Having been a carpenter for 20+ years, I have to go back to that model. You have a group or board set building codes that are specific for your community. You have architects that take those building codes, the site plan, and customer needs and design a structure. That structure starts with artist renderings various options before it gets to the detail level. Once the customer selects the option they like, the Architect is committed to provided detailed plans and all the accompanying schedules (documentation). These plans may need to be reviewed or approved by a logical building or zoning board. It is only when these have been complete that the General Contractor can provide a cost and time estimate. At this point, the contractors are accountable to build the building to the architects specifications (which are aligned with the building code). The contractors work is incrementally inspected by building inspectors to ensure that the building meets or exceeds the building code.
So who has accountability?
The architect maintains accountability to design to the building code. If the building is constructed to the plans, the architect maintains accountability. If the contractor "improvises" or diverges from the plans, accountability shifts to the contractor. This is also true if there is a structural failure in the building.
How does this translate to IT Service Management?
