ITIL reduces costs by up to 48% - another crap factoid to beware of
Time and again the analysts come up with these numbers using totally unscientific methods and before you know it they are gospel and popping up everywhere like bird flu. I'm not sure who's worse; the snake oil salesmen who invent them or the gullible twerps who repeat them.
ooh I got all excited when I read this question in an article on InfoWorld:
1. What can I do with ITIL that I couldn’t do before?
And the answer is......
Implemented properly, ITIL raises customer satisfaction, reduces waste in the IT organization, and lowers operating costs
Analyse this and you see the answer can be reduced to: "Nothing". You can do what you did before. If you get it right ("Implemented properly") you will do the same only better.
So I'm still searching for that killer business case argument...
They offer three quick examples of this. I got all excited again - some evidence!! - until I saw: Proctor and Gamble, Libery Mutual and ... yes all together now ... Caterpillar.
Several pages later, we get
As was noted at Microsoft’s 2004 IT Forum Conference, “Recent studies are showing that an IT service organization could achieve up to a 48 percent cost reduction by applying ITSM principles.”
This is one of those factoids that's gonna stick, I just know it. A little Googling reveals it originates from ... come on you know this one, all together ... Gartner!
Not 50% Not 45% 48% Bullshit sounds less like bullshit when it is exact bullshit. And "up to". Just like the "up to 50% off" sale.
One thing Google couldn't find for me was the Gartner paper in question. I'd love to check out their data, and their methodology. Anybody help me out here? See my recent blog entry for a discussion on how this analyst twaddle is typically generated.
At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter how they came up with the number. (I know how they came up with it: they pulled it out of their ... um ... analyst). 48% has a nice authorative ring to it and we will never stop hearing it. How do people keep falling for this bilge and how can someone call themselves a credible source while repeating it?