The IT Skeptic - Comments for "Courageous Ken"

interesting

ServiceSphere — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:28:41 +0000

So I'm piecing together this divinci code of BMC, the OGC and "Courageous Ken". I have been working on it for weeks. Each "link" to the past finds me in the current day and some leader. I guess this is no different than any other business but I feel IT MUST BE.

The words Service and Support are all over our little ITSM world.

Service=work done by one person or group that benefits another; "budget separately for goods and services"

Support=to carry; to encourage; to assist financially; to substantiate

When I look around all I see are business consumed by greed. I sold tools, I have been through "assessments" and trust me you can make any tool do anything thing. It's called a demo people and we have been selling magic wands for years.

All you need is any item that supports a parent-child relationship and a few SQL queries, BAM you have 24 processes.

Let's stop this madness. If the OGC wants to be in pseudo business, then sell off ITIL to itSMF, the TSO to hallmark and call a spade a spade.

I sat in a panel discussion on CMDBs recently where a vendor said, it's "PROCESS, TOOLS then people" and "You just needed more consulting"

In the 40's many doctors signed on to support the HEALTH benefits of smoking.

Sometimes the cure is much worse than the disease.

The real assessment should be how many of your employees have actually WORKED in ITSM, and selling software and taking classes don't count.

No Such Thing As ITIL Compliance

Visitor — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:55:24 +0000

We all know that there is no such thing as ITIL compliance because it is not and never will prescriptive because it is a framework.

The only compliance for IT Service Management is based on ISO/IEC 20K.

Therefore this is nothing more than a money spinner for Ken Turbitt and his partner in Castle ITIL and for the OGC.

Me thinks there may be a case for false advertising.

The value of vendor references

skeptic — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:05:00 +0000

"Dear Mr/Ms CIO

Did you make the right choice when you invested a million dollars of your employer's money in implementing this technology?
If we pour additional resources into ensuring your success would you be prepared to be a reference for us to tell your peers and potential future employers how right you were?"

ITIL is not about tools...

CyberJMC66 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:28:35 +0000

David,

I would have to somewhat disagree with your statement that ITIL is not about the tools. While I do agree and argue technology should NOT drive or limit process design (which in many cases it does), technology IS part of the three legged table. People and process alone can be effective, but is terribly inefficient, costly and impractical in anything but a ma & pa store. And "At the end of the day", the combination of people, process and technology, in that order, will have to provide positive business benefit.

I have commented on a number of threads and blogs about the problem with ITIL projects and many technologies in that they tend to implement only the operational aspects of IT and ITIL, but limit the "Grow" and "Transform" parts. THESE parts are spelled out in ITIL, and are the parts where IT can provide business benefit. NO company has acheived a competitive advantage from having better than average operational capabilities. If the technology doesn't or can't help grow AND transform the business, in addition to operational aspects, then your ITIL project is destined to be focused totally on operations ~ something the business can only do one thing to and that's continue to cut costs.

Which leads to my second point, there is no assessment, certification, analyst review that talks to the test of efficiency. Most focus on the test of effectiveness (does it follow ITIL, does it implement today's popular processes, ie Incident, Problem, Change et al) but do not include tests of efficiency (cost of software, or service, cost to implement, cost to own, value runway). Everyone does Incident Management the same - it's the grandfather of IT Processes and systems have been doing "ticketing" for ages...

Agreed, these are harder to capture, but should be obtainable from customer references. Something I do give credit to the OGC Certification (that you have three referenceable customers who have found value from the technology).

I would agree with the comment on any assessment isn't useless as it will expose weaknesses for the vendor to make improvements to their solution. And the cert is probably of more value to the vendor than the customers, who simply want the check box.

John M. Clark

Why support a flawed process

DavidM — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:44:37 +0000

Maybe it's me.

I'm on record as being opposed to the software compliance cert because I believe the process is flawed. So, what follows is consistent.

I don't think fear is an issue. If I ran an ISV in this market space, I would not submit our software for consideration. Why would I support a process that I believe to be flawed or tainted?

At some point I might have to deal with submission, but hopefully, if that times comes, the process would have improved to a point that it had more credibility.

What's missing? Clear independent review by a recognized 3rd party that had ZERO prior relationship with the submitting organization. The process for the review should be clearly published and the checklists available to every software vendor. The "lab" doing the review should be totally neutral with respect to prior relationships. The results of the review should clearly be available to the vendor and also usable by them for marketing purposes PROVIDED the review is not edited, abridged, or modified in any way.

The certification should ONLY apply to the specific product and version submitted for evaluation -- and then only the specific lifecycle processes that pass muster. Any new version would have to be evaluated again. To be determined is the nature and range allowable changes or patches that would not force resubmission. Further, the review should be about more than just the specific process. Full lifecycle integration must be part of the process -- does this specific process tool integrate with other lifecycle processes. For example, if the specific process tool is for Availability Management, does the tool support integration with Access Management, Information Security Management, IT Servicce Continuity Management, Change Management, etc. Further, if the ONLY way the integration is achieved is with the vendor's own product, that should be part of the evaluation AND by fiat, included with any statement of cert.

Just to be clear, I prefer open standards regarding specific tool integration versus proprietary file and data formats. Again, the goal is ITSM, not vendor lock-in.

That said. ITIL isn't about tools, it IS about IT service management. I don't care if a tool does or doesn't have the cert (at least at this stage). What I DO care about, what I needed the vendors to be able to provide, is how their specific package (or suite) supports the ITIL lifecycle aspects I have either adopted or plan to adopt. I need to know how the tool can ba adapted to fit my organization (within the ITSM context), not how my organization will have to change to use the tool (a la SAP). I haven't seen anything in the software certification process that really addresses this area... and that's another reason why I suggest the process is flawed.

David

Shame about the name and shame

riCh chestMat — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:42:21 +0000

I agree that vendors who don't apply or fail should not be named and shamed. Besides the fact that I do not respect this software-compliance scheme one of the benefits should at least be for the vendors to self-assess and improve. As with an ISO standard part of the reward in taking the audit is to identify areas of non-compliance. Improving the service to address those areas bring the actual benefit for all.

That said I'd mark DOWN any vendor that tried to dangle its ITIL 'compliance' in front of my face without proving that they understand the silliness of such a claim.

Process assessment Model

JamesFinister — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:24:03 +0000

Just a quick reminder that ISO are currently working on a PAM for ISO/IEC 20000

James Finister
Wolston Limited
www.wolston.net
www.coreITSM.com
http://coreitsm.blogspot.com/

ITIL compliance is a scam, excuse me....scheme

John Worthington aka MySvcMon — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:50:27 +0000

Tools and the appropriate "fit" for an ITIL process may vary based on organizational, process maturity and many other requirements. This 'ITIL compliance' stuff is just that...a scheme.

I asked for the 'compliance' criteria, but they wanted the $$ first....

I think a Process Assessment Model for ITSM would be a more productive discussion, and something itSMF could and should promote....might as well get something for my membership dollar besides going to LIG meetings

John M. Worthington
MyServiceMonitor, LLC

ey ey cap'n

WHD — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:57:25 +0000

lol...good stuff!

...and roger that.

bemusement

skeptic — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:57:33 +0000

Rhett doers tend to get a bit over-excited about his product (every good salesman should). I've considered challenging a few of his assertions in the past, especially over the miracle of SaaS which apparently has no drawbacks only benefits.

I am sure there are several online demos of products. Beetil, another SaaS offering, have one too. I've never understood why Rhett makes such a fuss about that anyway and I'm sure all the other vendors regard it with bemusement. If you are selling at a feature-function level you aren't selling value. No doubt like every other tool in the market it looks pretty and it works. Move on.

I'd appreciate it if this thread doesn't turn into a catalogue of every vendor's online demo OK? I take a dim view of product promotion on this blog and will edit comments.

Vendor poop-throwing-match...

Web Help Desk — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:23:00 +0000

There are a lot of well thought arguments playing out in that LinkedIn thread. It's a good read.

The thing that I don't like is when the vendors (disclosure: and I'm with one) get passionate and heated and start throwing out statements that are not based in fact. I hate seeing these vendor and compliancy threads turn into poop-throwing-matches because someone is sure to slip....as did Rhett Glauser at Service-now.com when he said this simply UNTRUE STATEMENT:

"Service-now.com is the only enterprise ITSM tool vendor to offer a completely open, live instance of our application."

[edited: Web Help Desk have an online demo too]

Now personally I don't care if these vendors and ITIL gurus duke it out until they collapse in exhaustion.....but they don't have to take one of the good guy vendors down with them with untrue statements....

MS-ITSM

Michel — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:07:34 +0000

JMC and Skeptic: you finally sorted out this mystery around the always announced but never released Microsoft solution for ITSM! It was actually in front of us! Wahoo... :)

A few forms and macros

skeptic — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:23:00 +0000

one worksheet for tickets, with a bunch of lookups.
one worksheet for users
one worksheet for assets
one worksheet for SLAs
A few forms and macros
And the five ITIL books for doc.

Nothing says it has to be scalable or robust or even user-friendly, just compliant, however Ken has decided to interpret that. We'll never know unless we try.

i wonder if it would pass PinkVerify? At least i can go look and find out

Certifying Excel

CyberJMC66 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:55:38 +0000

Rob,

Might be a little easier in MS Access, than Excel :)
The @Vlookup functions for CI's could get interesting...
And you could use the new Excel "cell bars" formatting for SLA compliance.

But you have to have three successful implementations of "Skep's ITIL Spreadsheets" or "Skep's ITIL based, Access Accelerator"... (hey, I like the sounds of that last one!) That has a marketing ring to it!

The “ ITIL Compliant Software Assessment Service will consist of several tiers and cover all ITIL V2 and V3 processes;
Bronze = The product documentation and application are compliant to the standard
Silver = (Bronze + the vendor proves 3+ successful implementations of the product)
Gold = (Silver + The vendor has 3+ clients with the product implemented and in use and that have provided references)

JMC

certify MS-Excel

skeptic — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:43:07 +0000

if I could find a way to do it and fund it I'd be sorely tempted to certify MS-Excel. it ought to comply if the documented processes do, and I'm sure they do because for the associated manuals the user is referred to the ITIL core suite.

I don't think anyone is chicken

CyberJMC66 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:23:48 +0000

I do enjoy reading the comments that continue to adorn Skep's blog. Ironically, while I have been outspoken about the OGC Certification, our organization (ICCM) decided to go through it. We were torn between renewing with Pink Elephant or investing in the OGC Certification. Since Pink was throwing its weight behind the endorsement in Dallas, we proceeded to go through with the OGC certification testing.

In Dallas, we did express our concerns with Ken T. and company about the certification and especially the perceptions that continue to linger in the industry with it's launch, its early adopters, and how it is being seen by the ITSM community. Honestly, the process wasn't too demanding or biased and we weren't compared to other vendors. Simply a set of criteria...

I would have advised Ken against challenging any vendors "Bravery" or sharing details on who is and isn't in process. It's his business. IMHO - Only those vendors who have been through the process and acheived the certification they set out to acheive should be made public. If a vendor decides to start and stop, or go or not go through the process, I would hope are business driven decisions. And should be kept confidential.

I still hold my opinions that the certification validates "effectiveness" but not necessarily efficiency. Especially from a business perspective. I think customers would find assessments of value that include implementation durations and costs, ongoing cost of ownership, flexibility against downstream upgrades, scalability. There is no relative score other than the different metals which provide an indication of #customers, etc. Once all vendors have their Gold Level certification, then we'll all be equal again right?

I would agree that ITIL processes could be manually executed with Post-it notes, but no one sells a solution that leverages post-it notes, and if they did, I doubt they could find three customers willing to reference they are using post-it notes. Would be an interesting experiment :)

HP must be chicken

skeptic — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:42:38 +0000

yes presumably HP must be chicken too.

The other big difference between the OGC Scheme and PinkVerify is that Pink publish the criteria so you knw what you are shooting for. OGC's criteria set is the proprietary property of Ken and is secret. "Hand over your product and we'll tell you if you pass or fail" is hardly an attractive proposition

Another thing that would put me off is Ken's demonstrated willingness to disclose exactly who has applied before they have been accredited, who hasn't, and who has pulled out. Commercial confidentiality (let alone discretion) appears an unfamiliar concept.

When the investment makes sense, they'll do it..

Cary King — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:41:49 +0000

It seems to me that since ITIL is, as OGC themselves put it, a good practice, then any ITIL compliance is extremely subjective.

Submitting any software to a subjective evaluation by individuals who worked for competitors who may still have biases against your product seems to be potentially sub-optimal It's rather like asking engineers who spent a lifetime designing and building automobiles at Chevrolet and just recently retired to evaluate the looks of Ford automobiles.

The Pink Elephant list is one chosen by vendors because it is not perceived to have an obvious BMC bias and because it is a well-known place for prospects to learn who they should invite to propose. It is an excellent time saver for the Purchasing staff in prospect companies.

I'm sure that when the vendors involved perceive that the bias is reduced and the popularity of the list grows so that it becomes a positive ROI, then they will pursue this evaluation too.

Why Ken Turbitt has not chosen to take on bigger vendors, like HP, that are big contributors to ITIL, is interesting.

Cary King
Minerva Enterprises

Straight Talk and Awareness

Monte St. Johns — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:33:38 +0000

Skep - This is why I follow you - you love to get the straight talk up and allow continued discussion.

Hat's off to you for getting this to your skeptic "subjects"!!!