That's a very good example. The original ARS was designed such that each of those four Help Desks could have its own customized Help Desk tool--built to their processes, not the other way around.
BMC is now clearly reversing its direction on that. -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darrell Reading Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:12 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: OT -- Sort Of: Computerworld reports on ITIL Hypothetically, because I know that this would never happen in a company of any size, but hypothetically, let's say that a company has many help desks. Out of the many help desks, lets focus on their top four. They may have a help desk that deals with field issues, one that deals with mainframes, one that deals with minicomputers in the homeoffice, and one that deals with PC's. Now, let's say that they all have their processes and their forms to work their flavor of tickets and issues. So we have four help desks with four forms, working their tickets in similar ways, but not so closely that they could use one form. There is a common interface built in that will allow teams that may be affected by the tickets on all four help desks. The interface is built, and tickets are managed. Would it make sense to take all these hypothetical help desks, and merge their processes for issues that are worked in different ways so that they can have the best practices of each team? Would it make sense for an lpar ticket and dll ticket, or a new install ticket for a pc, minicomputer, mainframe to be worked the same way. Would it make sense to have so many fields, sub forms, and workflow to choke a donkey in one form, so that this hypothetical company can embrace best practices? I don't know... All this is hypothetically, I wouldn't know of a company that big, that would have that many people, working on such a large amount of issues and opportunities. Darrell E Reading II Contact Center Development Wal-Mart 45739 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----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 08:56 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: OT -- Sort Of: Computerworld reports on ITIL 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" ________________________________________________________________________ _______ 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" ----------------------------------------- ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error destroy it immediately. ********************************************************************** Wal-Mart Confidential ********************************************************************** ________________________________________________________________________ _______ 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"
