved
H7c ITIL Service 0.20 1.65n.s.
transition
H7d ITIL Service 0.39 2.85∗∗
operation
H8b ITIL Service 0.22 10.98∗∗ BPM practices 0.46 0.45
design
H8c ITIL Service 0.28 12.48∗∗
transition
H8d ITIL Service 0.28 11.64∗∗
operation
Note: n.s, not significant.
∗
p , .05.
∗∗
p , .01.

5.2.2. Hypotheses test results: outcomes

Two hypotheses relate to ITIL implementation outcomes. Hypothesis H7 expects a posi-
tive relationship between ITIL implementation progress and the benefits achieved. H7
received partial empirical support. (H7b) Service design showed no significant and posi-
tive relationship to benefits achieved (0.09; n.s.). (H7c) received marginal support for the
expected relationship between the implementation progress of service transition and
benefits achieved (0.20; p , .06). On the other hand, (H7d) received strong empirical
 Total Quality Management 257

support for the expected relationship between the implementation progress of service
operation and benefits achieved (0.39; p , .004).
Our last hypothesis, H8, suggests that there is a positive relationship between ITIL
implementation progress and BPM practices in the organisation. H8 received strong
empirical support for all sub-hypotheses: the use of BPM practices was positively and sig-
nificantly related to (H8b) Service design (0.22; p , .000); (H8c) Service transition (0.28;
p , .000); and (H8d) Service operation (0.28; p , .000).
As is evident from Table 7, most hypotheses received empirical support by a critical
ratio that exceeds + 1.64 for the directional hypotheses. Two hypotheses were rejected:
software quality (H5b) was not significantly related to the implementation progress of
service design, and the implementation progress of service design (H7b) was not signifi-
cantly related to the benefits achieved. One hypothesis (H7c) received marginal empirical
support in assuming a positive relationship between the implementation progress of
service transition and benefits achieved.
Based on information from interviews prior to the empirical data collection, we
expected differences between the government- and privately owned companies in our
sample, and thus included sector as a control variable. Sector was not significantly
related to ITIL implementation progress or outcomes, indicating that the ITIL-IPM
might be equally relevant for both private (58%) and government (42%) companies.

6. Discussion and conclusions

Our study of the ITIL-IPM has three major contributions. First, our study contributes to
deeper insights into how organisations strategise their ITSM and create business value,
thus also contributing to the understanding of the IT function in organisations and to
the search for a new theory of IT contributions. As Guillemette and Paré (2012, p. 546)
point out,
it is impossible for an IT function to make a special contribution to an organization if it cannot
provide competent basic services. When this minimum level of contribution is attained, the IT
function is then in a good position to add value to the organization.
When IT functions implement ITIL, they adopt a tool in a set of best practices maintained
by a global community of ITSM, and thus take important steps towards building an IT
capacity that later adds value to the organisation.
Second, our study contributes to an increased understanding of how ITIL implemen-
tation projects become successful by proposing how success should be conceptualised
and measured. Despite ITIL’s global popularity as a practical strategy and tool for realis-
ing ITSM, IT investments matter only as far as IT capabilities become embedded in new
organisational practice (Arvidsson, Holmström, & Lyytinen, 2014; Galliers, 2011; Markus
& Robey, 2004; Peppard & Ward, 2004), implying that implementation is a crucial issue.
Based on a review of the ITIL literature, we developed the ITIL-IPM, which conceptual-
ises important antecedents and outcomes of ITIL implementation in organisations. After
operationalising the ITIL-IPM into an instrument, we used data from a sample of
Nordic companies to investigate how practice accomplishes this implementation
challenge.
Based on these data, we first validated the measurement properties of the ITIL-IPM,
and then the predictive relevance of the model and its hypotheses. Measurement validation
evolved through several steps involving content validity and construct validity. We ident-
ified three reflective indicators with insufficient reliability (OC3, PQ1, and SQ5) and
deleted them from further analysis. We also found evidence of multicollinearity in the
258 T.R. Eikebrokk and J. Iden

set of formative indicators, and we chose PLS regression as a more robust estimation strat-
egy for the remaining validation of the formative indicators and the predictive relevance of
the ITIL-IPM. The validation found evidence of suppression effects and overlap between
formative indicators, as indicated by differences in beta weights, path loadings, and nega-
tive weights. One BPM practice indicator (BPM7) had both insignificant weight and
loading and may be a candidate for deletion in subsequent studies. To analyse possible
reasons for overlap as explanations for the inconsistencies, we inspected the wording of
the indicators. We did not find any reasons to delete any indicators of ITIL implementation
progress, but we identified three indicators of outcomes (BA1: Our IT operations have
been improved; BA2: Our organisation has been more effective; and BA5: Service orien-
tation has been improved) where wording might have created an overlap primarily
between BA1 and BA2. Future studies should develop better operationalisations to
avoid this potential overlap.
Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2013) are concerned that the use of formative indicators
and formative measurement could lead to interpretational confounding and recommend
that researchers use these indicators exclusively for theory development purposes. Other
scholars (e.g. Cenfetelli & Bassellier, 2009; Hair et al., 2014) acknowledge the relevance
of formative indicators and suggest improvements in methods for validating them. These
improvements include investigating the significance of weights and the absolute contri-
bution of the indicators to the construct as expressed by the indicator loadings. Our use
of PLS meets these concerns. We suggest new theorising at an early stage of sophistication
and our use of formative indicators and PLS takes place in the area of theory development.
In validating the predictive relevance of the ITIL-IPM, we tested hypotheses reflecting
structural relationships between antecedents, implementation progress, and outcomes.
This validation confirmed not only that the model has the ability to explain the observed
variance of ITIL implementation and outcomes in both public and private sector compa-
nies, but also that the predictive relevance of the model can be improved by further devel-
opment of both the instrument and the conceptual model. One area of further improvement
of the instrument involves the one-indicator operationalisation of organisational resources
(OR1: Number of full-time IT professionals in the organisation). Using more than one
indicator is necessary for sufficient measurement, and further studies should investigate
alternative operationalisation of organisational resources. Another area of further
improvement concerns the conceptualisation of antecedents. The rather moderate
amount of explained variance in implementation progress and outcomes indicates that
there are other antecedents to implementing ITIL that are not covered by our conceptual
model. There is an opportunity for future research to explore other possible antecedents,
for example, culture and service orientation.
Our data do not allow a causal test of the assumed order between the constructs of the
ITIL-IPM, and further studies should investigate these and other relationships in the model
with other research designs. Our findings revealed empirical support for most of our
hypotheses, except for two hypotheses involving service design: H5b showed that
service design was not related to software quality, and H7b showed no relationship to
benefits achieved. These results are explainable. Investigating the features of ITIL soft-
ware, we find that current software packages are less supportive of the service design pro-
cesses (H5b) – for example, capacity management, IT service continuity management,
and information security management, which may be too complex to be managed by stan-
dard ITIL software. Regarding benefits achieved (H7b), the explanation may be that the
current indicators for this construct are not as suited for revealing the effects of
the service design processes as they are for the service operation processes. Although
 Total Quality Management 259

the indicators have been used by earlier studies, future research should investigate whether
an alternative set of indicators could measure the benefits of the complete set of ITIL pro-
cesses more precisely.
As for the antecedents, the tests of our hypotheses support the importance of senior
management involvement, organisational commitment, group efficacy, and PM capability
to the implementation progress of service design, service transition, and service operation.
We found empirical support for organisational resources as an antecedent to implemen-
tation of service transition and service operation, but the loss of one indicator (budget)
in operationalising organisational resources left us with a one-indicator measurement
that calls for caution in interpreting this support. The relative importance of the antece-
dents shows that group efficacy and organisational commitment are in general the most
influential antecedents to ITIL implementation progress. This is an interesting result,
since it challenges prevailing research on process reengineering and ITIL implementation
that found senior management involvement to be the most influential antecedent and factor
for success (Iden & Langeland, 2010; Marrone & Kolbe, 2011; Trkman, 2010). This is a
candidate topic for further investigation and research.
Of the three groups of ITIL processes investigated here, service operation is the most
influential on benefits achieved, followed by service transition. For outcomes of BPM
practices, service transition and service operations are equally influential, followed by
service design. Together, these patterns of relationships indicate that ITIL projects prior-
itise service operation and service transition over service design processes. These findings
are supported by earlier studies (Cater-Steel et al., 2009; Iden, 2010; Marrone & Kolbe,
2011).
Finally, our study contributes to practice and to the high number of ITIL implemen-
tation projects. Our results show that implementing ITIL can positively influence BPM
and lead to other substantial benefits in IT departments, potential effects that should motiv-
ate IT managers to consider ITIL implementation projects. Moreover, our results show the
importance of creating positive antecedents to ITIL implementation projects. The impor-
tance of senior management involvement is well documented in the literature and was
found to be important when implementing ITIL processes and best practices. Managers
should take a step further and focus on their organisations’ commitment to supporting
these projects, as well as on the capability of PM. More surprising, and less documented
in the ITIL literature, is the influence of the project group implementing the ITIL pro-
cesses. Group efficacy influenced ITIL implementation progress in general, and was the
most influential antecedent to the implementation progress of service transition and
service operation. Finally, our results show that ITIL software supporting the implemen-
tation has a positive influence on the implementation progress of service transition and
service operation.
Despite the positive contributions, our study has several limitations. First, we used
recent empirical data from 160 Nordic companies implementing ITIL. This is not suffi-
cient for a thorough validation of indicators and relationships of the ITIL-IPM, and
future research should continue the validation with data from other regions with firms
in other stages of ITIL implementation. Second, since few companies adopted the entire
set of ITIL processes, we were not able to empirically test the processes and practices
of service strategy and CSI, leaving this for future research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
260 T.R. Eikebrokk and J. Iden

Notes
1. At a recent (2014) large international itSMF conference, a panel of ITIL authors and influential
publicists were asked about their familiarity with academic research on ITIL implementation.
None of them was able to point to any research or research community in this field.
2. In increasing order of sophistication, ITIL certification has these levels: ITIL Foundation, ITIL
Immediate, ITIL Expert, and ITIL Master.

References
Adesola, S., & Baines, T. (2005). Developing and evaluating a methodology for business process
improvement. Business Process Management Journal, 11(1), 37– 46.
Albizu, E., & Olazaran, M. (2006). BPR implementation in Europe: The adaptation of a management
concept. New Technology, Work & Employment, 21(1), 43 –58.
Arvidsson, V., Holmström, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2014). Information systems use as strategy practice:
A multi-dimensional view of strategic information system implementation and use. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 23, 45 –61.
Balaji, S., Ranganathan, C., & Coleman, T. (2011). IT-led process reengineering: How Sloan
valve redesigned its new product development process. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10(2),
81 –92.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Barroso, C., Carrion, G. C., & Roldán, J. L. (2010). Applying maziumum likelihood and PLS on
different sample sizes: Studies on SERVQUAL model and exmployee behavior model. In
V. E. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least
squares; concepts, methods and applications. (pp. 427– 447). Heidelberg: Springer.
Bask, A. H., Tinnilä, M., & Rajahonka, M. (2010). Matching service strategies, business
models and modular business processes. Business Process Management Journal, 16(1),
153 – 180.
Becker, J., Delfman, P., Knackstedt, R., & Kuropka, D. (2002). Konfigurative Referenzmodellierung. In
J. Becker & R. Knackstedt (Eds.), Wissensmanagement mit Referenzmodellen: Konzepte für die
Anwendungssystem- und Organisationsgestaltung (pp. 22–144). Heidelberg: Springer.
van Bon, J. (2002). IT service management: An introduction. London: Addison-Wesley.
Bose, R., & Luo, X. (2011). Integrative framework for assessing firms’ potential to undertake Green
IT initiatives via virtualization – a theoretical perspective. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 20(1), 38– 54.
Buhl, H. U., Fridgen, G., König, W., Röglinger, M., & Wagner, C. (2012). Where’s the competitive
advantage in strategic information systems research? Making the case for boundary-spanning
research based on the German business and information systems engineering tradition.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21, 172– 178.
Cater-Steel, A. (2009). IT service departments struggle to adopt a service-oriented philosophy.
International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector, 1(2), 69–77.
Cater-Steel, A., & Pollard, C. (2008). Conflicting views on ITIL implementation: Managed as a
project – or business as usual? Paper presented at the 2008 Information Resources
Management Association (IRMA) International Conference. Retrieved from http://eprints.
usq.edu.au/4230/
Cater-Steel, A., Tan, W. G., & Toleman, M. (2009). itSMF Australia 2009 conference: Summary
report of ITSM standards and frameworks survey (Technical Report). Toowoomba:
University of Southern Queensland.
Cater-Steel, A., Toleman, M., & Tan, W. G. (2006, December 6 –8). Transforming IT service man-
agement – the ITIL impact. Paper presented at the 17th Australasian conference on infor-
mation systems, Adelaide, Australia.
Cenfetelli, R. T., & Bassellier, G. (2009). Interpretation of formative measurement in information
systems research. MIS Quarterly, 33(4), 689 –707.
Conger, S., Winniford, M., & Erickson-Harris, L. (2008, 14–17 August). Service management in
operations. Paper presented at the Fourteenth Americas conference on information
systems, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation. Reengineering work through information technology.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
 Total Quality Management 261

Davenport, T. H., & Short, J. E. (1990). The new industrial engineering: Information technology and
business process redesign. Sloan Management Review, 31(4), 11 –27.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An
alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277.
de Espindola, R. S., Luciano, E. M., & Audy, J. L. N. (2009). An overview of the adoption of IT gov-
ernance models and software process quality instruments at Brazil: Preliminary results of a
survey. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawaii.
Fielt, E., Böhmann, T., Korthaus, A., Conger, S., & Gable, G. (2013). Service management and
engineering in information systems research. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
22(1), 46 –50.
Fisher, D. M. (2004, September). The business process maturity model: A practical approach for
identifying opportunities for optimization. Business Process Trends, 1–7. Retrieved from
http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/10-04%20ART%20BP%20Maturity%20Model%
20-%20Fisher.pdf.
Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006). Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model.
International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 53 –65.
Galliers, R. D. (1993). Towards a flexible information architecture: Integrating business strategies,
information systems strategies and business process redesign∗ . Information Systems Journal,
3(3), 199 –213.
Galliers, R. D. (2011). Further developments in information systems strategizing: Unpacking the
concept. In R. D. Galliers & W. L. Currie (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of management infor-
mation systems (pp. 329– 345). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and
annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 91–109.
Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group
effectiveness across tasks and cultures. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 138– 152.
Götz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K., & Krafft, M. (2010). Evaluation of structural equation models using the
partial least squares (PLS) approach. In V. E. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.),
Handbook of partial least squares; concepts, methods and application (pp. 691– 711).
New York, NY: Springer.
Grover, V., Jeong, S. R., Kettinger, W. J., & Teng, J. T. (1995). The implementation of business
process reengineering. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(1), 109–130.
Guillemette, M., & Paré, G. (2012). Toward a new theory of the contribution of the IT function in
organizations. MIS Quarterly, 36(2), 529– 551.
Gulledge, T. R., & Sommer, R. A. (2002). Business process management: Public sector implications.
Business Process Management Journal, 8(4), 364–376.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hammer, M. (1990, July–August). Reengineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard
Business Review, 68, 104 –112.
Hammer, M. (2007, April). The process audit. Harvard Business Review, 85, 111– 123.
Hammer, M. (2010). What is business process management? In M. J. V. R. Brocke (Ed.), Handbook
on business process management. Introduction, methods and information systems (Vol. 1, pp.
3 –16). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the cooperation: A manifesto for business revo-
lution. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Harmon, P. (2010). The scope and evolution of business process management. In M. J. V. R. Brocke
(Ed.), Handbook on business process management. Introduction, methods and information
systems (Vol. 1, pp. 37–81). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Hochstein, A., Zarnekow, R., & Brenner, W. (2005, June 13 –15). Evaluation of service-oriented IT
management in practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of ICSSSM ‘05, International
Conference on Services Systems and Services Management, Chongquing, China.
Howell, R. D., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. B. (2013). Formative measurement: A critical perspective.
The Database for Advances in Information Systems, 44(4), 44–55.
Iden, J. (2009). Implementing IT service management. Lessons from a university IT department. In
A. Cater-Steel (Ed.), Information technology governance and service management:
Frameworks and adaptations (pp. 333 –363). Hershey: IGI Global.
262 T.R. Eikebrokk and J. Iden

Iden, J. (2010, November 23–24). The adoption of ITIL in the Nordic countries: A survey. Paper
presented at NOKOBIT, Norway.
Iden, J. (2012). Investigating process management in firms with quality systems: A multi-case study.
Business Process Management Journal, 18(1), 104–121.
Iden, J., & Eikebrokk, T. R. (2013). Implementing IT service management: A systematic literature
review. International Journal of Information Management, 33(3), 512–523.
Iden, J., & Langeland, L. (2010). Setting the stage for a successful ITIL adoption: A Delphi study
of IT experts in the Norwegian armed forces. Information Systems Management, 27(2),
103 –112.
Jia, R., & Reich, B. H. (2013). IT service climate, antecedents and IT service quality outcomes:
Some initial evidence. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 22(1), 51–69.
Kerzner, H. (2013). Project management. A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and control-
ling (11th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Kohlbacher, M. (2010). The effects of process orientation: A literature review. Business Process
Management Journal, 16(1), 135– 152.
Küng, P., & Hagen, C. (2007). The fruits of business process management: An experience report
from a Swiss bank. Business Process Management Journal, 13(4), 477–487.
Larsen, M. A., & Myers, M. D. (1997, December 15– 17). BPR success or failure? A business
process reengineering project in the financial services industry. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Information Systems, Atlanta, Georgia.
Mansar, S. L., & Reijers, H. A. (2007). Best practices in business process redesign: Use and impact.
Business Process Management Journal, 13(2), 193–213.
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (2004). Why stuff happens: Explaining the unintended consequences of
using information technology. In M. T. Vendelo & K. V. Andersen (Eds.), The past and future
of information systems (pp. 61 –93). London: Elsevier.
Marrone, M., Gacenga, F., Cater-Steel, A., & Kolbe, L. M. (2014). IT service management: A cross-
national study of ITIL adoption. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
34(Article 49), 865 –892.
Marrone, M., & Kolbe, L. M. (2010). Uncovering ITIL claims: IT executives’ perception on benefits
and business-IT alignment. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 9(3),
363 –380.
Marrone, M., & Kolbe, L. M. (2011). Impact of IT service management frameworks on the IT organ-
ization. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 3(1), 5–18.
McDonough III, E. F. (2000). Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross-functional
teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17, 221– 235.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commit-
ment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247.
Nah, F. F. H. L., Janet, L. S., Kuang, J. (2001). Critical factors for successful implementation of
enterprise systems. Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), 285–296.
Peppard, J., Galliers, R. D., & Thorogood, A. (2014). Information systems strategy as practice: Micro
strategy and strategizing IS. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23, 1– 10.
Peppard, J., & Ward, J. (2004). Beyond strategic information systems: Towards and IS capability.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(2), 167– 194.
Pereira, R., & da Silva, M. M. (2010, June 16 –19). ITIL maturity model. Paper presented at the 5th
Iberian conference on information systems and technologies (CISTI), Santiago de
Compostela.
Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative indicators in information systems
research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623 –656.
Pollard, C., & Cater-Steel, A. (2009). Justifications, strategies, and critical success factors in success-
ful ITIL implementations in U.S. and Australian companies: An exploratory study.
Information Systems Management, 26(2), 164–175.
Pollard, C., Gupta, D., & Satzinger, J. W. (2009, August 6 –9). Integrating SDLC and ITSM to ‘ser-
vitize’ systems development. Paper presented at the Fifteenth Americas conference on infor-
mation systems, AMCIS, San Francisco, California.
Ranganathan, C., & Dhaliwal, J. S. (2001). A survey of business process reengineering practices in
Singapore. Information & Management, 39(2), 125–134.
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM. MIS
Quarterly, 36(1), iii –xiv.
 Total Quality Management 263

Rosemann, M., de Bruin, T., & Power, B. (2006). A model to measure business process management
maturity and improve performance. In J. Jeston & J. Nelis (Eds.), Business process manage-
ment (pp. 299 –315). London: Heinemann.
Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy and work-related behaviour: A review and meta-
analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42, 139–152.
Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behaviour and belief. In B.
M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behaviour (pp. 1–54).
Chicago: St. Clair Press.
Sedera, W., Gable, G., Rosemann, M., & Smyth, R. (2004). A success model for business process
modeling: Findings from a multiple case study. Paper presented at the Pacific Asia conference
on information systems 2004.
Sheldon, M. E. (1971). Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the
organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 142–150.
Smith, H., & Fingar, P. (2003). Business process management – the third wave. Tampa: Meghan-
Kiffer Press.
Staw, B. M. (1977). Two sides of commitment. Paper presented at the Academy of Management.
Straub, D., Boudreau, M. C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for IS-positivist research.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13(24), 380– 427.
Taylor, S. (2007). The official introduction to the ITIL service lifecycle. London: The Stationary
Office.
Taylor, S., Case, G., & Spalding, G. (2007). Continual service improvement. London: The Stationary
Office.
Teubner, A., Pellengahr, A., & Mocker, M. (2012). IT strategy devide: Professional practice and
academic debate. Muenster, Germany: European Research Center for Information Systems.
Trkman, P. (2010). The critical success factors of business process management. International
Journal of Information Management, 30(2), 125–134.
Vinzi, V. E., Trinchera, L., & Amato, S. (2010). PLS path modeling: From foundations to recent
developments and open issues for model assessment and Improvement. In V. E. Vinzi, W.
W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares; concepts,
methods and application (pp. 47– 82). New York, NY: Springer.
vom Brocke, J., & Thomas, O. (2006). Reference modeling for organizational change: Applying col-
laborative techniques for business engineering. Paper presented at the Twelfth Americas
Conference on Information Systems.
Whittington, R. (2014). Information systems strategy and strategy-as-practice. Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 23, 87– 91.
Winniford, M., Conger, S., & Erickson-Harris, L. (2009). Confusion in the ranks: IT
service management practice and terminology. Information Systems Management, 26(2),
153 – 163.
Zajac, A., & Soja, P. (2012, August 9–12). ITSM adoption in European SMEs: Transition versus
developed economies. Paper presented at the AMCIS Americas Conference on Information
Systems, Seattle, WA.
264 T.R. Eikebrokk and J. Iden

Appendix. Survey instrument (extract)

Senior management involvement

Please rank the following statements from 1 (low validity) to 5 (high validity)
. Senior management is strongly involved in the project.
. Senior management provides continuous feedback and guidance to the ITIL project.
. A member of senior management champions the ITIL project.

Organisational commitment
. Sufficient resources have been allocated for the ITIL project.
. Key people are staying on the ITIL project from start to finish to maintain continuity.
. The IT staff strongly supports the ITIL project.

Group efficacy
. The project group has sufficient knowledge of ITIL.
. The project group is using a formalised method for developing ITIL processes.
. The project members are working hard to implement ITIL.

PM capability
. The project has managed to stay within budget.
. The project has managed to stay within time limits.
. Management is satisfied with the ITIL implementation.
. The IT staff is satisfied with the ITIL implementation.

Software quality
. ITIL software makes it easier to align needs with ITIL’s recommendations.
. ITIL software helps us implement ITIL faster.
. ITIL software improves the results of our ITIL implementation.
. ITIL software helps us perform our processes more efficiently.
. It is easy for our staff to use the ITIL software.

Organisational resources
. Approximately how many full-time IT professionals are employed in your organisation?

ITIL implementation progress

Please rate your implementation progress: not started (0%), early stage, halfway (50%), advanced
stage, or completed (100%)
ITIL service strategy
. Financial management
. Service portfolio management

ITIL service design

. Service catalog management
. Service-level management
. Capacity management
. Availability management
. IT service continuity management
. Information security management
. Supplier management

ITIL service transition

. Transition planning and support
. Change management
 Total Quality Management 265

. Service asset and configuration management

. Release and deployment management
. Service validation and testing
. Evaluation
. Knowledge management

ITIL service operation

. Event management
. Incident management
. Request fulfilment
. Problem management
. Access management
. Service desk

ITIL continual service improvement

. The 7-step improvement process

Benefits achieved
Please rank the following statements from 1 (low validity) to 5 (high validity):
. Our IT operations have been improved.
. Our organisation has been more effective.
. Our processes have been improved.
. Our roles and responsibilities have been clarified.
. Our service orientation has been improved.
. Our customer (business side) satisfaction has been improved.
. Our IT costs have been reduced.

Process management practices

. Our processes are well standardised.
. Our processes are well documented.
. Process ownership is well established.
. Performance goals are set for the processes.
. Process performance is systematically being monitored.
. Our processes are continuously being improved.
. Our IT department is certified (ISO 9000 or ISO 20000).
Copyright of Total Quality Management & Business Excellence is the property of Routledge
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.