Is Microsoft attempting to patent CMDB?

A recent patent application appears to indicate that Microsoft is applying to patent CMDB. This issue is not attracting the outrage that it ought to. Next time you see your Microsoft rep, ask him/her WTF they are up to. And if you get anything like a rational answer, post it here so we can all understand.

Technology does not fix process

People are drawn to IT by a fascination with complex technology. This is most unfortunate because this fascination blinds so many of us to the importance of the People/Process/Product trilogy.

The madness mounts. When will the CMDB reality check come?

Dennis Deane, head of program management in Europe for Scottsdale, Ariz.-based delivery company DHL...
"In order to really implement a good CMDB, the team has to get granular with the information," Deane says. This translates into working with individual CIs and entering them manually into the database. "Every laptop and registration number has to get into the program somehow."

The key to living without CMDB is process maturity level

This article has been podcast

Yes you can do without CMDB, so long as you are aiming at not too high a maturity level, say 3. The trick is to remember that you don't adopt a process, you improve it. If we aspire to a moderate level of maturity, then yes we can do without a CMDB. Plenty of people do.

The software analyst industry needs a code of practice.

This article has been podcast

In my country, the broadcast industry and the advertising industry both adhere to a voluntary code of practice to police the more extreme behaviours of their members. I wish the software vendor industry and their parasitic analysts would do the same.

Don't fall for the demo: an asset database with bells and whistles is not a CMDB

This article has been podcast

Don't fall for the demo: anyone can set up an asset database with enough relationship bells and whistles on it to fool themselves and others that they have a CMDB.

Get it straight: CMDB can not be auto-discovered

This line in a Butler Group white paper synopsis pressed a button for me:"Service Configuration Management enables quick establishment of Configuration Management Database (CMDB) through auto discovery". I respect the Butler Group more than most analysts, and I am too tight to buy the full text from them, so I hope the synopsis is a bit misleading. Though from the tone of the rest I fear it isn't. This pernicious idea turns up regularly, mostly from software vendors. It must be stamped out.

ITIL's CMDB can't be done, no-how

This discussion of CMDB and its total impracticality has got legs. Let me reinforce two points please: (1) CMDB can't be done because of the data and regardless of the implementation and (2) I'm talking about CMDB as specified by the ITIL books, not any old database. It can't be done.

Living without CMDB

This article has been podcast

CMDB is positioned as the key underpinning foundation to ITIL:

Configuration Management provides the foundation for successful IT Service Management and underpins every other process. The fundamental deliverable is the Configuration Management Database (CMDB) [Ref 1]

This is wrong. It is a peripheral nice-to-have. In a previous blog we discussed how it is currently an infeasible nice-to-have. Let's talk about doing without it.

Syndicate content