The Skeptical Informer, April 2009, Volume 3, No. 4
The newsletter of the IT Skeptic. All the IT skeptical news that is fit to print... and then some!
- I strongly urge everyone to do amateur acting classes even if, like me, you never tread the boards. One of the most important things you learn is mask work. It is enlightening to see how a mask transforms your personality as you put it on.
The IT Skeptic didn’t set out to be a journalist but that is what he has become. Journalists are a contemptible breed (except of course any reviewing this book). I don’t much like most that I have met. But the IT Skeptic performs a useful function in the IT industry, asking hard questions that needed to be asked, especially to put a brake on the wild exuberance that is sweeping the ITIL industry away.
In order to fulfil their function, journalists must be read by many readers. To be successful - to survive - journalists must serve the market. They write what the market wants to read, and the market likes a little titillation with their content.
I can’t say I entirely like the IT Skeptic, but I like what he does and I hope he continues to do it. In the end, I have come to terms with him because he is me.
Since ITIL does not tabulate all the role definitions anywhere, not even the glossary (except possibly on the ridiculously expensive ITIL Live - who'd know?), once again the IT Skeptic provides a public service in the same way as our cross-reference list of ITIL V3 processes. Here is
the IT Skeptic's Unofficial Unauthorised List of ITIL V3 Roles
[Updated 2009/4/16: added SFIA cross reference and some questions]
[Updated 2009/10/7: added five more roles - thanks JRD! "By far the best list I've found!"]
[Updated 2009/10/23: added comments about the Glossary]
[Updated 2010/7/26: added more roles from SD]
[Updated 2011/08/11: removed SFIA, see comments]
***** FOR ITIL V3 2011 ("3.1") list of roles, see comment below from Matthew Burrows
14 questions for an ITIL environment health check
Recently the IT Skeptic floated the idea of an On-Demand CMDB. Let us consider some of the implications.
In amongst all the vendor pimping and teenage overexcitement there are folk talking common sense about Cloud Computing. So I am hijacking this blog post that was originally just about the McKinesy report on Cloud and I'm transforming it into a thread of Cloud Common Sense, as picked by the IT Skeptic and you, gentle readers. Feel free to add your own picks but be warned: vendor hype or wide-eyed gushing will be treated mercilessly.
The stress levels were rising in Two Hills World Headquarters Tower in inverse proportion to the billable hours. Something had to be done. Urgent action was called for. So I rearranged my office.
[Updated 6 May to use correct link] It has arrived. As previously disclosed, the OGC has appointed APMG to administer a scheme to assure ITIL compliance of software.
Sadly PRINCE2:2009 seems to be a scripted repeat of ITIL V3. Wholesale change is passed off as a minor revision. The public are assured that older certifications will still be of value and that the new certification is no big deal. Your Highness, don't alarm the peasants.
We went through exactly the same crap with ITIL V3, the - haha - "Refresh".
Lately I've been involved in a fair amount of debate and discussion over CMDB. The lucrative over-hyped CMDB-building industry has closed minds to the possibility that just perhaps this isn't the smartest thing to be concentrating efforts on. I thought I'd gather together here my recent statements as to why CMDB is seldom the best use of funds, i.e. why CMDB can't be done within reasonable business bounds.
Once Development was the epicenter of IT, then Operations was. Now it is Service. Soon it will be Governance.
Operations is a commoditised domain now: people increasingly buy on price.
We endlessly hear that ITIL is not prescriptive. Every organisation is different. We must adopt and adapt. Well... y-e-s.
There is a cultural imperative to fit "the way we do things around here" as much as possible, so as to reduce change, re-education and resistance.
There is a historical inertia due to entrenched incumbent systems.
But on the other hand the benefits of ITIL are standardisation and common language. Thess reduce the costs and time when new people come in: employees, trainers, consultants, auditors...
Puhleeese. Green IT is pure fad. Sitting in an air-con office made from cement and steel and plastics, with the SUV parked outside, banging on about saving a kilowatt is just PC hypocracy.
Still cleaning out my rearranged office and found this. One of the worst examples of management I recall, though of course there is some stiff competition
Cloud computing is a popular topic right now. Some see it as a saviour technology for cost cutting but there is too much thought given to how you will connect at a technical level with a Cloud service provider. Just as important is how you will connect at a process level and at a business level. IT development and solutions staff are prone to waving these considerations away as an issue for the operations people and the “suits”, but the process and business considerations are more important than the technical ones.
Please forward this newsletter to someone who would enjoy it
© Copyright 2006-2009 Two Hills Ltd www.twohills.co.nz. All rights reserved
Permission is required to reproduce this content in any form. Brief extracts may be used without permission if attributed with a link to the site.
"The IT Skeptic™", "The Skeptical Informer™", "The IT Swami™", "Chokey the Chimp™" and "BOKKED™" are trademarks of Two Hills Ltd.
ITIL® is a Registered Trade Mark and a Registered Community Trade Mark of the UK Office of Government Commerce ("OGC"). ITIL® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
COBIT® is a Registered Trade Mark of the Information Systems Audit and Control Association and the IT Governance Institute.
Microsoft® is a Registered Trade Mark of Microsoft Corp. in the United States and/or other countries.
CMM® is a Registered Trade Mark of Carnegie Mellon University.
ISO® is a Registered Trade Mark of the International Organisation for Standardisation.
This newsletter and its contents are neither associated with nor endorsed by the OGC or any other organisation.
The contents of this newsletter do not represent the views of Two Hills Ltd.