Scott, I know you're smart enough to know the difficulty in proving a negative. Proving that an event provides a result is a lot easier than showing that it there's no connection, because it's the difference between proving one actual connection path vs. many potential ones - all of which have to be disproven without the presence of evidence.
So I stand by my statement that those suggesting the merit of a change are the ones to be charged with demonstrating that merit. If the burden of proof were on those wanting no change, against what would they compare the benefits of no change? The data for comparison wouldn't be there unless someone had suggested one or more alternatives, and attempted to demonstrate their value. I also agree with whoever said it's about the people more than the tools. If two similar companies implement ITIL (or anything else), the more successful one will probably be the one with the better people making decisions with the most adherance to the process. The level of commitment to the process must be a part of the ROI analysis. Rick On 9/20/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CS/SCCE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I clarified my position--I agree 100% with Pat's claim that all change > costs money. I think I probably also agree with everything else he > said, but I don't feel like re-reading it all. > > All of that is not the point, and I think you realize that. You're > simply trying to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic by saying, > "You said this or that, so now the monkey is on your back." > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Parrish > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 8:49 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT -- Sort Of: Computerworld reports on ITIL > > No Norm, re-read your post. It begins: > > 100% correct. Not partially correct, not I agree with you that change > costs > money Your statement is "100% correct". Which means you back his entire > post. Within that post Patrick makes the statements that I allude to > below. > So again, you have gone beyond skepticism to stating fact and I would > like > for you to produce the same documentation/case studies as you implore > others > to provide. > > > Scott Parrish > IT Prophets, LLC > (770) 653-5203 > http://www.itprophets.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 > CS/SCCE > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:22 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT -- Sort Of: Computerworld reports on ITIL > > Woah! Hold the phone! You've been fair in quoting me up until this > point. > > > My point is, and I'll state it again, I believe it is irresponsible > for > people to make statements about something, such as ITIL in this > instance, > that they have no proof of. Norm stated that he thought Patrick's > comments > were 100% correct. Patrick's comments were that > > 1. ITIL doesn't save money > 2. ITIL doesn't save time > 3. ITIL doesn't save energy > 4. ITL doesn't make sense > > My exact word-for-word statement was this: "And Pat is right--all change > costs money at some point in the change process." _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
