my views are that the ITIL service definitions are reasonable with respect to cost and terrible with respect to agility.
The concept of "change management" associated with ITSM are completely detached from business processes, new application functionality, Project Lifecycle etc. This is because ITSM is from the IT Governance perspective. Now in terms of cost control and IT governance and the CIO reporting to the CFO, expect to see a lot more of that in this business climate... --- In [email protected], Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have noticed this " That's because ITIL is a bunch of bottom up views masquerading as a top down view" as well. My concerns are about ITIL's interpretation of SOA. How much do you think it close to the OASIS definitions? > > - Michael > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: mikomatsumura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:10:39 PM > Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: ITIL & SOA Governanc > > > 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 service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, "Steve Jones" > <jones.steveg@ ...> 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 <toddbiske@ ..>: > > > 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" > > > <m3poulin@ .> 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 <mikomatsumura@ ...> > > >>To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > > >>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/reposito ry > > >>> > 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 > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
