ITIL · Question #465
Which statement about service review meetings is FALSE?
The correct answer is A. Actions from service review meetings should only be assigned to the service provider. The false statement is that service review meeting actions should only be assigned to the service provider, because actions can be assigned to either the service provider or the customer.
Question
Which statement about service review meetings is FALSE?
Options
- AActions from service review meetings should only be assigned to the service provider
- BMeetings should be held on a regular basis to review service achievement
- CIssues for the upcoming period should be discussed at the meetings
- DProgress and success of the service improvement program (SIP) should be reviewed
How the community answered
(34 responses)- A91% (31)
- B3% (1)
- C6% (2)
Why each option
The false statement is that service review meeting actions should only be assigned to the service provider, because actions can be assigned to either the service provider or the customer.
Service review meetings are a joint forum between the service provider and the customer, and action items can legitimately be assigned to either party depending on the issue identified. Restricting all actions to the service provider contradicts the shared responsibility model defined in ITIL service level management and misrepresents how these meetings operate.
Holding regular meetings to review service achievement is a correct and fundamental purpose of service review meetings in ITIL service level management.
Discussing issues and plans anticipated for the upcoming period is a standard and correct agenda item for service review meetings.
Reviewing progress and success of the Service Improvement Program is a defined and correct activity that should occur within service review meetings.
Concept tested: ITIL service level management service review meeting responsibilities
Source: https://www.axelos.com/certifications/itil-service-management/itil-4-foundation
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.