Susan: That's a very interesting question:-)
I'm not saying that the tool should dictate exactly how the processes should be - merely saying that building a large system from scratch demands considerably more expertise and resources that adapting an existing one. Although ITSM7 may not be a 100 percent fit for all companies, it is a very good starting point. It also depends on how well formed your current processes are in the first place. If you are looking for something new, why not go for something "out of the box" where a lot of people have done most the fundamental thinking for you? Sometimes a tool is necessary in order to accomplish a desired change. I have been involved in a project where we tried to implement new IT-processes. In retro perspective, we did not have the necessary skills to work out suitable processes, nor did we have adequate tools that could lead us in the right direction or support us. To make a long story short, it was not the most successful project in the history of man (if I recall it correctly, it was not even listed among the top ten...). Yes, processes and tools need to go hand in hand, but sometimes it doesn't matter if the hen or the egg comes first. It is all about creating awareness, develop, and then follow something because you all see the benefits of doing so. Rick: I do agree. If everything runs smoothly and your processes work fine, then going for ITSM7 could be a waste. Having said that, if everything works so well, I'm convinced that you actually do a lot according to ITIL in the first place (you just don't call by ITIL terms). All you non-ITIL people out there: The Stone Age did not end because we went out of rocks:-) Cheers, Runar ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: 25. mai 2007 19:31 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ITSM 7 customizations Well, that's the way it's worked in the pre-ITIL days. ITSM 5 and 6 "suggested" some ITIL-like workflow and processes, and would support them, but it wasn't all that hard to circumvent them. With v7, companies are pretty much forced to commit to ITIL as part of the implementation - preferably before it. There's just so MUCH workflow that would need to be re-engineered to make it work another way. If you don't care about ITIL, stay on custom or pre-v7 ITSM modules. I'm not saying I like that arrangement or that it is optimal, but it's kinda the way it is for the foreseeable future, and we need to either adapt to it or change tools and/or professions. Rick ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Palmer Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ITSM 7 customizations ** Runar, Are you suggesting that the 'tool' should define a company's processes? I always thought the tool was supposed to reflect the company's processes. If the company doesn't want that particular process then it shouldn't be forced via a tool. Susan On 5/25/07, Runar Helle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, wouldn't some members also be strongly against it for the same gainful reason...? I'm not convinced that building an ITSM-application from scratch would be the most lucrative options either, especially if your company does not possess experts on every level (I'm not only thinking of programmers, but also the process/organizational side of it). You may risk going though a great deal of testing and failures even before you reach half the level as an out of the box solution provides. Runar:-) __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
