service

About the ITIL Service Owner

There's a lot of rubbish on the Web about ITIL (not on this blog of course). Take Service Owner. Actually there's a lot of rubbish in ITIL about Service Owner, or rather a lot of ambiguity and not a little outright contradiction. So it's hard to blame other web authors. But really, look at this:

There is only one service catalogue

Technical vs Business service catalogue: we had a go at this argument previously but I am discussing it again over on LinkedIn and I have - I hope - a clearer way of stating the position. The popular perception of a Technical Service Catalogue is that it described different service entities than a Business Service Catalogue. That's just plain wrong. It gives IT staff entirely the wrong attitudes and mindset. So here is my shot at a definitive statement of position on Technical vs Business Service Catalogue. For any organisational unit, for the services that are the outputs across the boundary of that unit, there is only one service catalogue ...and only one set of services.

is ITSM the best perspective on everything IT?

There is more to IT than services. Service Management may be the topic du jour but ITSM can't consider itself the primary gateway into governance, development, acquisition, architecture, projects or HR, to name just a few other IT functions. It may have a perspective on them but not the main one. Or then again, maybe it is it a sufficient model for managing all of IT.

Why does IT have to do the business's job?

One of the reasons IT is sinking under the burden of our work is all the projects and new services we are dealing with. This shouldn't be IT's job.

Do we overcook services? ITIL out of line

It seems to me that the technoid's obsession with over-analysing and chasing perfection - what I call ETF: Excessive Technical Fastidiousness - is often applied to the definition of services.

The true scope of service management and ITIL

Service management is IT. It is a way of describing how to do IT - all of it. When it comes to the scope of service management in general and ITIL in particular, the IT Skeptic has had a change of mind. In the past I accused ITIL V3 of having aspirations beyond its station, of trying to take on areas where it has no business going, such as strategy, applications and security. I don't think so any more: now I just think ITIL did it half-heartedly, too anaemically to be taken seriously by areas of IT outside of IT Operations. But Service Management definitely should go there.

Excellent customer service: weapon or burden?

How often is excellent customer service a competitive weapon and how often is it just an unnecessary cost burden on the organisation?

Say it ain't so!! ITIL V3 Incident and Problem processes do not determine the affected service

This BOKKE (body of knowledge known error) has been posted for a day or so, hundreds of views. I was sure someone would say "no you idiot, service impact analysis is right here" but not one. It seems to be true.

What is a service?

The word “service” certainly gets some exercise. ITIL v3 says “A service is a means of delivering value to customers by facilitating outcomes customers want to achieve, but without the ownership of specific costs and risks.”

This impenetrable bit of consultant-babble does not help those who are trying to grasp the fundamental concept.

Awful support conversations

I'm thinking to collect awful support conversations. Do people like reading these for amusement? Should we start a collection? Please let me know - comment below. Personally I find it astonishing just how bad support can be - it never fails to amaze me (again)...

Syndicate content