itSMF predicts competition to ITIL

Further to our recent comments about how ISO20000 will displace ITIL, and how the key players can be seen to be setting up for this, itSMF themselves predict emerging competition to ITIL:

It is also noted that the OGC decision, along with the publication of ITIL Version 3 next year [2007] has created much uncertainty amongst our members and in the general market place as to the future direction of ITIL based IT service management and as a result, other approaches based on ISO/IEC 20000 are likely to emerge.

Right now itSMF is staying impartial, but one day they will need to back one horse or another.


And don't forget CMMI-SVC

I've been reading carefully all the documentation I have been able to find about the future CMMI-SVC constellation that is about to be launched on 2007. Well, I'm about to write down an article in my blog, but initial toughs are that ISO20K forces to have *all* processes in place for specified services (the scope) and CMMI will give us a maturity path, so organizations can start with Maturity Level 2 and go on growing (in a staged approach).

What is more interesting / feasible? Don't know, but CMMI seems to be very interesting. Another player, but this time aligned with development and (i hope) oriented to close the gap between those two worlds in the eternal war.

Antonio Valle

"The safe course leads ever downward into stagnation." -- Frank Herbert


And I think it is interesting to map CMMI on to ISO 20000. Level 3, perhaps?

Stagged Representation

Well... as far as I know, it's a stagged representation, so there are process area for level 2 and for level 3
it will be interesting to map ISO 20k to CMMI-SVC mapping the Specific and Global Practices to ISO requirements.

Empty your memory, with a free()... like a pointer!
If you cast a pointer to a integer, it becomes the integer,
if you cast a pointer to a struct, it becomes the struct...
The pointer can crash..., or it can Overflo

CMMI-SVC very interesting

VERY interesting Antonio, thanks. I'll do some reading. let us know when you do your article

Competition or Convergence?

Having a foot in both the itSMF and ISACA camps I think it is fair to say that there is an awareness amongst the authors of both ITIL and COBIT that they need to be more closely aligned, which is one way forward. The danger is the quasi-commercial nature that itSMF developed under the last CEO, and of course the role of the OGC. Personally I think the itSMF and OGC have a lot to learn from the way COBIT has been developed.

the quasi-commercial nature of itSMF

You are danged right about the quasi-commercial nature of itSMF. See our award for The Trump Medal for Most Inappropriate Empire Building: "These commercial and political manoeuvrings are unbecoming".


I could not agree more. I should, before facing charges of being North European-centric, make clear that I was referring to itSMF UK. And being controversial I would also add that I think Aidan did do a lot of good things as well.

COBIT says how high to jump but not how to

My understanding is that COBIT says how high to jump but not how to design a fitness program or what the best pole-vaulting technique is. SO i think they are apples and oranges. A convergence of ISO20000 and COBIT: now that is a proposition.


I think this is a common view amongst those who have looked at the control objectives in COBIT, but not the control mechanisms that are available to ISACA members/subscribers. At the least these provide a framework for reverse enginneering processes.


I think that very common view of COBIT comes from those who have only looked at the Control Objectives, not the the Control Mechanisms that are also defined. It helps if you are an ISACA member and subscriber and have access to the whole of COBIT - most people only see the above waterline view of COBIT which is outcome driven.

Not necessarily

They can continue to sit on the fence as well. There may be no profit at all in "backing one horse"; diplomacy may compel them to support a variety of ITSM frameworks, vendors, and providers. I can't really envision a situation that would force them to throw their lot in wholly behind one player. Lot of downside, not much upside.

Look for a lot of bland, "can't we all get along" type statements. It's what I'd do.


I guess you are right

I guess you are right. I was thinking it would be hard to sustain two systems within itSMF but perhaps not...

Syndicate content