The Skeptical Informer, August 2007, Volume 1, No. 7
The newsletter of the IT Skeptic. All the IT skeptical news that is fit to print... and then some!
I think this dissent stems from a more fundamental problem. As a result of integrating all the "Lost Books" of Version 2, ITIL Version 3 is an order-of-magnitude broader and more complex than the red-and-blue-books-version2 that most people work with. This is an advance for the industry, a step up in competency. Unfortuantely it is only a step up if you are already standing on the Version 2 step. If you have not embarked on the service management journey yet, then Version 3 represents a high wall. Chuck the Five Books at a beginner and they'd run screaming. This is what is happening with the Fundamentals course: jam the five books into three days and the result is deep shock.
Version 3 provides no intermediate steps up the wall. Version 2 is the only "beginner's ITIL" available. OGC and TSO are hell-bent on killing off Version 2 as fast as possible. But Version 2 will not go anywhere until an "ITIL for Dummies" comes out as part of V3 complementary guidance. Or people will start turning to alternatives such as FITS.
The other book we desperately need is "How to Implement ITIL" including a progressive series of steps up that wall. The Five Books say where to get to but they still say little about how to get there.
I've criticised the development of version 3 in the past for not being open and inclusive enough and I think this is a consequence. If ITIL Version 3 had been tested with a wider audience along the way which included organisations with no knowldghe of ITIL then this would have emerged as a problem sooner. But it wasn't. It was developed from and tested on the existing ITIL community, and mostly the private little club of the ITIL aristocracy.
So if any reader wants to gain fame and save the world, write a decent book on How to Do ITIL.
These remarks are probably not the best way to introduce the next bit of news: Sharon Taylor has agreed to be an occasional guest blogger on the IT Skeptic (see below). I'm hoping this move will take the quality of debate on the blog to the next level.
On another note, let me share a comment from me from the blog re itSMF:
I want to be part of an organisation that represents the views of the users of ITIL not the sellers of ITIL. And right now I'd like it to be kicking some butt on a number of issues:
- certification: get it sorted
- alignment... no: unification... with ISO20000 and COBIT, for starters
- governance of itSMF
- vendor influence on APMG, TSO, itSMF...
- public input to ITIL
Oh...and this month I outted myself. Hi, my name's Rob. Much comment activity on the blog has been around certification, and in particular dissatisfaction with the Version 3 Fundamentals course.
This month I'm determined to limit myself to a few interesting comments. Let's see how successful I can be:
Another vision | Visitor (not verified)
...The itSMFUSA membership is somewhat aggrandized, and is more realistically around 4,000. As the planet discovered with the voting issue, most of their membership comes as a result their conference and most of them don’t renew their memberships...
itSMF | jvbon
..."The itSMF" is not the same as "the UK chapter of itSMF" although many of its members still seem to think so.
In 1994 the Dutch installed a legal entity called the ITIMF, which changed its name to itSMF in 1996 or 1997. So if you are right, that makes them the first official/legal itSMF.... ;-)
Members and mission | Visitor (not verified)
itSMFUSA members are a market to sell to rather that a population to serve.
Well said... | Visitor (not verified)
...Another sad realization, the crucial election debacle. To paraphrase the president, the bogus votes didn’t affect the outcome, so, no harm no foul. Excuse me, does anyone see a problem here? When the next great problem surfaces, will this be the strategy the board employs?
[More itSMF (and IoSM) comments here]
Over the ATOs' dead bodies! | skeptic
...there will be a battle royal between the ATOs and the universities over the Diploma-level certifications. And if the universities win, then I for one wouldn't be going to an ATO for the Foundation and practitioner papers either, I'd be doing 100 and 200 level papers at varsity.
V3 Foundations Syllabus - Yikes! | Liz (not verified)
...It is very much a mess with the sample exams that have incorrect answers, and no rationalization with each answer. My students were very frustrated...
[And many more comments on that thread.]
Yanks are engaged | Visitor (not verified)
It seems even the US government is getting into the services game. Section 1106 of the "National Competitiveness Act" is all about services with a heavy bent on IT and business strategy. http://forums.thesrii.org/srii/blog/article?blog.id=spohrer&message.id=2...
LOL | brian_dayton
...there is nothing wrong with ITIL taking a more academic flavour. It raises the level of discussion. My biggest worry is having people who are not challenged and motivated to think. They cost me money, so I want the most out of them...
public domain | jvbon
...The result of the CAR project has clearly placed ITIL outside of the public domain - which is not a problem, just a fact...
judge not by the cover but the content | ITMaturity
It will be a pity to judge ITIL v3 by bad experiences with vendors, ITSMF, or the authors. It is not about the outside or the package. It is about the content of the framework.
Lean and ITIL | Visitor (not verified)
...The key to Toyota’s success is not from a set of techniques but from its philosophy. Instead of copying what they do, manufacturers should have copied how Toyota thinks...
Virtualization and CMDB federation | Marv Waschke (not verified)
...the challenge in a CMDB for virtualization is the dynamic nature of the beast. Generally, I think you need to distinguish between configuration and operational state. Configuration is the relatively static side of a CI: set it, but don’t forget it. Operational state is what changes as a CI does its job. Generally, a CMDB is designed to manage configuration; managing operational state is for monitoring tools. Crisp, this distinction is not. CMDB users often want real-time status and monitors display configuration all the time. Virtualization blurs the distinction even more because you could say that the configuration of the VM is an operational status that changes as rapidly as any conventional operational status...
[And lots more meaty CMDB content on that thread.]
Coming of the Messiah | Visitor (not verified)
Good job man. You've made a name for yourself criticizing ITIL v3. Those who had axes to grind with various parties hailed you as their masked hero. You then emerged from the sky "unveiling" yourself as the Chosen One. And now you want "variations on the accepted ITIL wisdom"?! for a group that tried to discredit the v3 project simply because of OGC decisions regarding publications and certifications. You are now in a position to anoint entire groups, organizations, publications, and judge on what is "wisdom". Surely, you must be the Messiah we were all waiting for!! Wow! This would never happen in another industry.
Yup. It is time to drop the veil of anonymity. While it was a good idea at the start of this blog it is becoming a constraint.
I am honoured and excited to announce that Sharon Taylor has accepted my invitation to be the first ever guest blogger on this blog.
This article has been podcast
OK I'll bite. One of the nice folk at Evergreen, Jill Landers, posted "Top 10 reasons to implement a CMDB". I'll do the right thing and not quote it in full here so you need to go read that first. Then you can enjoy my "Top 10 reasons NOT to implement CMDB"
This post has been podcast
ITIL Version 3 tells us how to run, whilst ITIL version 2 tells us how to walk. Many sites are only ready to learn to walk, so what then to do about the good ideas introduced in Version 3? Do we add a little 3 to the mix? or will that only cause confusion?
On a freezing Southern midwinter solstice night last month, beside a driftwood bonfire on wild Pukerua Bay beach, New Zealand, the IT Swami gazed into the future to give us his “Southern New Year” predictions for the IT Infrastructure Library. I was shivering as I wrote so some of my notes are a little illegible but here is the first of his visions that I recorded:
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.