The IT Skeptic - Comments for "Reviews of Owning ITIL"

Clients large and small

David Moskowitz — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:16:54 +0000

My time is split about 60/40 small (i.e., not Fortune 1000) and large/gov/mil with 60% in the smaller organizations. In addition, many of the small want to work with (or contract with) the large and... if the large have mandated ITIL, that doesn't give the smaller firms much latitude.

I didn't see this with V2, I DO see it with V3.

We have different experience. "Reporting" based on that experience doesn't make either one of us right or wrong.

David

(No Captcha???)

There ought to be health warnings on the ITIL books

skeptic — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:10:07 +0000

I'm using the terms as ITIL does - and as i just grokked properly as part of doing my Foundation exam :) Best practice is leading edge stuff that experts think is a good idea. Good practice is best practice that has been widely used and proven. Distinguishing between Incidents and Problems is good practice. SKMS and CMS are best practice, or as I like to say "blue sky thinking".

Even though what ITIL calls best practice comes from experts, they might be wrong (gosh imagine that). In ten years time the world may regard SKMS with the same bemusement as we now regard CASE. I'm sure it will regard CMDB and CMS that way. There ought to be health warnings on the ITIL books not mine. "Caution this book contains conjectural best guesses from experts mixed with proven practice and we are not telling you which is which" If you know enough to distinguish, you don't much need the books.

I mean it

skeptic — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:01:33 +0000

You got in again!????!!? (Actually you shouldn't be getting captcha challenges if signed in - I'll go check the settings)

I just had another quick look through the book with this conversation in mind and I can say that none of the book is facetious or written solely to provoke (that's Introduction to Real ITSM). I mean it all. All the recommendations are serious ones. All the positions I take are genuinely felt. I get ascerbic or even sarcastic at times but I seriously want readers to consider all my arguments if they are using ITIL.

if there is disagreement it is possibly because (a) some consultants (possibly David, I have no idea) spend all their time talking to Fortune 500 and huge government entities and defense, all of whom have the vast funds needed to drag ITIL over the line whatever the cost and (b) maybe I've had a bad run and just haven't seen enough successful ITIL - to me it's like Bigfoot. I'm not alone in that view. In other words, I have a jaundiced cup-half-empty view of ITIL. Maybe. Even if I do it doesn't make me wrong :)

Health Warning

JamesFinister — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 07:53:30 +0000

Perhaps the covers of all Rob's books should contain health warnings "May contain large amounts of irony, humour and controvosy"

PS I took the model railway geek comment in the way I think it was intended ;-)

That's a different question:

David Moskowitz — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:00:42 +0000

Specifically, does ITIL have to distinguish between good and best practice? I'm not persuaded that it should. The concept of "best" is going to depend on context.

Best for a pharmaceutical company might not be best for a transportation firm.

Good allows more latitude for organizational (organisational :-)) specialization (some "z" I'll leave alone :-)) or adaptation.

David

There's an idea

David Moskowitz — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:54:46 +0000

That may very well be part of the problem. I wrote the review based on my reaction to the material in the book. While I've gotten to know Rob a little through Twitter, that really isn't sufficient (at least not for me) to say that I know him well enough to make the distinction noted in your comment. As a consequence, I took the material in the book rather litterally (didn't have much other choice, given the circumstances).

While writing my first book (About OS/2 nearly 20 years ago), a good friend and very successful author, taught me a very important 3-word phrase: "Remember the Audience" and the follow up, "They can't see you smile or frown."

Most of the time remembering the phrase has helped. Not always, but... :-)

David

No I think the antispam has

skeptic — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:41:00 +0000

No I think the antispam has a thing against model railroad geeks - dunno how you got through.

That is really good feedback that I need to be more careful about when folk might take me seriously - a realisation that was already dawning. Kiwi humour does not translate to all cultures, though the overseas success of Flight of the Conchords gives me hope.

On the other hand ITIL's complete failure to distinguish between best practice and good practice sets a strong precedent for me to just keep muddying it up.

A good cigar

JamesFinister — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:09:01 +0000

Well I enjoyed it.

If I have an issue it is that the horizon between Rob's most skeptical moments and his most practical real world comments aren't clearly distinguished. I THINK I know him well enough to detect the irony, but I'm never sure....and I think I know when when he is making a point knowing that the ensuing argument will further our mutual general understanding.

The enduring memory of my lecturing days is you make a throwaway comment to stimulate debate and then you read exam papers and realise the students took what you said as a statement of truth.

PS the scam filter thingy made me input the text *Modeller Inaccess" Do you think it has something against technical architects?

other views

skeptic — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:06:05 +0000

I didn't complain did I? I think my response was as fair as David's review. I'm merely using it to stimulate other comment. I know David's views don't represent all the readers of the book and equally David's opinion might also invite criticism. I'd like to see some other views.

I actually think he's entirely missed some of the points in the book which is important feedback for me that I need to improve my communication skills.

And I never said all publicity is good publicity - you are distorting what I said which is any feedback is good feedback. I sincerely seek to improve. You're not wrong - I do seek to sell the book - but please don't imply that I'm only publicity seeking.

If your going to put your opinion out there

buraddo — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:31:35 +0000

then you have to be prepared for criticism. And I think you are..

I think David put forward fair alternative opinion, he has apologized (both here and on Amazon) for the core practice comments.

David takes the role of critic in his reviews. Its evident by his reviews of other books on the topic. Its always, "I agree with this but".. Its more balanced than alot of critics and certainly more than the media.

I don't necessarily agree with him on some of the points. But hell, I rarely agree with anyone on anything :)

So as you say, all publicity is good publicity..

Brad Vaughan

:-)

David Moskowitz — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:01:02 +0000

Rob,

Works for me. I have several friends with whom I don't (we don't) always agree. ;-)

Thank you.

David

Accepted of course

skeptic — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:13:07 +0000

Accepted of course. I think your review is very fair. As on Twitter, we agree to disagree :)

Revised review at Amazon

David Moskowitz — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:41:43 +0000

Rob,

I posted a comment to my review and also edited it to correct the error noted above.

Thank you for pointing it out.

David

Apologies

David Moskowitz — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:18:36 +0000

Rob,

I DO read footnotes, but clearly not all of them. My error. Missing the footnotes, I was trying to be fair. Again, my error.

My apology offered, hope it's accepted.

David