I think this would result in "sink" in most cases. --- In [email protected], "Rob Eamon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "htshozawa" > <htshozawa@> wrote: > > > > I think this comes from ITIL v2 - treating business users as > > customers to IT. > > Wherever the notion comes from, it is wrong-headed, IMO. > > If a company wants such a relationship between IT and other groups, > then go all the way and have IT literally charge for the services--no > funny money, no goofy "chargebacks." Money leaves the groups and goes > to IT. IT is allowed to sink or swim. > > The half-way approach is rife with problems. > > -Rob >
- Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re:... Anne Thomas Manes
- Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Mee... Todd Biske
- [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Meehan & Ann... Rob Eamon
- [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Meehan &... Kirstan Vandersluis
- [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Meehan ... Rob Eamon
- [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Mee... htshozawa
- [service-orientated-architecture] Re:... Rob Eamon
- [service-orientated-architecture... htshozawa
- Re: [service-orientated-arch... Steve Jones
- [service-orientated-architec... htshozawa
- [service-orientated-architecture... mikomatsumura
- [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Meehan &... htshozawa
