Gary, Basically you are saying: give me, or let me build, the tooling I need to get the job done. Well...I agree with you! To make this perfectly clear, I'm not a sales rep or something, I'm a developer so in a way I can feel your pain.
I also think that Scott didn't mean to imply that ITSM is the best thing since sliced bread, but I do think that he meant that if ITSM sucks, it doesn't mean that ITIL sucks and therefore that ITIL doesn't do anything for an organisation. When I was reading the thread I got the impression that the tone of the discussion shifted from "ITSM does not make my life easier" to "ITIL does not make my life easier". That made me chime in to this thread anyway... Hugo On 9/20/07, Opela, Gary L Contr OC-ALC/ITMA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Okay, I started the thread, so I feel I must at least put in some input. > > I do not fear ITIL. I think ITIL is a good idea. What I have not seen is > the cost-savings that comes associated with ITSM (Remedy's Version). All > I keep hearing is the Remedy Sales People telling the main project > managers how it will solve all 90 or whatever needs that we have. We > analyzed it and, I think, found it met like 11 needs or so. > > To me, this huge chasm shows me the sales person is just that -- a sales > person. The 'People in Charge' are relying on what the sales people are > telling them, and literally locking us, the ones who can really see what > is going on, out of the meetings. > > They are only listening to the sales people, which is WRONG. I want to > see the savings. I want to see the efficiency. From what I've seen on > the list, most companies haven't yet gotten ITSM running efficiently or > not. Give me another good developer and six months and I can in-house > write a solution. Norm did that, although thanks to bureaucracy it's > just sitting on my dev box and not in use. > > I have always been a fan of simplicity. ITSM is NOT simple. Do not think > that just because a job is major, that you need a complex solution. The > simplest solution is ALWAYS best. > > I have yet to see any real proof that ITSM does what it says it does. > Show me studies. Show me results. I don't want to hear ITSM Consultants > yelling at me about how good ITSM is and that I have to defend myself. > (Remind me to never do business with IT Prophets if that's how they're > going to treat people). > > Thanks, > > > Gary Opela, Jr > > Sr. Remedy Developer > > Leader Communications, Inc. > > 405 736 3211 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hugo Visser > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT -- Sort Of: Computerworld reports on ITIL > > ** Scott, > > I agree, it would be way to harsh to bash or fear ITIL without any > arguments. I'm not sure where this comes from, after all, ITIL is about > best practices. It's not about forcing you into some kind of strict > process model. Maybe the fear is because of the way ITIL is presented to > some of you guys. If you associate a tool like ITSM with "the ITIL > forcing tool that makes me work less efficient while costing a pile of > money" then I think you are on the wrong track. You should be seeking > process improvements by applying ITIL to your business and then look for > tooling that fits you. Actually that's what we have been doing with > ExpertDesk (which is build on AR System) in Europe for quite a while > now! We see lots of companies that have ITIL-ish processes, most of them > have the most common ones like Incident and Change Management pretty > much worked out. But if your process, for example your Problem > Management process is not that mature yet, ExpertDesk lets you configure > the tool to support your process. When you're processes change, your > ExpertDesk configuration can be changed through data and off you go. > That's what "best practices" is about. > > But all that I'm saying is: don't let the tool dictate your process, > ITIL, eTOM or whatever, but let your process dictate the tool. I don't > know if ITSM forces ITIL on you or if it is configurable (I assume it > is) so I can't really comment on that. > > Looking at the post that started this thread "...I think it is about us > - People resistant to ITIL, but forced into going there.", I'm wondering > if it's really about being resistant to ITIL or being resistant to ITSM > or other _supporting_ products for that matter. > > Just my 2 cents, > > Hugo > > > On 9/20/07, Scott Parrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1. ITIL doesn't save money > 2. ITIL doesn't save time > 3. ITIL doesn't save energy > 4. ITL doesn't make sense > > > > > > __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in > it___ > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where > the Answers Are" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
