The IT Skeptic - Comments for "Why COBIT wins in a showdown with ITIL"

Both frameworks propagate the same failure points

ianclayton — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 02:56:35 +0000

My first impression of the comparison and the information I've been able to review is that COPBIT still shares the same key failure points that caused me to label ITIL 2011 as Inside-Out. One day the framework evangelists will have the epiphany I see happening day after day in client organizations that the job of IT today is to engage its customers immediately and constantly and to think and act with the customer's interests in mind at the outset - thats what is termed thinking outside-ion.

The danger of both of these framework is that in the wrong hands they will encourage and support a process/service/maturity approach that fails the customer because its inside-out. As others have indicated, comparing these against each other is inte4resting but to what purpose. What would help would be for the industry to agree on a set of overriding principles for service management that could be used to assess these and any other frameworks based upon the imagined role of IT today in the 'age of the customer'.

I agree, COBIT is about

KJ — Fri, 18 May 2012 00:48:54 +0000

I agree, COBIT is about Governance & Control, ITIL is about Service Management.
There is space for both in one organisation and ISACA enabled this by incorporating ITIL (and Val-IT) concepts in the latest version of COBIT 5.

service-centric

skeptic — Thu, 17 May 2012 01:04:00 +0000

I've never mapped CMMI-SVC in detail but I'm assuming it has the biases as ITIL: service-centric. ISO20000 certainly does.

That's not bad, same as it isn't for ITIL. they're there to describe ITSM. They deliver as specified. COBIT describes IT

cobit itil and more

scott whitten — Thu, 17 May 2012 00:36:58 +0000

Rob,
Very interesting.... in your opinion where does ISO and CMMI lay on this diagram? Im working on real this.

COBIT vs ITIL perspective

skeptic — Wed, 16 May 2012 23:55:00 +0000

I'm presenting on this to my local ISACA chapter next week and came up with this graphic to sum up their different perspectives:

Same topic, even same scope, but ITIL is skewed by its service perspective into emphasising some areas and de-emphasising others.

That's not to say COBIT 5 doesn't still have some historical biases towards security and audit - it does - but it is more objective and balanced across all of IT as a subject area

JAFF

skeptic — Mon, 14 May 2012 19:13:00 +0000

Oh good. That's what IT needs, another framework.

We did discuss CMF on this blog a while ago.

It is proprietary and big business. Once again we have a Europe vs USA showdown....

Correction: Tues 5 June (not Mon 3 June!)

deaf-llama — Mon, 14 May 2012 17:06:23 +0000

See here for IVI Summit speakers
http://ivi.nuim.ie/ss12/IVI_Summer_Summit_2012_External_Day_Agenda.pdf

Sorry
Geoff

COBIT is not alone...

deaf-llama — Mon, 14 May 2012 16:56:41 +0000

A great post, Rob, and I agree with your viewpoint entirely.

However, COBIT 5 is not the only IT governance framework, there is also:

IT-CMF V1.0 June 2010. It has big players like BP, Chevron, AXA, Ernst and Young, Northrup Grumman, Microsoft, Google etc. Visit Maynooth, 15km west of Dublin on Mon 3 June 2012 to attend a free IVI Summer Summit conference. I'm attending.

http://ivi.nuim.ie/itcmf.shtml

or read my column about it which includes lots of links (written in 2009)
http://www.itsmportal.com/columns/lesser-spotted-itsm-frameworks-7

Geoff

I like it...

Adam Holtby — Fri, 11 May 2012 14:58:44 +0000

Great blog post!

From what I have read thus far, I am very much liking the Cobit approach. It's focus, and consistent reference to the cultural and behavioural aspects involved in new implementations and change for example, makes for some good reading.

The reformed process capability model is also welcome. Although it asks more of a process in terms of attributes required to reach a given maturity level, it will hopefully be embraced by adopters as a means of further enhancing the efficiency of their processes and associated value.

I am with Claire on the "Not the only game in town" comment, but welcome Cobit 5's foundation of encouraging an enterprise-wide perspective.

rush

skeptic — Fri, 11 May 2012 12:04:33 +0000

If COBIT gets hoisted onto the shoulders of IT and carried along like a conquering hero - as ITIL was - I don't doubt it will go to COBIT's head just as it did with ITIL.

I love the description of

Claire Agutter — Fri, 11 May 2012 10:15:15 +0000

I love the description of ITIL as 'chatty'. Great article (as usual) - both ITIL and COBIT need to remember they aren't the only game in town and keep reassessing the value they are delivering.

Claier

unpicking COBIT 5

skeptic — Fri, 11 May 2012 09:43:00 +0000

Nice.

I think we'll have as much fun unpicking COBIT 5 as we did ITIL 3.

But I still like it.

I have changed my mind several times on IT strategy. i think there is such a thing, but it has to be an integrated subset of overall strategy, not standalone.

And it is useful to distinguish between risk, problem and quality even if they flow into each other, just as it is useful to distinguish between say painting and drawing

As for innovation, yes APO04 is a bit fad-driven or buzzword-driven i feel. Much of it makes sense but equally much of it could be part of APO03 Enterprise Architecture

Nearly got me

aroos — Fri, 11 May 2012 08:00:59 +0000

re-joining ISACA but no.

Cobit 5 has these idiotic enabling processes

AP001 manage management Needs no explanation, where is govern government?
AP002 manage strategy But IT needs no strategy, corporation has strategy, IT has architecture and plans but no strategy
AP004 manage innovation "Sadly you can no more summon up true innovation or measure it or manage it than you can do those things to art. Flogging staff to come up with innovation is like demanding they paint a masterpiece." Now who wrote this great comment ;)

And these three are not separate
AP011 Manage quality
AP012 Manage risk Risk is quality
DSS03 Manage problems Problems are risk

Aale