ITIL4F Key Concepts of IT Service Management Practice Question

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

• ✓

  Implement a change enablement practice with standard, normal, and emergency change types

  Why this is correct

  The ITIL 4 change enablement practice categorizes changes into standard, normal, and emergency types to balance speed and risk effectively. Standard changes are pre-authorized and low-risk, allowing for rapid implementation without extensive review. Normal changes follow a defined workflow with appropriate assessment and authorization, suitable for most significant modifications. Emergency changes are expedited with minimal assessment and authorization to restore service quickly, ensuring critical issues are addressed without undue delay while still maintaining essential control. This structured approach ensures appropriate governance for all change scenarios, aligning controls with the potential impact and urgency.

• ✗

  Require all changes to go through a change advisory board (CAB) meeting

  Why it's wrong here

  Requiring all changes, regardless of their urgency or risk profile, to undergo a Change Advisory Board (CAB) meeting introduces significant delays and bureaucratic overhead. This approach is particularly detrimental for emergency changes, which demand immediate action to restore critical services, as waiting for a scheduled CAB meeting would prolong outages and increase business impact. ITIL 4 advocates for a more agile approach, leveraging different change types and appropriate Change Authorities to streamline approvals where appropriate, rather than creating a universal bottleneck that hinders service restoration and agility.

• ✗

  Document the incident but take no further action to avoid bureaucracy

  Why it's wrong here

  Merely documenting an incident without taking further action to address its underlying cause is a critical failure in IT service management. This inaction ensures that the root problem remains unresolved, significantly increasing the likelihood of recurrence and potential future service disruptions. ITIL principles emphasize learning from incidents through problem management to identify and eliminate root causes, thereby preventing their reoccurrence, improving service stability, and delivering continuous value. Passive documentation without subsequent action is an unacceptable strategy that perpetuates service instability.

• ✗

  Restrict change implementation to only the senior administrator

  Why it's wrong here

  Restricting all change implementation to a single senior administrator creates a severe single point of failure, introducing significant operational risks. This approach severely limits the organization's agility and capacity to implement multiple changes concurrently, leading to bottlenecks and delays in service improvement and restoration. Furthermore, it creates an over-reliance on one individual, making the system vulnerable to their absence, burnout, or errors, thereby undermining service resilience, efficiency, and the ability to scale operations effectively.

Go deeper

Related to this question