The IT Infrastructure Library

ITIL is culturally biased by its narrow and closed contributor base

ITIL is written by “service suppliers, training companies and academia in Britain, Canada and the USA” who know IT operations and cater to corporate business. That is a narrow authorship base for a framework that sets out to document IT Service Management. No authors from Asia. No authors from government, health, engineering, non-profits, or small business. And zero mechanisms for the disenfranchised to contribute. So how does anyone know it is universal best practice, and is it best for those other users?

ITIL is far from comprehensive

ITIL certainly does not cover all aspects of "IT Infrastructure" as the name suggests. It does not even cover all aspects of an IT Service Management Library, which would be a more accurate name for its scope. For a framework that pays much lip service to the Deming Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, it is light on with any part of that cycle except "Do".

ITIL in Asia

The IT Skeptic is writing for ITSMWatch now. A recent discussion in that forum led to the IT Skeptic expressing opinions on ITIL in Asia:

The cure for the common cult of "ITIL by the book"

What a great line: "the cure for the common cult". Oooh, I wish I had thought of that, but I didn't. It comes from a recent article by Brian Johnson, one of the original authors of ITIL and an occasional contributor of comments on this blog.

The key to living without CMDB is process maturity level

This article has been podcast

Yes you can do without CMDB, so long as you are aiming at not too high a maturity level, say 3. The trick is to remember that you don't adopt a process, you improve it. If we aspire to a moderate level of maturity, then yes we can do without a CMDB. Plenty of people do.

The software analyst industry needs a code of practice.

This article has been podcast

In my country, the broadcast industry and the advertising industry both adhere to a voluntary code of practice to police the more extreme behaviours of their members. I wish the software vendor industry and their parasitic analysts would do the same.

Don't fall for the demo: an asset database with bells and whistles is not a CMDB

This article has been podcast

Don't fall for the demo: anyone can set up an asset database with enough relationship bells and whistles on it to fool themselves and others that they have a CMDB.

Get it straight: CMDB can not be auto-discovered

This line in a Butler Group white paper synopsis pressed a button for me:"Service Configuration Management enables quick establishment of Configuration Management Database (CMDB) through auto discovery". I respect the Butler Group more than most analysts, and I am too tight to buy the full text from them, so I hope the synopsis is a bit misleading. Though from the tone of the rest I fear it isn't. This pernicious idea turns up regularly, mostly from software vendors. It must be stamped out.

Syndicate content