It comes down to a question of who should dictate your process, I think-you or the vendor?
Here's the scenario. You have a first-rate operation consisting of 2,000 employees. The way you do business is solid because you've turned high profits for the past ten years. Don't mess with success. In 2005, you make a significant investment and purchase ITSM version whatever it was at the time. The tool works fine with your business. In 2006 Remedy announced the tool is reworked to be ITIL compliant. Let's suppose you don't want to mess with success, but you want to use the "best practice" solution. So you train your people on ITIL and embrace it. In, let's say, 2008, the wind changes and BMC reworks the tool again-this time to embrace XYZ Popular Buzzword Practice. Now you're forced again to change your process in order to make the tool work properly and make sense...all because the vendor-another company looking to sell a product-made a business decision they hope will increase their sales. It's understood that if Starbuck's realizes that people don't like coffee anymore and want, say, lemonade, Starbuck's will switch to lemonade. In this case, however, it has tremendous repercussions on the end customer...especially if the end customer is a government agency. _____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** 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] <mailto:[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: _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
