For general information and resources, ITIL and ITSM World is the most well known for both ITIL and ITIL Books. A shorter snapshot approach can be found at ITIL Zone
Note: ® ITIL is a registered trademark of OGC. This portal is totally independent and is in no way related to them. See our Feedback Page for more information.
Joined: Mar 12, 2005 Posts: 255 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:55 am Post subject:
Addendum to my own comment from above...
Quote:
One thing my experience has taught me is that a vendor's analysis of any business problem has a remarkable affinity for conclusions that support their own products.
...I do not intend to ascribe anything manipulative, cynical, or otherwise untoward to tool-set vendors. I am commenting on a perfectly natural state of affairs. No one, or no oragnisation is going to put all that money and effort into building one of these things is they don't actually think they are addressing a real problem or need effectively.
Trouble is, it is really very important not to buy the problem!
Joined: Mar 12, 2005 Posts: 255 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:34 am Post subject:
Hey Frank,
Snap! - I think we posted at exactly the same time. The one above hopefully confirms your interpretation.
Actually I think C and B are identical - the oraganisation is its processes in so much as one can't be changed in a non-trivial way without changing the other.
My rambling about data v process emphasis actually lines up - seems safe to say you advocate the information based approach. I trust you understand I am not particularly dark on that approach per se. It will often be the 'right thing to do' in many organisations.
I don't doubt for a second that your experience is very broad - much more so than mine. And I am sure it is of benefit to many who come here. And I do mean that.
WRT to the whole OTB thing, I would allow for the possibility that a solution can be designed under the principle that if a 'feature' can't be utilised without customisation it shouldn't be included. And that such a design philosophy need not 'cripple' a product. And as your solution is hosted (which I hadn't realised) that approach would make a lot of sense.
Joined: Feb 28, 2006 Posts: 411 Location: Coventry, England
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:39 pm Post subject:
Gents (Frank & RJP)
Thanks for being (as usual) erudite and exhaustive in your replies.
Everyone else
one small niggle - I wonder how many people sit for a period trying to work out what the abbreviations mean - It took me ages to work out what LOL meant (I think it's Lord Oh Lord). frustrating to say the least!
Don't mean to be a whinger, but it bugs me. PCWPTWIF.
All times are GMT + 10 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
at the side, which coincidentally uses the code ":"+"lol"+":"
