The IT Skeptic - Comments for "Shock horror: the IT Skeptic endorses a technology - service catalogue"

Thanks Ian

Rodrigo Flores — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:53:13 +0000

I take all your comments in good heart. I appreciate the compliment.
Your points are well made. And yes, it's a about the request ...

Great points...

kengon — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:13:05 +0000

and very well said!

kengon

Which might be a bit of a shock....

JamesFinister — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:16:00 +0000

...to those who think attaining a standard is something to crow about.

ISO standards are designed to be attainable by most organisations. They are not best practice.

That's why I worry when I see organisations who have not put in the basics needed for ISO 20000 but who are telling any one who will listen that they have "implemented" ITIL v3.

They also only evaluate what they evaluate. Complying with ISO 38500 does not make you an ethical IT department. Being ISO 20000 certified does not signify the quality of service actually being delivered.

This is not a bad thing, as long as it is understood.

Lowest Possible Bar...

kengon — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:37:13 +0000

Happy to help.

I think that there are many things worth keeping in mind with any standard:
1. There is no magic. It's still incumbent upon the organization to do the work.
2. Most standards set a minimal bar. Given the potential variation from one vertical to another, that's probably a good thing.

As far as 38500 goes, there's not much difference there from the original Australian one, save the additions in Section 3. Even if one doesn't like the additions, if they can serve as a catalyst to get people to communicate or move their thinking in a productive direction, they will have served a useful purpose.

Lots more to say on the topic. Think I'll blog on this... :-)

kengon

Oh no there isn't!

JamesFinister — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:19:50 +0000

I don't think there is a lot wrong with ISO 38500 as long as you do what you should with all standards - take it for what it is.

YAFBOK

skeptic — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:10:00 +0000

I do like to start the day with some xenophobia.

There's a lot wrong with ISO38500. As James says below, there's not a ready buck in it.

OCEG? On no! YAFBOK! [Yet Another Body Of Knowledge] It's a new one on me. thanks for that. Even though it is American I shall read with interest (wow! impressive credentials and useful looking content. Thanks again) [update: on third thought, the OCEG's GRC Red Book is a useful doc to have but if you want the good stuff such as assessment tools, pay $5000 for an enterprise membership. Almost makes TSO's ITIL Live look cheap. And it makes ISACA look VERY good value for money]

Not seen as needed Here?

JamesFinister — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:09:13 +0000

I did wonder if it was just that people thought ValIT and COBIT meant there was no need for the standard as well.

I'm not sure to be honest. I've got no idea how it is seen in the states, Rob Stroud is the only US based person I know who is active in the area, and of course he's really an Aussie so doesn't count except as one of those honorary Americans.

In the UK I'm tempted to say the only driver for governance has been corporate fraud, not the concept that good governance can add value, which I really believe is what ISO 38500 can deliver. And yes it is deceptively simple, dare I say profoundly so?

But there is no "product". What can the consultancies sell? Where is the supporting software? The expensive training scheme? Even without my cynical head on I think this is an issue.

I think you are right that we love concepts and models, but not at this level of abstraction, at least not in IT..

Finally judging by some of the feedback I've got from my blog post a lot of people simply weren't aware it existed.

Errrr?

kengon — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:01:52 +0000

So where did this little tirade come from? LOL
Is there something wrong with ISO 38500?

FWIW, I also happen to be a big fan of OCEG. They are very American, very open and very good. Their GRC guidance is worth paying attention to -- not just pictures and fluff.

kengon

ISO38500 is deceptive

skeptic — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:40:00 +0000

Don't tell me it's that not-invented-here thing again. Is the USA going to drag ten years behind like they did with ITIL just because some foreigner wrote it? I know Kiwis won't let American nuclear ships and weapons in our ports and get a bit hostile about the spy base on our land, but heck the Aussies are almost honorary Americans now aren't they? In some circles Australia is known as "The Deputy". Unlike the Brits we've ALWAYS fought on your side guys.

Seriously, ISO38500 is a deceptively simple doc. it is also deceptively titled. there is nothing "IT" about the governance: it is in fact a generic governance standard. Its weakness is that it is very abstract with no prescription or guidance. It presents only a principle which leaves a lot of work to be done. As we've seen with ITIL etc people want to be told what to do, not left to think.

That explains the slow uptake in Asia: they want a formula and a certification. I'm puzzling about UK and Europe though: they love concepts and models.

To know it is to love it

JamesFinister — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:00:49 +0000

I seriously think that the low profile is down to people not knowing it is out there. It seems easier to convert people into fans than it was in the early days of ITIL.

It is so much easier, and fun, to do an elevator pitch for ISO 38500 than it is for COBIT/ ValIT.

James

There are at least two fans!

kengon — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:14:23 +0000

James,

I'm a fan too, so there are at least two.
Look at how powerful and influential you are -- you doubled the fan base in less than a day! :-D

kengon

climbing the corporate ladder

skeptic — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:11:17 +0000

ISO38500 would be a great tool for climbing the corporate ladder, getting audiences at progressively higher levels. So too is SOX. So too is the ISACA Board Briefing on Governance.

but that takes a LOT of time, and is fraught with peril at every step - a real odyssey.

reach the million

skeptic — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:53:33 +0000

Chris Dancy at ServiceSphere is on that path already, doing great things, and I'll bet there are others whose network we don't touch. the issue is that such awareness needs to reach the million or more people now practicing ITSM, not a few hundred.

only so much

skeptic — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:47:45 +0000

yes indeed and there is only so much that vendors can do to rectify that :)

good thread!

John Worthington aka MySvcMon — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:45:53 +0000

thanks to all for a good thread...

John M. Worthington
MyServiceMonitor, LLC

My one track mind

JamesFinister — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:33:56 +0000

How I wish my kids had the concept of a step-dad tax like the Nana tax. Well they do, but it seems to work the wrong way round from my perspective.

Have you considered using ISO 38500 to get some traction in this case? I know I seem to be its only fan in the Northern hemisphere. Like the Nana tax though it is simple to understand and it is there to protect you from your bad decisions.

on a journey

skeptic — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:23:00 +0000

I don't think I'm giving up: I think I'm sending them on a journey just as I am with my son. Right now my son pays "Nana tax" on any money he makes: he pays half to his grandmother who puts it in the bank for him. This is of course unrealistic as he will one day get his money back but it is a simple principle he can grasp and administer and it is developing money management habits. With the remaining money he makes awful mistakes, buying shiny things he later regrets. This is to prepare him for car and yacht buying in adulthood. (Some of you cynics will also suggest it prepares him for marriage).

Take a current client as example: I can't convince the organisation to adopt service management within any useful timeframe: I have no access to those who count, they have never heard of the concept. They are more likely to do so if they see IT doing something interesting. Right now i have no available definition of organisational services, not even disguised as strategy planning or project portfolio or DR or role descriptions or organisational structures etc etc It is beginning to happen but it is a long way away. Right now there is a bleeding need for IT to grasp the concept of services, and to have something - anything - to rally around as a banner, and that's one of catalogue's primary purposes in my mind. So i do what is within the capacity of IT to define and grasp and make useful. I suspect the first cut will say "host the applications". And that's fine, if we build robust processes for continual evolution, and not just a static document. (yes document: we are a long way away from even considering a tool)

You can't change an organisation overnight any more than you can grow up a son. You have to let them hurt themselves occasionally - you move danger out of the way and you build on the learnings.

A tanker size hole

aroos — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:21:17 +0000

I was doing an ISO 20000 Foundation course today. Between SLM and BRM I explained to the group that ITIL V2/V3 and ISO 20000 have a major part missing, a tanker size hole actually. There is no sales & marketing. Now I got the feeling that you are discussing on the edges of that.

In my experience most IT service today is commercial, the big dinosaur internal IT departments are gone. Sales and marketing define and decide services and SLA's. ITSM has to run to to produce them. One sales guy explained me that of course we got to sell stuff they don't have yet, how else we are going to beat the competition.

The conflict between production and sales seems to be eternal. ITIL ignores it.

Aale

differing views of one common service definition

skeptic — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:08:34 +0000

I love the test of how well the audience can find a service.

Growth in maturity isn't about "adding" services, it is about new descriptions of services at different levels, just as you describe and as in my previous comment. "Hosting business applications" becomes "hosting the Rental application" becomes "IT supporting the property management process" becomes "properties for rent" in an organisational catalogue.

Sure the tool is irrelevant. In this case I think there's a better chance it will prove to be useful than I've implied in the past. It is exactly my point that a shared underlying engine will mean that a contract manager and a user and a service desk operative and the account manager and the service delivery manager and the service designer are all working off differing views of one common service definition, and seeing only those services that pertain to them.

It isn't the tool

JamesFinister — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:15:09 +0000

It comes back to the old adage that a fool with a tool is still a fool.