Microsoft are more avaricious than the Fat ITSM Four, by a nose
Microsoft is worse than ITIL?
The Vendor and British ITIL cabal are busy redefining their closed, theoretical "framework" to include everything under the sun. And, they seem to be doing it for the express purpose of advancing the vendors sales performance.
Why would Microsoft be more challenging than are they? Your comment implies that Microsoft is more avaricious than HP, IBM, CA or BMC. You don't really believe that, do you? I would submit that any such suggestion is either astoundingly naive or indicates an anti-Microsoft bias.
ITIL went from ignoring the two-thirds of the IT budget that is purchased from vendors, and a pitiful financial mini-note, to, with v.3, taking over procurement and all negotiations. Poorly, of course.
What next? CRM and ERP are soon to be part of ITIL because these same vendors sell that software too?
This comment sat me back.
First I don't believe I have an anti-Microsoft bias. I see the positives in what it has achieved (and I develop and run my business on a Windows/Office platform even if my host chooses Linux). I do think I have an anti-vendor bias: as we say on the important hemisphere, I like to keep the bastards honest. But I'd hope I hand that out fairly evenly.
I certainly wouldn't count naivety amongst my many weaknesses, so I have to conclude that I don't agree :-)
The comment refers to "ITIL" as a political entity, then seems to refer to "HP, IBM, CA or BMC" as the same thing. I don't think the Fat ITSM Four have captured ITIL yet, though one of them is giving it a go and all make sure they have an influence, as they should.
If pressed, yes I probably do think Microsoft are more avaricious than the Fat Four, by a nose. Not that they wouldn't behave the same way in the same situation, but I feel that Microsoft's dominance inclines it to a taste for monopoly. Several times it has corrupted a standard to its own version in the hope that it would drive the open version under (MS-SQL, COM, LDAP, MOF, OpenDoc...). They haven't pulled it off yet but they keep trying. More successful, of course, is the ploy of bundling stuff with Windows to kill off competitors. None of the Fat Four have the capability for these kinds of tricks. And none of them seem to be going after patents on the obvious in quite the same way as MS. I did point out that BMC seem to be playing the same dirty game, but MS are taking the lead.
The IT Swami tells me Microsoft are about to make a big push into the whole ITSM space. I reckon they are laying legal landmines before the assault. The other members of the CMDB Consortium better watch their backs [and don't think they aren't: I bet some of the management meetings are like a poker game in 19th Century Promontory or Carson City].
I do agree ITIL is shaped by the ITIL industry in their own image, but I think that power bloc is wider than just the Four [or Five or One if MS have their way]. And I firmly believe the four couldn't actively collude on anything for long.
Skeptic that I am, I don't see a conspiracy in Version 3 (at least not this conspiracy). It does seem to me to be a natural and reasonable evolution to address a big deficiency in the earlier books: the lifecycle of the service.
But it is a really interesting point: to what extent is the evolution of ITIL driven by the vendors' (and consultants') desire to expand their sales?
P.S. I'm not sure of the use of the word "British" here; it seems to me the British are rapidly losing control of ITIL, outside of the OGC. the basic book market is firmly locked up there: the rest has bolted.