perhaps a little skepticism is in order in the ITIL world

[The Skeptic]

to see what i mean, see http://www.itilskeptic.org

[IT Service Guy]

Hi,

I just read your Blog... what exactly are you skeptical about?

ITIL in totality - or something 'deeper'?

I'm not clear.

[The Skeptic]

Skeptics are skeptical about everything

Seriously, I need to look at what i have written more closely to see if I am causing confusion somewhere. What i was trying to communicate is that I am a big fan of service management (it is "real"); I even think ITIL is entirely appropriate where there is a business driver for it; in fact i regard ITIL as gold-standard best practice for ITSM; I'm skeptical of people's attitudes to ITIL: the uncritical adoption of ITIL by everyone everywhere

[IT Service Guy]

I see ITIL as the platinum standard really - it takes a tremendous amount of time, energy, committment, pain and understanding to implement near enough everything described across the core texts - but obviously it's also a set of best practices that you are free to pick and choose across the range of practices - according to the needs of your business.

This is where it gets interesting.

Some folks do indeed seem to think that it's a case of "all or nothing" and get frustrated within their own organizations if they cannot get buy-in to everything at once. Maybe it's the way we're educated on ITIL (Foundation, Practitioner then Managers Exams) or maybe it's self imposed pressure, "got to get all this in because it's 'the way' to do it".

To some extent, this is due to the integrated nature of ITIL, in terms of how the processes inter-relate... you can't 'do' change without a CMDB... well, there's no-one telling us we can't, it's just that's how we read it. Change works a million times better when you have a decent CMDB that's for sure.

I agree with your comments about FITS - that's a nice easy entry into more rigorous process based IT Service Management.

I also liked the COPR site - Core Practice - where 'good enough' is just that - 'good enough'.

Thanks for providing us with an alterative perspective - I believe your thoughts add something to the mix. I'm interested in what other's think...?

[rjp]

A little clarity - ITIL is 'library'. The framework covers whatever is covered inside the covers of the various books. And ITIL has books that cover small scale organisations.

And not surprisingly the contents are not all the same.

So when people question whehter 'ITIL' applies to smaller organisations what they usually are talking about is the blue and red books.

I think the answer is uncontroversial - the red and blue book process as presented in those books are not suited to smaller organisations, but the library does iclude guidance for best practice in small organisations.

So yes..... and no... depending on how 'complete' your understanding of ITIl is.

BTW - I agree that FITS and CoPr are excellent resources - the later is certainly worth watching and is quite intersting given that it's more an individual than institutional effort.

[The Skeptic]

Hi. I think my understanding of ITIL is pretty good, though i'm not a Master.
The Skeptic blog does discuss the new ITIL-Lite book. I thought it was pretty good for sites big enough to handle ITIL. Personally I don't think ITIL scales down to Very Small Enterprise. (Before we get a flood of replies, please check the semantics. I didn't say ITSM doesn't fit. I said the formalism, many roles, and complex processes of ITIL doesn't fit).
As a rough rule of thumb if they are too small to have any recognisable IT function then they need something different, like CoPr.
if the IT function is small (one or two or three people) then ITIL can work but a special form of ITIL will be required. I think the ITIL-Lite will still struggle in sites that small but FITS might do better. Or, one day, CoPr.

[Perfect Ev]

Originally Posted by IT Service Guy

Some folks do indeed seem to think that it's a case of "all or nothing" and get frustrated within their own organizations if they cannot get buy-in to everything at once. Maybe it's the way we're educated on ITIL (Foundation, Practitioner then Managers Exams) or maybe it's self imposed pressure, "got to get all this in because it's 'the way' to do it".

I had to register just to respond to this. Right now I'm in a task force, and one of the things we are discussing is our haphazard implementation of ITIL and how to address it.

One of the things I have seen over and over again is that when an organization is allowed to pick and choose what is implemented, what gets left out are the more difficult pieces to implement--which often are the pieces that would do the heavy lifting. What gets used are pieces that already fit into the way the organization does things. When the way you do things is fundamentally broken, sticking as closely as possible to the status quo just won't cut it.

IF those implementing ITIL have experience with it and IF that person/team can be objective, then and only then is it a good idea to pick and choose. Usually, though, a halfway implementation of any framework is a fast road right back around to where you started.

[The Skeptic]

if the decision on which processes to reengineer is driven by a business case then it seems to me that the "right" ones will be chosen: those where ITIL will yield an improvement.

it might be that adopting ITIL in a capability where it "fits right in" does have a ROI, e.g less training of new staff, better contracts with service providers, off-the-shelf training...

In that case doing these "easy" bits first isn't wrong. It just means the "heavy lifting" bits are still there to do and doing the "easy" bits has laid the foundation for the project that is still to come. And if it is "fundamentally broken" then the business case for doing it should be easier. the thing that is probably holding it up is the size of the decision to fix it.

On the other hand, what happens in IT is often that decisions are NOT driven by business case, in which case the result you describe is exactly what will happen. The path of least resistance is taken and investment sunk into projects that return little benefit because some manager thinks (or has been convinced) it is a good idea.

For more on this see the IT Skeptic

[Hamster]

You seem to have soul mate Skeptic: http://www.itsm.mobi. You both raise some extremely intertesting points. With events over at ISEB and EXIN the whole field seem to be up in the air.


Could anyone enlighten me regarding SQMF by the way? All I could find were the following sites:
http://www.exin-exams.com/content/ne...oundation.aspx
http://www.sqmf.info

Neither of which tell me anything of note in terms of where this fits into the overall picture. I just wonder where this really fits in terms of ITIL Foundation. Supplemental, long term replacement, some other position? Maybe I'm reading it the wrong way, but I cannot find anything at all to explain.