Have to agree with you, Norm. If a change to a process is to be made, the CHANGE must be justified as being better than the status quo, and the value of that change must be weighed against the cost of not making it. If part of the justification is (as is the case with ITIL) that a valid comparison is difficult, due to the fact that proper data isn't being measured under the status quo, then that makes it more difficult to quantify any difference in cost. I know that Help Desk gurus and such have formulas they use to determine how much certain actions cost, and they're probably more accurate than a WAG, but the ROI is really going to boil down to how WELL the change is implemented, as much as WHETHER the change is implemented.
I think the real driver for ITIL is that, properly implemented, it enables IT departments to be more proactive in dealing with the problems of the business. Proactive problem resolution is usually more efficient than reactive problem resolution. I have heard stories of companies that were able to provide all of the IT services they once did, faster, with a fraction of the original staff, by employing this premise, which is at the core of ITIL. I'm not saying that going to ITIL will save everyone money, because some companies need it more than others, and some will implement it more fully and well than others. But regardless, one does have to invest money to see a return, and not all will come out in the black. Rick On 9/19/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CS/SCCE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > With all due respect, that's a fallacious argument. The burden of proof > is on the person making the claim, NOT THE SKEPTIC. > > If I claim, "I made a jet that outperforms the F-22," it is ON ME to prove > it, not on Lockheed Martin to DISPROVE it. > > And Pat is right--all change costs money at some point in the change > process. > > Norm > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 4:33 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT -- Sort Of: Computerworld reports on ITIL > > Prove to me how it doesn't. Don't throw out the common "Change costs > money." Show me the money that it costs. Prove to me where that there is > no > value. Tell me where Constant Process Improvement is a bad thing. > > SHOW ME THE COSTS! Show me the LACK OF ROI! > Don't tell me about what you have "seen" or "experienced" yourself. SHOW > ME > A CASE STUDY! > > > Scott Parrish > IT Prophets > > Original Message: > ----------------- > From: Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CS/SCCE [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:35:46 -0500 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT -- Sort Of: Computerworld reports on ITIL > > > Correct 100%. I would like to see rock-solid, irrefutable case studies > that show how implementing ITIL in a mature environment saves money or > delivers some other quantifiable benefit. > > I do NOT want to hear the old clichés: > > - Constant process improvement. > - Better management of services and service delivery. > - Improved integration of maturity models. > - Enhanced process standardization. > - Blah, blah, blah... > > No! A) Speak English and B) Show me RESULTS, not buzzwords. > > Show me NUMBERS! Show me the MONEY! How has ITIL made a large company more > profitable?! I want to see it. > > I'd especially like to see how a full implementation of BMC's ITSM suite > has made a sizable company more profitable. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of patrick zandi > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 3:26 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT -- Sort Of: Computerworld reports on ITIL > > ** > Gary, > Read the remarks and find some comfort.. > Change always costs money.. and More legislation does not make a better > worker... > Does anyone on the list remember Cecil Lawson ? I'll bet he is not an > ITIL > fan... > The Problem is that ITIL has now be Legislated from Congress to do it that > way... Why? > COMMERCE !!! The problem is the overhead on a companies manpower Really > Stresses it to the Breaking Point.. With little or no Return.. > I don't do processes, just because I can and because they are there... I > do them because they make sense, Save money, Save time, and Energy. > ITIL does none of those.. so I am against it... I am a RedNeck I guess.. > Why buy a new Maserati with all the latest smog, and computers, and bells > and whistles.. when a 67 Chevy will do the trick for 89K less.. Cause I > can? So who is artificially stimulating the economy now? Cohen in > congress > with a mandate that we use ITIL.. > Yeah that will save us money? Spending more always saves us money... 8-( > WRONG > CHANGE ALWAYS COSTS MONEY !!! > > The only reason we are spending more money, is because we are not content > and no one is standing in the Gap to say... No. > > > On 9/19/07, Opela, Gary L Contr OC-ALC/ITMA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > ** > > Check out this article. I think it is about us - People resistant > to ITIL, > but forced into going there. > > > > I'm not resistant to ITIL, I guess, I just want an easier way to do > it! > > > > > http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&art > icleId=9037418&pageNumber=1 > < > http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&art > icleId=9037418&pageNumber=1> > > > > Thanks, > > > Gary Opela, Jr > > Sr. Remedy Developer > > Leader Communications, Inc. > > 405 736 3211 > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
