<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Death by ITIL: How IT departments streamline themselves into oblivion ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-20T09:14:15-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Great to know I'm not alone]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3210885]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Many people agree with me privately when I repeat these sentiments but don't have the guts to say it publicly.Business is becoming a victim of bloggers as opposed to interested responsible commentators.ITIL, PMI, despite the best intentions and a lot of well designed processes, they provide a slow expensive wheelchair that robs managers of the ability to walk, but the real damage is done by the jargon that brings communication to a complete halt.Read my recent article here:http://www.thebridger.co.uk/blog/?p=103]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3210885]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[edtaaffe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:17:34 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Death by ITIL: How IT departments streamline themselves into oblivion]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3210292]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[ITIL is a set of guidelines based on best practices gathered from the IT industry. It is not a 'methodology.' This being said, it is what you make it. The purpose is not to be rolled out verbatim straight from the book but to be adopted and adapted.This way, every organization can take just what it needs to achieve its ultimate business objectives.Unfortunately, what's occurred over the past few years is that every organization has jumped on the ITIL band wagon just because everyone else was doing it. I've heard this over and over again from my clients. They want to &quot;implement ITIL.&quot; But when asked why, they have no real idea as to exactly how ITIL processes will help their organization. But just like the latest software, they must have it.Much of this, unfortunately is fueled by inexperienced consulting firms, also on the band wagon. They prey on their clients lack of knowledge to rack up their billable hours.This inevitably leads to wasted efforts, failed processes and more anectdotal evidence that 'ITIL just doesn't work.'A thoughtful and step by step approach to IT Service Management is what always works best.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3210292]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ITSM Consultant]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:04:31 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[What do you have against ITIL?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3210089]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You mean these unsuccessful companies:  Microsoft, Barclays Bank, Guinness, Procter &amp; Gamble, Telstra, Fujitsu, and Hewlett Packard.There's hundreds more.And, as someone else said, ITIL is part of ITSM.I think Change management, problem management, configuration management, disaster recovery planning are critical components for nearly any good IT dept.  Not sure why it's so boring if you like efficiency.  On the other hand, it really isn't anything &quot;new&quot;... so yea, it could be a &quot;yawn&quot;.  That's why I find it funny people are attacking it.  It's just a lot of companies getting together and agreeing what worked for them.  For some reason people fear that?  I don't blame them for being annoyed with consultants that make a religion out of it...That's not the intention.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3210089]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gcaussade@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:06:16 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Design spiral and ITIL]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209970]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I think that the image found in the Wikipedia article, the one with Service Design, Service Transition and Service Operation does a good job of showing what ITIL should do.  Because you are dealing with a dynamic environment, you have to constantly go through this 'design spiral' to keep things functional.The IL side, the Infrastructure Library, provides the 'how-to' side of the spiral.  Ideally, all elements of IT should be using some version of these 'best practices', within the resource limits of their organization.I first ran across this 'design spiral' concept in an architectural design class.  The basic idea was that you go through an iterative cycle of analysis, design and evaluation until you run out of resources OR have the 'perfect' design.  Of course, with buildings you have a good incentive to do things right the first time.  (That or plant ivy to hide your mistakes.)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209970]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Geek3001]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:16:08 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[ITSM is part of ITIL]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209906]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It stand for IT Service Management and it encompasses things like Incident, Problem, and Change (among others).]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209906]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jmgarvin]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:32:31 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Some faulty assumptions...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209867]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;Now we always ask and users appreciate that.? If you are in charge of IT Operations and cannot figure this out on your own without ITIL, you are probably in the wrong line of work.&quot;I couldn't disagree more.  ITIL isn't meant to be &quot;revolutionary&quot;; it's full of simple, common sense practices.  Just because something is simple doesn't mean it's necessarily easy.  Still, there are easy, &quot;quick wins&quot; to be found in most organizations, many of which are described in ITIL.  The existence of these &quot;quick wins&quot;, regardless of their source, is not always a reflection on the skill of the IT management team.Furthermore, while many of your remarks are accurate when applied to ITIL v2, version 3 does focus on running IT like a business, and achieving &quot;stage 4&quot;. Regards,Brian FloraPrincipalBeyond20, LLC.http://www.Beyond20.com]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209867]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Beyond20]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:01:05 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Yes, care is needed]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209622]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I agree with your point.  Currently I am suffering from a management team who have implemented PRINCE 2 so badly, that PMs spend more time adhering to a flawed governance process than they do managing projects.  ITIL, also can be implemented in such a way that management reports become a major deliverable rather than the service they are meant to be describing.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209622]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[grayguy_mk]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:24:51 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Good post, thumbs up!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209614]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[nt.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209614]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom-Tech]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:24:23 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Is improvement from process or technology]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209454]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I knew someone was going to state that it isn't process but technology or leadership. It is a valid point.  I agree with the posts that warn that simply throwing technology at a problem is fraught with problems.In my example: Poor leadership could then improperly use automatic conversion if, as many are warning in this thread, outcomes aren't considered.But, I used automatic conversion because I know it well.  And it IS process and technology, and in  most cases it's the same management that decided to change course and use it.  In the cases of 4-5 X improvement, you have to change the process and technology.  If you just change the technology, the benefit is much lower.  And, yes, people have to be trained to use the new technology and processes.By the way, I find it interesting that the Theory of Constraints (TOC) isn't being mentioned.   It mathematically proves that improving process without looking at throughput of the entire system will not work.  This is the reason many projects, 6 Sigma, etc. fail to generate real cost savings, or increases in productivity.  TOC shows that you must improve the constraint.  If you improve other areas, you actually reduce throughput.  So if you apply 6 Sigma to the wrong area, you are in trouble.  Ironically, many 6 sigma black belts don't know about TOC, so don't know what processes to improve. (I'm sure many do, though.)  Improve the constraint, or reduce output.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209454]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gcaussade@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:05:54 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Best Practices means a group thought it was a good idea...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209453]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I've been using change management, configuration management, disaster recovery, etc. for decades, and I'm personally very thankful there is a group that has put together a set of &quot;best practices&quot;, and are open to feedback to continuously improve those recommendation.  It is nice to then add that with feedback from staff and industry groups that also have their domain-specific knowledge and recommendations.I agree with everyone's concerns of a zealous  implementation of any system.  That is very dangerous.  Take PMI, ITIL, TOC, 6 Sigma, etc and use them where necessary.  The hardest part is developing trust and relationships in any case.  Unfortunately, many of the posts slam ITIL as if putting together some recommendations is a bad thing, when ITIL specifically warns about being religious about implementing any of it's recommendations.  It's like calling an agnostic person religious!I make money because my customers speak to references that have saved a lot of time and money.  It is helpful being cautious and negative at times, but telling people what not to do is less helpful than showing them how to do it.  I think some of the negative posts on this thread show examples of poor implementations or the subset of users that have not understood ITIL.  I've seen both.  Even great ITIL implementations have some end-users complaining that it's not working.  But, the CEO, management, and key players are all saving time and money.  You can't make everyone happy.  Again, I do think cautious notes in this thread should be read, but only as long as the positive aspects aren't ignored.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209453]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gcaussade@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:50:42 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Bah!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209353]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;Best practices&quot; is like motherhood or patriotism, how can you argue against that?  Labelling something as best practice is a way to steamroll opposition and appear to be a deep thinker and strategist but in fact abandoning individuality and running with the crowd.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209353]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[steve@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:20:58 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[500% improvment didn't come from process.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209360]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I'd suggest that your 500% improvement didn't come from your processes but from sources such as:. New Leaders that had a clue on how to attack the task.. Technology. (Automatic Conversion).. Probably training &amp; learning by the staff. I not not saying the following framework based processes hindered the the undertaking but they didn't give you the improvements you claim.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209360]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[petermoy@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:07:58 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[ITIL...ITSM... or as you like it.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209301]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[These concepts were around in the early 1980's and if memory served me correctly, one of the guises that it came under was ITSM which of course never took off.  Fast forward to today and the ITIL bandwagon.  ITIL is a bunch of manuals written by the British.  If I were running a successful business and I wanted to criple my competition, I would make sure that they followed the ITIL processes.  Unless there is a compelling ROI to implement this &quot;----&quot;; don't follow it. By all means take the course in case someone asked you a question but for the most part, this too will die as did ITSM...Yawnnnnn!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209301]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mike_patburgess@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:03:15 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[ITIL is process griven not labour  intensive]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209270]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It?s based on a history of failures from major IT providers and lessons learned combined best vendor practice. The biggest lesson NOT learned is NOT to outsource TOO much and lowest cost provider does not provide quality required or the reliability needed (See media for major IT data losses)ITIL is not a major issues for UK government departments and not widely used see media for Major public IT program failures. IF IT get involved in the ITIL process it can lead to large cost saving and fine tune already working models, remember it a guidance framework NOT a do to list you adapt it to IT. However it the wrong hands it can be used as a heavy hammer to smash a square peg into a round hole, where the consultant do not care of the damage just to get the project done and a tick in the box. Much of it is sensible IF you had the time to think about it but you senior managers did NOT think of it or give YOU the time to think about cost saving an operational management. Many outsource providers see ITIL as a check list and a number of process that need to be followed by an off shore operation, and the script is followed rigidly. This leads to systems and service costing twice as much and taking twice as long (See media for major IT failures). Last year I was working on ITIL implementations at delivered over ?300 million is savings for a telecoms company and recently a SOX service that delivered ?980 million saving and stared a manual reconciliation program that recovered ?9.3 billion]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209270]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ben@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:14:46 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[YES!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209156]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Totally agree.  I like the warning the article gives, but I'm concerned because it gives some people a reason to bash it.  Arguing against &quot;best practices&quot; isn't really a very productive endeavor.  I guess people are seeing poor implementations and feel frustration.  It's the people implementing, not ITIL.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209156]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gcaussade@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:52:47 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I feel for you...CM can save you a lot of time]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209152]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My last ITIL implementation was in a state government org.The first group only had 4 people and much of their time was fire fighting.  The first we did was implement Change control.  Properly implemented, unlike many of the posts you see here suggest, it saved them a lot time, and now they:1) Knew what everyone else was doing2) Properly planned all critical changes, so there were far less emergencies.3) The customer was very satisfied and happy.4) All the staff became customer-focused and communicated changes prior to making them with the customer leadership.Wish you well!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209152]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gcaussade@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:41:36 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Why have I seen process improve things 500%?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209125]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Many of these points come from the manufacturing area and don't translate well to IT.One example:  I've seen programming groups decide to manually rewrite huge applications - 1 million line of code or more apps.  Then only after many months of delays and cost overruns do they bring in an expert at software modernizations.  The expert puts in new processes that incorporates automatic conversion tools.  These tools completely change the process, it's not just a tool.  I have seen many case studies that improve the outcome by 4-5 times.  That is a huge time/money savings.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209125]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gcaussade@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:33:29 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[ITIL is extremely flexible]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209099]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[ITIL is a British invention. But, ITIL is simply a framework of best practices.Anyone in IT for a few decades already implemented many ideas behind ITIL several times. CM, configuration management, disaster recovery plan, etc... It is a wonderful &quot;library&quot; to go to and get ideas.  The first thing ITIL says is to NOT use it as a rigid system.I'm sorry, but your statement is categorically &quot;false&quot;.  I'm not British, but since it's an open system that isn't rigid, maybe you'll reconsider European and British thinking  ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3209099]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gcaussade@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:22:32 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Death by ITIL: How IT departments streamline themselves into oblivion]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3208995]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This principle applies right across the IT spectrum. In the past as a writer for an IT/Ops publication for the Financial Sector I wrote an article entitled &quot;Methodologies - Tool or Mantra&quot; highlighting the fact that the methodology is just a tool to support good management not to replace the lack of it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3208995]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[paul.gunovsky@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:57:32 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[This article hit the right buttons!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3208909]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Nice one Ilya, this is one of the best articles I have read on this forum and this topic. The opening comments about the various methodologies are so true but seldom realised. It made me laugh out loud.The various comments are also spot on about the pitfalls of ITIL. Having 'done ITIL' in various companies I've seen many of these issues.Finally, many of the comments seem to be from experienced IT pros with a common sense and pragmatic view of ITIL and other frameworks. Anyone who wants to create a new group of like minded people who see the benefit of ITIL 'et al' but understand how to implement it and keep the end game in mind let me know.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-321859-3208909]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[GlennHughes]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:56:39 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

