I'll tell you what I like ITIL for is that it reads like a map of a disaster area... it will tell you where the pain points are and help you understand why things are so messed up in IT.
I wouldnt recommend adopting ITIL whole hog and I have yet to hear of a success story of a company that actually has. I know this is going to raise a bunch of objections about the vendor driven ITIL success stories out there. This probably maps to Steve's comment that you shouldnt model in ITIL, I concur. That's because ITIL is a bunch of bottom up views masquerading as a top down view. Most of them are folks who have implemented a CMDB and used ITIL as a template and set of guidelines. This I have no objection to and think is pretty smart. I agree that ITIL v3 is better. Dont get me wrong, there's plenty value in ITIL. Just think people need to appreciate where the value is instead of assuming it's a stepwise path to nirvana. --- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Speaking as someone with a more than passing interest in the "run" > world I'd say that ITIL v3 is a lot better but its still not simple > when it comes to services. I'm still organising things first around > the abstract business service view then using ITIL as an operational > service view, without the abstract organisational thing then ITIL > isn't (IMO) really service oriented in its bones, but give it the > context and its great. > > I don't think I'd model in ITIL lets put it that way. > > Steve > > > 2008/10/11 Todd Biske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > You know, if we can get over the whole service desk/help desk viewpoint and > > the CMDB only as a store for core physical infrastructure, I believe the > > concepts of ITIL v3 make sense, even if the internal data center leverages > > virtualization or if we are starting to leverage SaaS/PaaS. Of course, ask > > me again once I've had a chance to go through the foundations training a > > month from now. There's always the risk that my assumption that the ITIL v3 > > overlords have the correct conceptual model and goals could be completely > > wrong. Most people I've talked to have said that the viewpoint Miko > > expressed was certainly true for the ITIL v2 world, but major improvements > > were made in v3. > > > > Todd Biske > > http://www.biske.com/blog > > > > On Saturday, October 11, 2008, at 03:53AM, "Michael Poulin" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>It looks like New Year is at the door-step... Are we in the > >> Prediction/Forecast mood already? :-) > >> > >>- Michael > >> > >>P.S. How about "all new things are just well forgotten old things"? Let's > >> replace PCs with the "remote terminals to the Cloud" and remove "service > >> desk/helpdesk" guys from our floors (well they, probably will hide in the > >> Cloud, but it will be the Cloud Problem) > >> > >>BTW, does PaaS stand for Process-as-a-Service? This becomes similar to the > >> picture where a big brother buys a candy for the little brother, unwraps it, > >> and even eats it ... on behalf of the little brother > >> > >>- Michael > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ---- > >>From: mikomatsumura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: [email protected] > >>Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:06:28 PM > >>Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: ITIL & SOA Governanc > >> > >> > >>I'm not going to say that ITIL is a reactionary command and control > >>system invented to address a pretty fundamentally broken system of > >>managing infrastructure and the CMDB is a vendor driven mish mash of > >>products designed to maximize software license footprint on fairly > >>tired system management console businesses. > >> > >>Oh wait, I just did. =) > >> > >>Perhaps that statement is a bit strong. ITIL actually contains a lot > >>of clues as to where the pain in IT is and as such it's a great tool > >>for battening down the hatches, lowering costs and automating the heck > >>out of your IT infrastructure. Which in this economic climate isnt a > >>bad thing. > >> > >>i just think that we might move towards a more enlightened way to > >>manage infrastructure that's driven from the service consumption side > >>through technologies like virtualization. I guess the over-reliance on > >>root cause analysis and service desk/helpdesk aspects of CMDB always > >>paint for me a picture of techies digging through the wreckage of a > >>crash that already happened. I'd like to see a future where systems > >>can adapt via policy to changes in the consumption patterns. > >> > >>I know it's science fiction today, but with trends in "cloud" > >>computing and PaaS, it wont be 2 years out but certainly within 10. > >> > >>My 2 cents, > >>Miko > >> > >>--- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael Poulin > >><m3poulin@ .> wrote: > >>> > >>> I solute to Anne on her provision! > >>> - Michael > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ---- > >>> From: Anne Thomas Manes <atmanes@ > > >>> To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > >>> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 1:31:15 PM > >>> Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] ITIL & SOA Governanc > >>> > >>> > >>> I also predicted circa 2006 that UDDI and CMDB would converge, > >>> although I wasn't blogging back then, so can't reference an article to > >>> justify my claim. I have a document in the Burton Group library that I > >>> wrote in October 2006 that states: > >>> > >>> "Watch for integration with IT management and governance: A SOA > >>> governance program should be an extension of an enterprise's existing > >>> IT governance program. SOA governance processes should blend naturally > >>> with traditional SDLC and IT management processes. Registry vendors > >>> have yet to deliver integration with configuration management > >>> databases (CMDBs) or IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) systems; however > >>> this type of integration should start to appear in 2007." > >>> > >>> Like Todd, I was a bit overly optimistic. I suspect that lack of > >>> standards for CMDB has constrained it growth into a general-purpose > >>> configuration management system. No one is yet considering the idea of > >>> managing application configuration files (e.g., WAR and EAR config > >>> files), much less service configuration files. CMDB is still pretty > >>> much limited to managing hardware appliances and core application > >>> infrastructure (database, app, and mail servers). It definitely > >>> doesn't get into change and configuration management of software > >>> componentry. > >>> > >>> Comments on Michael's points below... > >>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>com> wrote: > >>> > A couple of also interesting (I think) things to add: > >>> > > >>> > 1) with some knowledge and efforts, a UDDI may be used in the same > >>manner as > >>> > LDAP - you will be the master of its meta-data/schema and you will > >>be able > >>> > to store all information needed to "to be able to track a > >>fault/problem all > >>> > the way from the business process down to a switch, network card > >>or a cpu in > >>> > a server and vice versa" via its programmatic (vs. manual) interface > >>> > >>> The UDDI data model is very extensible. You can use a tModel to > >>> represent pretty much any thing or any relationship. So, yes, you > >>> could use UDDI to store all information needed to track a > >>> fault/problem all the way from the business process to a device or > >>> vice versa. But in order for this information to be useful, you would > >>> have to standardize the tModels that capture the information. > >>> Standardization of management information has been attempted many time > >>> before with little success. Think CIM and SML. > >>> > >>> > > >>> > 2) I have not seen or heard of such use of UDDI as I described in 1). > >>> > Probably, Anne will correct me here. Nevertheless, the task "to > >>track a > >>> > fault/problem all the way from the business process down to a switch, > >>> > network card or a cpu in a server and vice versa" is one of the > >>major ones > >>> > on the way to the SO model of the enterprise. I know that IBM hasn't > >>> > included UDDI support into is service registry/repository and > >>offered an > >>> > alternative solution for this > >>> > >>> I have never seen anyone capture this much information in UDDI. The > >>> Systinet-led GIF effort (now led by HP -- see > >>> https://h10078. www1.hp.com/ cda/hpms/ display/main/ hpms_content. > >>jsp?zn=bto& cp=1-11-130- 27^2804_4000_ 100_ _) > >>> defined standard tModels to capture service configuration information > >>> -- i.e., policies -- in order to enable interoperability among > >>> heterogeneous SOA infrastructure components. Quite a few vendors > >>> signed up to participate in GIF, including BEA, AmberPoint, Layer 7, > >>> Parasoft. At one point they had more than a dozen vendors > >>> participating in the effort. But GIF never attempted to capture > >>> configuration information down below the service level. GIF is still > >>> around, but I get the sense that interoperability among heterogeneous > >>> vendor products isn't as high a priority with the vendors as it once > >>> was. > >>> > >>> > > >>> > I agree with Kelly Emo on the mentioned statement: SO > >>registry/repository > >>> > needs some things that CMDB and UDDI include today, especially, > >>with regard > >>> > to governance (policies/procedure s) and operational business > >>service/process > >>> > changes. So, I solute to Todd with his Provision-2006. > >>> > >>> I doubt that CMDB will every be expanded to the point where it > >>> supports design time metadata management. There comes a point where > >>> you really want to separate design time and runtime information > >>> management. SOA repositories should support design-time governance > >>> processes. SOA registries typically support runtime governance > >>> processes (e.g., information exchange among runtime components). I > >>> would still like to see CMDB move up the stack and take over the > >>> runtime management role from SOA runtime registries. Integration among > >>> all these repositories (automatic propagation of information from one > >>> to another as services proceed through their lifecycles) > >>> would be really helpful. > >>> > >>> - Anne > >>> > >>> > > >>> > - Michael > >>> > > >>> > ----- Original Message ---- > >>> > From: Dennis Djenfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED] se> > >>> > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > >>> > Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 8:45:51 PM > >>> > Subject: Re: [service-orientated -architecture] ITIL & SOA Governance > >>> > > >>> > The current organization I'm working with are in the progress of > >>upgrading > >>> > from HP SOA Systinet 2.x to 3.0, and there has been a lot of talk > >>about how > >>> > the information in the register/repository could be integrated > >>with a CMDB. > >>> > The IT operation would like to be able to track a fault/problem > >>all the way > >>> > from the business process down to a switch, network card or a cpu in a > >>> > server and vice versa. I haven't seen a fully automated solution > >>to this > >>> > yet, and I haven't had the time to participate in the evaluation > >>of HP SOA > >>> > Systinet 3.0, but it was interesting to read this article, where > >>Kelly Emo > >>> > from HP says: > >>> > > >>> > "The new SOA infrastructure component captures more than UDDI > >>information, > >>> > it encompasses best practices, CMDB information, and sets the > >>stage for a > >>> > wider culture of governance" > >>> > > >>> > http://it.toolbox. com/blogs/ dana-gardners- briefing- direct/with- > >>> > systinet- 30-hp-broadens- soa-governance- role-to-encompas s-services- > >>> > lifecycle- business- processes- it-service- management- 27584 > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > // Dennis Djenfer > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Todd Biske wrote: > >>> > > >>> > I'm not that familiar with the ITIL v3 processes (just got > >>registered for > >>> > some training in November), but from what I understand of IT Service > >>> > Management, I see no reason why the techniques of service management > >>> > shouldn't be applicable to either IT services (e.g. Build me a new > >>server) > >>> > or business services that are supported by It solutions such as a Web > >>> > Service. > >>> > As for the tooling, I absolutely think that we'll see convergence > >>in the > >>> > CMDB space and the Service Registry/Repository space. I've > >>blogged on this > >>> > in the past, as early as August of 2006, but my prediction has yet > >>to come > >>> > true. I think there's still too big of a gap between the > >>development side > >>> > of IT and the operational side of IT to really establish a market > >>for a > >>> > converged product. > >>> > Blog: > >>> > http://www.biske. com/blog/ ?p=64 > >>> > -tb > >>> > Todd Biske > >>> > http://www.biske. com/blog/ > >>> > Sent from my iPhone > >>> > On Oct 8, 2008, at 11:54 AM, delarco71 <[EMAIL PROTECTED] es> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Dear friends, > >>> > > >>> > How ITIL v3 processes could be applied to Services Lifecycle ... or in > >>> > SOA Management area?. > >>> > > >>> > Is it possible that SOA/ITIL vendors approach in a future a > >>> > convergence between the CMDB and Repository products? > >>> > > >>> > Regards, > >>> > > >>> > jose > >>> > > >>> > ____________ _________ _________ __ > >>> > > >>> > No virus found in this incoming message. > >>> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg. com > >>> > Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1714 - Release Date: > >>2008-10-08 > >>> > 07:01 > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >
