OOOoh new thread.... Steve
2008/10/15 mikomatsumura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
