The IT Skeptic - Comments for "List of ITIL V3 roles "

Management by Power Point vs Knowledge Management

Knowledge Management — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:43:54 +0000

I missed this debate earlier. It certainly has its amusing side - the notion that the US killing machine is numero uno for Knowledge Management & Transfer (unless the bigger, more bureaucratic Chinese killing machine is better) is just brilliant! Even allies of the USKM say that it is inflexible and unable to make decisions unless they're part of the powerpoint slides du jour ( M$ seems to rule in the USKM, which rather makes a point [ a 'power point ] about their technical savvy - after all, how many wars can you loose before you get the permanent label of 'incompetent' ). Sorry, mixed metaphors seem a specialty of this thread - M$ has just lost the tablet war & the USKM has lost more wars than can be listed in the space here.

So, in comparison, ITIL's KM seems pretty top notch - used by real companies, paid by customer's money ( not money extracted by tax payers - though, to be fair, much of ITIL was written with such money ).

The long list of roles that are possible is impressive and I can understand why somebody might think it was invented as an appendix to Kafka's 'The Castle'. However, ITIL makes, as it always has, that it is there to be adopted by adaptation, not installed as a military rule-book.

Genuine knowledge transfer is two way - the grunts [ USKM jargon ] generate, as well as consume, knowledge. Knowledge Management is concerned with learning from experience, throwing away what doesn't work and engaging directly with the real world - none of which apply to the organisation cited as an exemplar of the practice.

Error

Matthew Burrows — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 08:18:46 +0000

Apologies, I've just realised that my latest comment was on a list for the 2007 edition of ITIL. I should have looked at the date, but was confused by another article which mentioned 108 roles in ITIL 2011 edition (they had taken my 103 roles and added the 5 listed by another contributor) - this was wrong, although in checking I did uncover reference to an Incident Manager in the text of one section, and it's not in chapter 6 which is supposed to describe the roles.

Roles

Matthew Burrows — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 07:57:20 +0000

I'm looking at my copy of the ITIL 2011 Edition, in the Service Operations book, and I can't see a section 4.2.4.3. Section 4.2.4.2 does include mention of a major incident team - but this is not a 'role', it is a 'team'. It says that the major incident team should be under the direct leadership of the incident manager (a role that is missed in chapter 6 - which is supposed to define the roles). So, in my opinion, 'major incident team' should not be in the list of roles, but maybe Incident Manager should be.

engineering

skeptic — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 02:12:01 +0000

Oh no you don't. You don't butter me up that easily. ("butter me up" now there's a phrase that takes on new connotations in the modern world).

However I must agree. Having been subjected to engineering school I know what real engineers go through to get accredited. I wrote about this here http://www.itskeptic.org/it-professionalism.

(Suzanne will be on my case now, puzzled why I'm not supporting prISM. I think it is the wrong agency, the wrong scope and the wrong name. If it were an IT-wide certification such as a British CITP it would make more sense. Service Management is too narrow a discipline and frankly itSMF don't have the credibility to carry it off.)

The good old days

JamesFinister — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:06:45 +0000

I can't avoid pointing out that in the good old days of the v1 manager's training at the Civil Service College, when we were more concerned with developing skills than guaranteeing exam passes, we frequently had economists deliver guest sessions. Not only that but we also gave the students the opportunity to engage with accountants, project managers, statisticians and auditors. The end of the course always featured a presentation to two senior managers, one of whom was always from a non IT background. And, as I'm sure I've said elsewhere here, the first session on the course was dedicated to the product-service continuum and an incredibly simplistic introduction to some of Levitt's ideas.

James Finister
www.tcs.com
http://coreitsm.blogspot.com/

The Principal Agent Problem

Information Technology Indoctrination Library — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:01:22 +0000

I knew better than to include the last sentence about defensiveness--that was gratuitous. I apologize.

I don't identify you with ITIL, and I don't consider you cloistered. It is an unarticulated principle of management to understand that hypocrisy may be rational (which is not to say moral), and it may be rational to attempt to get others not to understand this. This cynicism is what I find so distasteful. But I don't believe this applies to you. Perhaps it applies to me. I don't think I'm being hypocritical, but I don't trust what anyone says about themselves, including me.

ITIL is filling a void with another one. The void is real: the disparity between what constitutes engineering in computing and civil engineering is enormous. Alan Kay speaks about the construction of the Empire State Building. It took 3400 people in a little over one year. Where have you seen this in computing? Where civil engineering has standards, deviation from which tends to introduce problem upon problem, IT has--this website. This website is probably the best that the industry has to offer in the way of standards. They're all here, in one form or another, in the comments or in the blog posts. That's not an exaggeration: one could learn the state of the art in this subject just by perusing this site.

IT is an infant attempting to learn a few ostensive definitions. What counts as professional certification, by comparison with civil engineering, is little more than a Fisher-Price toy dashboard. The void is an engineering void that cannot be reduced to a problem of service management.

Also, there is some confusion over the word "enterprise". As Paul Graham pointed out, enterprise technology companies are not really technology companies at all: they're sales companies. The word "enterprise" seems to suggest that it must take over every aspect of computing--anything that happens in the "enterprise" should . This is devastating for areas like research and development, which cannot be subject to the same levels of risk management that apply to service management. Yet I have seen, time and again, IT attempting to overwhelm endeavors that would rightly be considered risky by the standard of sales companies. I've seen this in postgraduate institutions, medical schools and research computing centers.

closed and sheltered

skeptic — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 22:08:28 +0000

I'm not defensive. (There's a self-contradictory sentence if ever there was one). I like to think I'm open minded. I'd also claim this blog has challenged more ITIL sacred cows than most. And one challenge this blog has raised before is that ITIL tries to reinvent everything and claim everything as original work, so we agree there.

Now that you have stopped writing for post-graduate humanities and lowered yourself to the vernacular of the university-educated white collar professional, I can actually understand you, thank-you.

I've pillaged a number of other domains from engineering systems theory to product marketing, so forgive me if I hadn't gotten around to economics yet. Nor had many others in ITSM it seems, except probably Ian Clayton who seems to have pillaged everywhere. I look forward to learning more about the principal-agent problem now that you have so tactfully introduced us to it.

You do confuse me a little. You berate ITIL for being closed and sheltered, then you berate me for criticising the technical sector of IT for being closed and sheltered. The pot is black.

The Principal-Agent Problem

Information Technology Indoctrination Library — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 21:36:00 +0000

How could the introduction of the principal-agent problem from economics be framed in the vocabulary of IT service management? It might be characterized as a "best practice" to "reuse" ideas that have a rich academic history in the study of the modern firm--but this would not do justice to the notion. The reason for introducing it here--without belaboring the point with page upon page of citations from the literature--was to raise a question: how is it that one of the overarching concerns of service management in IT is never identified or mentioned as such in its literature? It is telling that professionals concerned with this question would come here and exclaim, "Aha! I was aware of this problem but didn't know it had a name." Some of this is to be expected: it might be expensive for ITIL admit that its ideas are derivative. Best to say nothing. Also, the literature on the principal-agent problem doesn't always cast managers in the rosiest light.

ITIL does indeed have its strength: it encourages competent mediocrity. It does this in various ways, one of which is to disparage intelligence through its focus on "culture"--whatever that means. The conceit that IT is a more political subject than it was in the old days may be true, but political involvement of middle management may not be appreciated by the owners who hired them. Must I quote your own words back to you? I am pointing out that this belief--that " IT is now a political endeavor beyond the ken of sheltered geeks like you"--is itself a manifestation of the principal-agent problem. You should be focusing on the work that needs to be done, instead of berating sheltered geeks. As a principal, this is how I expect my agents to perform. I'm not paying my managers to harp on whether their staff believes in their hearts that Jesus is their savior: I want the work to get done. From the perspective of the principal-agent problem, I see ITIL-addled managers arrogating to themselves areas of the firm that should be independent of IT.

My hope is that the injection into the discussion of a few terms from an extensive and hitherto ignored literature may raise the level of discourse above ideological debate. So don't be "defensive" about it: follow your own advice to have an "open mind" and consult with everyone else before making a change, instead of "solving your own problems".

How to treat ITIL

Matthew Burrows — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:01:20 +0000

http://www.bsmdigest.com/can-steve-jobs-teach-us-how-to-treat-itil

The right time to implement

psuba — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:33:51 +0000

So BroOt, let me get this straight.

What you are saying is that Skeptic criticises ITIL but not enough.
You also say that as ITIL books/content is developed it get less and less acceptable for actual implementation, because it is not perfect - and everyone deserves the perfect product only (whatever it is).

I could agree with that in theory - but what I struggle with is understanding how in the world are you going to develop the "perfect" product without the input that wide implementation experiences can provide?

Or are you saying that the progression of the material is not incorporating those experiences well enough?

It seems that your arguments are at odds with each other. If you want a "product", a theory that is developed to high scientific standard to be the shining light and "perfect practice" (I am starting to dread using "best practice" and "good practice" as the V3 books start muddying the waters, although that is not the point here), surely that development will always be ahead of the actual implementations and will come out with well thought through but innovative and new concepts. But in that case, how can you use that as a criticism as well (see your point about SKMS not being an established practice because your google search does not give you much around it)?

At the moment it does seem to me that you are upset about the commercialism of ITIL as a framework, and advocating for a much smaller circle of only-experts-can-know-this approach. Surely there is a balance between spreading what can help organisations (and like it or not, what you call watering down and commercialism helps more organisations benefiting from it compared to their state of operandi before they came across ITIL) and having the highly sophisticated framework that only a few elite can comprehend and so it not actually being used in the real world?

Maybe there is scope to provide a "masterclass" version of ITIL? But wait, isn't it something that the ITIL v3 strucutre already caters for (if someone wants to write it) in their complementary guidance section? Aren't you equating ITIL V3 with the 5 core books? What stopes you from restructuring, for example, the missing bits from ITIL V1 Availability into a masterclass book of "Availability deep dive" to be published under V3 complementary (after resolving the copyright aspects of course)?

Wow. BroOt, are you OK?

hazyitsm — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 04:10:19 +0000

Wow. BroOt, are you OK? Where does all this aggression come from? Did Sharon Taylor do something unspeakable to a family member?

I still have not read one item in your objective critiques that Skep hasn't agreed with. Otherwise, it's been all the bizarre Tea Party name calling.

I'm struggling with where a skeptical, real world filtering of ITIL is as dangerous as you claim. I'm not a consultant. I haven't worked with dozens of companies. But I have worked for 4 companies that were improved by using ITSM concepts. Some a little, some a lot.

I'd really like to see where ITIL has caused damage. Damage NOT related to the three issues Skep mentioned. I'm not trying to call you out. I really want to get some insight. That's why we're here, right?

Dan Kane

unreformed

skeptic — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:46:00 +0000

I'm neither reformed nor a politician. You're just disappointed because I don't go along with your hysteria and bile. My views have changed little over the five years of this blog. The very first sentence written on this blog was "the time is ripe for a more objective evaluation of ITIL’s merits and caveats". I have changed my mind on a few things and yes i have apologised at times, but I don't see me changing my mind over anything you have presented thus far let alone apologise. One minute ITIL is inside-out (which I agree with) and only paying token attention to service, the next moment the very best arguments you can muster against ITIL are based around a few availability calculations and coverage of configuration? Oh please indeed.

P.S. Please refer me to the amazing financial management coverage in ITIL 1. I'm having trouble finding it. Or in fact any particularly amazing examples of "lost science". Perhaps i have a different library. I'd especially like to hear examples of how ITIL V1 was more service-centric or outside-in than ITIL V3. Of course I only have 33 ITIL V1 books so I may be missing some, or perhaps my versions of the books are too recent to be useful.

Hear hear

bro0t — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 19:50:05 +0000

Do you hear yourself? Or is the sound of lashing out 'bon mot' too loud. For now I will humbly submit to your moral superiority and reformed public prosecutor self. But take time to understand how and why you crossed the moat. I'm patronizing? That's rich Skep! Real rich.

"ITSM is not rocket science". Here we go again. What's wrong with science. When did "common sense" become the dominant science. Don't you think that's the problem? Have you recently read Availability Management or Configuration Management in ITIL? Anybody with a knowledge of high-school algebra can master that level of analysis. But you and others insist any further advancement of the theory is too much for "smaller and simpler organizations"? Wait, did you say I was patronizing? And you are anti-elitist?!

Go read financial management and availability management in the first books that were written simply as guidance for the UK government and not for 100% pass rates in ITIL foundation. There is detailed guidance, worked out calculations and a level of analysis that is astounding. Today we all we have is MTBF and MTTR. A division and a subtraction. One configuration in series and one in parallel. And of course that availability should be defined from the customers' perspective. I'm fighting for the lost scientific knowledge. And very surprisingly I'm fighting against you.

I believe you have the integrity to come back here and apologize when you acknowledge, how for the sake of commercials interests, ITIL was progressively watered down, filled with slogans and easy-to-digest pithy maxims about "change the culture" and "hire good people" and "processes have inputs and outputs". More people passed exams. Then more people thought they could. So they made sure more did. Suddenly we had recruiters and PR staff who were ITIL-certified. Not that they shouldn't be. But ITIL for everyone" meant "ITIL for no one".

What pisses me off is you know better, but have now assumed a position and public persons that is forcing you to talk like a politician. What was that? " ... just opening the doors and reforming the Court"? Oh please!

There's always room in

skeptic — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:21:00 +0000

There's always room in Castle Skep. In fact I hope it is Villa Skep, with open doors and clear windows. And the management gives as good as it gets :) Don't call me stupid and irresponsible and expect a hearty handshake of welcome or the top seat at the table.

Hyper-destructive criticism of ITIL is in fashion right now. The Gartner Hype Curve is following its remorseless path. But ITIL works, is useful, and has great momentum. I maintain that ITIL may be flawed but not fatally. You (and others) have not identified any flaws that have not previously appears on this blog, and you have not shown how any of those flaws justify abandoning ITIL. Nor have you offered any sort of alternate path.

You are correct that I have not worked in large and complex organisations. My largest client has 12000 users. I like it that way - that's why I live in NZ. Yes I'm anti-elitist, for two reasons (1) most of the IT world works in smaller and simpler organisations - we need to reach out to them (2) ITSM is not rocket science: if there really are profound insights to be had in mega-sites, I'm not seeing them emerge. I find the "you couldn't possibly understand" attitude patronising and egotistical unless backed up with real value content that shows the difference. It isn't.

This blog isn't about demented negativity. I try to offer constructive criticism and to recognise what is good. Only one Castle ITIL member ever turned their back on me and the feeling was mutual. The buffoons are gone now and Castle ITIL does useful work. I'm nor about tearing down Castle ITIL, just opening the doors and reforming the Court.

If you have sound arguments why ITIL (and now COBIT) are rubbish, and some better alternatives, you have yet to offer them. We're waiting.

And BTW I learned not to respect anonymity on the Web. I tolerate it when there are grounds, eg whistleblowers, but I'll always think better of those who stand by their opinions. Anonymity was a mistake for me - I encourage others not to make the same.

love and respect

@bro0t — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:10:19 +0000

Love you Skep! Just feeling a little cold and hungry outside Castle Skeptic :-(

Nah ... I'm just kidding man. Come on man. You're my idol Skep. OK no more, what was that, ... 'mad homo nem' attacks ok? I really didn't mean to. I guess I'm a brute with no manners. But I do have thing or to say about what's flawed about ITIL. And why it is not OK to say "Oh for many organizations who don't know shit, the basics are revelation". That's an awful thing to say man. It's like those companies up here in the West shipping sub-standard products including medicine to Africa saying "Well, at least they have food to eat" and "Look at the cars they used to drive". No Skep. Every organization no matter how big or small, advanced or mature (btw, WTF does organizational maturity really mean anyway?) are entitled to simple solid logic, principles and methods, rules and formulae, on which they can build systems, process and value propositions that are fit for their market. That's what knowledge is all about.

And looks like you really haven't worked with large and complex organizations otherwise you won't be hurling those Tea Party grenades. Quoting Mitt Romney: "Corporations are people". Romney is an ass. He is one of the brightest strategy & finance guys Harvard or the Mormon religion ever produced. I bet he can price a derivative or solve simultaneous equations while brushing his teeth. But now he is pandering to the masses by dumbing himself down enough to not seem elitist but just staying a notch above than Sarah Palin on the IQ scale.

And you're joking about COBIT right?! Wait, am I on the wrong blog or something? Where am I?

Not again

bro0t — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:20:28 +0000

Yes I realize my comments are getting personal and distracting from the point I'm really making. You put down people all the time with your "oh you're so elitist" jabs. As advising large and complex organizations disqualifies them from advising smaller or simpler ones. Your sarcasm and witticisms are a smoke screen. Get someone to count how many times you've used that tactic to wiggle out of a serious argument. I have actually discussed specifics with examples of what's flawed. You should get past my taunts :-)

And yes, you cannot have it both ways. Nobody had heard of you until you became the mysterious skeptic who relentlessly and mockingly attacked the ITIL v3 project and became the Anna Hazare of ITSM world. People lapped it all up and you kept serving because you filled a need, just like FOX News and Murdoch did in the USA. Your stature grew. Now you're complaining? I'm just one of your disciples :-) Want to be like you :-)

Sure

aroos — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:57:14 +0000

Next time we see I'll translate it into Finnish for you ;)

Aale

PS I don't fully agree with the comment but I have recognized the problem in the Service Desk context and I did not know it had a name.

robust debate

skeptic — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:51:00 +0000

I do like robust debate especially when it is comprehensible (I've re-read that original comment a third time and i still can't decode it. I'll get Aale to translate it next time I see him).

Once I get past your ad hominem attacks on my style and my supposed responsibilities, then the criticisms you make of ITIL are exactly the same as those I make on this blog: SKMS dreamware, inside-out perspective, "best practice" as a stupid statement...

Unlike you I haven't spent so long analysing ITSM and accumulating knowledge that I have lost all perspective of the real world. Down here, outside the Fortune 1000 and the world's second largest military bureaucracy, the basics of ITIL are indeed a revelation to many, and an excellent first step for them. Well, second step: I start with COBIT unless they insist otherwise because they read about ITIL in CIO magazine. We agree ITIL is flawed. I don't agree it is fatally flawed. I also haven't been pulling a bong enough to believe that ITIL is the product of some huge global conspiracy to pervert ITSM. Castle ITIL is riddled with all the normal human failings: avarice, politics and folly. But most of the people I know are acting with the best intentions to advance something useful.

Other than a few specifics, you've given us nothing but drama-queen hyperbole about anguish and horror. How about some concrete arguments why ITIL is so flawed as to be an abomination from your lofty perspective? And don't be slagging off the three points I made as trite. They are fundamental mistakes that I see often, and only the first one is talked about much. I believe the second and third points - change at a human pace and the backlash of the IT cowboys - are not widely discussed or understood. Not widely enough, anyway. Not down here in the real world.

P.S. time you came out Bro0t. there can't be too many argumentative male service management experts working with the US military who are possibly located in Palo Alto (or work for...) and almost certainly have English as a second language (Dutchman, I'm guessing).

Right said Aale

@bro0t — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:25:24 +0000

The SKMS is a good example of how badly ITIL has degenerated. I've led a major project within the US military and they have some of the best implementation of knowledge management I can think of. I'm not the only one, but there are many of us who have seen first hand what organizational learning and knowledge transfer is all about. There are actual methods, algorithms, rules, and standards. So it is dishonest of TSO, itSMF International and whoever the hell these days is in charge, to sell books, exams, and a healthy professional life, with the claim of industry best practice. That's just simply dishonest. There is no other way to look at it.

Also, much of ITIL, and I'd say about 90% (I don't really believe ITIL Service Strategy is yet part of ITIL in the popular imagination) has nothing to do with service management. All most all of it is about operations management for an organizational function called "IT" with which the term "service" is loosely associated. How can you call something "service management" when there is really no meaningful and correct guidance on managing a services enterprise? Is the IT community so insulated and isolated from the rest of the world's disciplines like that bushman in Gods Must Be Crazy that even a Coca-Cola bottled tossed from airplane seems captivating and interesting.

And Rob, you can't be like Goldman Sachs and short ITIL.

Yes, you did

aroos — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:06:10 +0000

Rob, sorry but I think the comment was interesting and you overreacted.

Also it is too easy to blame "shitty management" and "IT cowboys" for failure. I don't think that is true. World is full of good practices that even less than ideal management & staff can handle. On the other hand, good people will fail if they are using a faulty model.

I just received my 2011 pdf-editions. There I read that "ITIL offers robust, mature and time-tested practices". A few pages later it explains that "Implementing an SKMS enables effective decision support". Googling SKMS brings up as the first hit "Warning don't try ITIL V3's SKMS at work | The IT Skeptic". The third hit is "Skyline Home Page" I googled also SKMS tool, and found only SMS tools. Truly mature and time-tested practice.

ITIL is an inside-out approach to IT service management. It has some value; if your operation is a mess, you have to concentrate on the inside. A lot of IT operations are still struggling with some very basic things. When you get your engine running, you need better models.

Aale