Selected comments from The IT Skeptic blog for February 2007

These are the IT Skeptic's picks from the comments of February

Visitor X |
...when you take the responsibility for providing process related data out of the hands of those who intimately manage the process, and put it into the virtual hands a phantomware database housing a little, little bit about more and more technology, you ultimately get something that can tell you nothing about everything.

Charles T. Betz |
In SWEBOK, it was 500 participants through a multi-year process. Not 500 reviewers producing material that the primary authors will have mere weeks to sift through...

Maarten Bordewijk (not verified) |
ITIL is a travel guide on Rome. If you go to Rome for a weekend you would be crazy to do all the things in a travel guide. Therefore it is nonsense to claim that a 75% of all trips to Rome where travellers used a particular travel guide are made with 50% reduction in costs. And it is even more rediculous to claim that this resulted in a successfull/nice/rewarding trip.

vaioboyaus |
I have a real problem with intra-organisational "contracts" where do you go for mediation and what do you do when you want to terminate. This highlights that there are too many things you can't do effectively with the internal shop that you can do with external providers.

skeptic |
I don't think there would be any problem getting authors: they are getting paid while at the same time getting priceless kudos, exposure, knowledge, experience and contacts, and shaping ITIL in their own image. I'd crawl over broken glass for a gig like that.

jimbo |
10 to 12 people were selected by the OGC commercial selection process, but as the skeptic says there was hardly any public debate before then about how ITIL should develop. The volume I reviewed was written by two people who I know well and like very much, but who are nowhere near the leading edge in the subject they have written about. On the other hand several people who are at the leading edge held back from contributing because they did not want to lose copyright. There is something to be said for the "wisdom of crowds" that I may or may not agree with, but my point would be that there wasn't a meaningful debate beforehand.

Mike Drapeau (not verified) |
Organizations have a hard enough time as it is in developing, maintaining, and frankly using the artifacts of their strategic planning. They would be better served if this aspect of the 5 Service Delivery processes was enabled through software. Such a capability might include workflow, document templates, and other KM management features – all with an ITIL flavor. Furthermore, with the advent of the life cycle focus and features of ITIL v3, the need for a document management ‘system’ will increase and this tool gap (with or without quotation marks) will increase

Charles Betz (not verified) |
"You can't go unilaterally redefining what a CMDB is." Watch me. If what ITIL calls for is technically unfeasible - or more charitably, a logical function independent of implementation - then those of us who have to solve the problem will decompose it as necessary. I've received a lot of feedback that the element versus enterprise config distinction is useful and pretty much the key issue confusing things.

Onus (not verified) |
Just a thought - why was the ISO 9000 standard not extended to include the simplistic service provider concepts instead of offering a version in crayon within ISO 200000. Can anyone dispel the rumor that the failure to launch ITIL V3 in April 2005 (as originally "scheduled") led to those involved having to fast-track the woeful BS15000 into ISO 20000 before the BS 150000 'standard' lapsed at the end of 2005? Are we to repeat the long uphill struggle of repairing ISO 20000 as happened to BS7799 and ISO 17799.... please spare us. There is actually a standards development process ISO prefers folks use and the fast-track method seems so much like the 'emergency change' we all despise publicly, but are ok with when we are not directly affected.

Scott (not verified) |
Listening to the podcast allowed me to feel it was OK to have "CMDB data" in different data sources (as long as there was a solid process). I keep thinking we were somehow doing it wrong. The vendor cool aid was giving brain freeze. Thanks for the thaw!

dool |
The new version takes a systemic approach though not quite what process acolytes are expecting. The influences from product management, industrial engineering and system dynamics are clearly felt. All in all, a big leap forward from the Deming-flavored V2. Process is a means not the end. Some well established tenets are either evolved or overturned. The cycle begins and ends with the service... There is one thing for sure that no one has called out. V3 turned out to be far more than a refresh.

kengon (not verified) |
...As a member of itSMF USA, I am profoundly disgusted with what passes for representation. I'll likely not renew my membership when it comes up. It seems to me that the organization has de-evolved into little more than the marketing arm of its platinum sponsors. I seem to get more advertisements than things related to being a member...

Realist (not verified) |
...I've worked in service and systems management positions for a number of years now and although I find ITIL to be a common sense approach, the CMDB rhetoric and "cornerstone" status of any successful implementation has and will continue to be complete bollocks... the tool itself isn't going to do anything. Service/Help desk tools which include CMDB type functionality don't actually make you provide better support or change management...The best way of achieving some of the intended benefits of a CMDB is not via the CMDB, but by effective service management... The ITIL CMDB and other best practice fundamentalism has turned into a gravy train for some, allowing them to milk contracts and fleece enterprises for large amounts of money when the return on investment is so low compared against the cost of implementation. To me that is a people problem, and signifies that many of us need to look more at our business values rather than thinking what we achieve in terms of IT has some sort of intrinsic value simply because it is IT.

Syndicate content