Here is BMC's ITIL Best Practives Director's Article from DECEMBER 2006 --- This might give you some more insight Norm. http://www.enterpriseleadership.org/listen/podcast-turbitt/view?searchterm=Ken%20Turbitt
http://www.bmc.com/BMC/Common/CDA/hou_Page_Detail/0,3464,9926222_10636326,00.html look him up here, and select his links as well.. 3 White patpers and a Pod Cast as well.. On 1/26/07, Rick Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
** I have to agree with you there, Norm. They took a necessary risk, and we'll see how it turns out. The bottom line is that BMC had a responsibility to make money however they could (within their business model), they saw ITIL as a means to do that, and ITSM 7 appears to be successful for them in that way. Until it isn't as lucrative as some other acronym, I don't see much changing. ITIL may indeed turn out to be like so many other acronymed initiatives - time will tell. In the meantime, those companies not embracing it will have a couple of years still in support to make up their minds before going to the expense of upgrading. This is a case where BMC's extended release intervals (12-18 months) work in the customer's favor. Rick On 1/26/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ** > > Rick: > > On your point…So for those with limited budgets and/or no compelling > ITIL initiative, staying with ITSM 6 is probably a better bet. > > My concern is this—Remedy only supports so many versions. When we get > to, say, version 8 or 9 of ITSM, BMC drops support for version 6, the > non-ITIL compliant version. > > Additionally, I don't want to sound cynical, but my impression of ITIL > is that it's an industry buzz…like TQM, CMM, CMMI, ISO, QAF, etc. While I > understand that there may be great benefits to implementing ITIL, my > research indicates that it's a huge commitment and a huge undertaking. And > many big enterprises may well balk at the idea of embracing ITIL just > because Remedy made their product that way. > > It seems to me Remedy took an awful risk retooling ITSM the way they > did. > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Rick Cook > *Sent:* Friday, January 26, 2007 10:18 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion > > > > ** > > To answer your first question, the thing I have always liked about > Remedy was that I never had to tell a customer that Remedy couldn't be made > to conform to existing business practices. With ITSM 7, I'm not sure that > would still be the case. In any event, the corporate ITIL initiative would > be the driver on this, not BMC, IMO. > > > > This may be just my opinion, but I think that a lot of companies are > having to decide whether to jump on ITSM 7 or stay with 6 for the > foreseeable future, and customizing it to fit their needs. For companies > not really into ITIL, they just don't see the value add to retrain everyone > on a new app. and end up with no discernable value for the money they > invested in consultants and training to upgrade. > > > > So I'm seeing two large buckets of work out there - Fresh ITSM 7 > installations and ITSM 6 customizations. The first thing I thought of when > I saw ITSM 7 almost a year ago was that Remedy PS was going to make a mint > doing the installation and customizations, because few customers will have > enough staff time to invest in learning it well enough to make anything > resembling a major customization to it. The fact that until very recently, > only BMC and its partners were able to even get the training on how to > install and configure it only cements that impression. > > > > So for those with limited budgets and/or no compelling ITIL initiative, > staying with ITSM 6 is probably a better bet. ITSM 7 will cost a bunch to > get in place, and a bunch more to change as time goes on. And that's not > even taking into consideration the potential upgradeability of the > v7 application, which is a complete unknown at this point. > > > > Rick > > > On 1/26/07, *Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > ** > > Hi list: > > I apologize for not being a more active participant of the ARS list > community recently…work has had me tied up more in red tape than in real > development lately. > > Anyway, I put this in as off topic, but I think it's only a bit off > topic. I would like to get any and all viewpoints on the subject of > implementing ITSM vs. another product or a custom product. Specifically, > how do you feel about the following points (some are from a devil's advocate > perspective): > > - ITSM 7.0 was overhauled from the previous version to be > "ITIL compliant". An organization that does not want to embrace the ITIL > model, however, is stuck because BMC only supports so many versions back. > Eventually support is dropped on the non-ITIL compliant versions. Thus, > doesn't the vendor effectively control your organization's process and not > the other way around? What are your thoughts on that? > > - ITSM 7.0 has some 26,000 code objects (forms, ALs, filters, > and escalations). Doesn't that make the tool nearly impossible to reverse > engineer? And a bear to customize? > > - Isn't customization unavoidable…especially in large > enterprises with longstanding, proven business practices? > > - If customization is unavoidable, how do you handle > configuration control? That is, how do you know the next version won't wipe > out all the work you did on your customizations? > > All thoughts and opinions are much appreciated. > > Norm > __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___
-- Patrick Zandi _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
