Reply to: ITIL v3 Foundation Certificate (without a course)

[psychocandy]

No offence meant to the ITIL fans on here but the Foundation course I did years ago was the most boring thing I've ever done.

I remember when the exam came at the end of the week, I just couldnt cope with trying to revise in advance. My brain was like a sponge. Passed with a dead high mark though.

BTW - how long does certification last anyway? Probably need to do it again I guess. That'll be fun.... :-)

[tractor]

...

Crikey - I never knew that a topic about ITIL could go on for so long without anyone being banned for not having insulted another poster's intellect... ?

I got close to it so I'm not playing in this thread any more

[doodab]

Sadly, it still ends up as you with me helping as basically business and others are not interested in the detail needed.

Yeah, that's often the way. The secret is to find the techies who do this stuff cos they love it. You often need to hunt them out as they are usually considered too lowly to be involved in such an important project.

[Scruff]

Crikey - I never knew that a topic about ITIL could go on for so long without anyone being banned for not having insulted another poster's intellect... ?

[cojak]

This is one problem I have found with pure ITIL process consultant types generally. They are very dismissive of actual technology despite the fact that without it their job wouldn't exist. Getting them to appreciate and communicate to the business the actual level of detail that needs to go into a CMDB, product catalogue or service catalogue to make it useful when you're doing an ITSM implementation can be a ******* nightmare, you usually end up having to do the job for them.

That's why I specialise is Service Management Business Analysis and am in demand. For some reason ITSM SIAM (Service Integration and Management) have a blind spot when it comes to their own requirements, data analysis and Identity and Access Management at the right level of detail, as doodab said.

I go in as a process bod (because that's what they want), but end up being the project BA (because that's what they need).

My schedules always read as a BA with some process work involved - I've not been challenged by any PM yet because it looks impressive and fans their own vanity...

you usually end up having to do the job for them.

Sadly, it still ends up as you with me helping as basically business and others are not interested in the detail needed.

[doodab]

It's pointless debating things like the applications are more important, you may as well argue that nothing would work without BT and whoever supplies your local electricity or which geek in Seattle came up with the best variation of SQL.

You'll probably agree it's a good job that's not what I'm saying at all then.

]ITIL describes the end-to end service. How that is delivered requires a host of teams working in their own corner with their own necessary methodology to deliver the whole. All I do is glue the bits together

Bingo. So for you, and others who interface with the business the holistic "service" view is the most appropriate way of looking at things. The point I am making is that for the technical teams tasked with delivering components of those services it isn't, because their job isn't delivering the overall service, it's delivering the working bits of technology that composes that service.

Sure, the service view informs what they do, in the same way your knowledge of the business informs what you do, but arguing that it should be their primary way of looking at things makes no more sense than arguing that you should forget about your service view and see everything through the prism of widget production. It's a question of perspective, and they necessarily have a different one than you. It's not wrong, just different. Particularly in the modern highly virtualized environment where individual technology platforms support multiple services it makes more sense for them to think about delivering a particular piece of technology than to focus purely on the services it supports.

[malvolio]

Ermm, no. The point is we're here to serve the various departments and what they need to run their bit of the overall business, in a controlled and efficient way with the least necessary resources and at minimal risk. It's pointless debating things like the applications are more important, you may as well argue that nothing would work without BT and whoever supplies your local electricity or which geek in Seattle came up with the best variation of SQL.

ITIL describes the end-to end service. How that is delivered requires a host of teams working in their own corner with their own necessary methodology to deliver the whole. All I do is glue the bits together

[doodab]

Not really, I view the processes, the tin and wires, WAN/LAN,code, cloud and everything as a gestalt. No piece is any more or less important than any other. The user only sees a single entity.

Yes, but you aren't working at a technical implementation level. The "service" view is largely irrelevant down there, at least until go-live, and even then it's more a case of jumping through whatever hoops the operations people have put in place rather than understanding ITIL per se.

At the end of the day without the technology there is no service. You can view all the technology as a whole, and say that's what makes up a service, but viewed like that the technology is the solution, just as the service is, because they are ultimately the same thing.

This is one problem I have found with pure ITIL process consultant types generally. They are very dismissive of actual technology despite the fact that without it their job wouldn't exist. Getting them to appreciate and communicate to the business the actual level of detail that needs to go into a CMDB, product catalogue or service catalogue to make it useful when you're doing an ITSM implementation can be a ******* nightmare, you usually end up having to do the job for them.

[malvolio]

It depends on the level you are working at. At the end of the day without the technology there is no service.

Not really, I view the processes, the tin and wires, WAN/LAN,code, cloud and everything as a gestalt. No piece is any more or less important than any other. The user only sees a single entity.

[doodab]

Wrong.The technology is not the solution, the service is.

It depends on the level you are working at. At the end of the day without the technology there is no service.

[doodab]

It really isn't that hard to acquire a working knowledge of ITIL. I've got years of technical consultancy on service management projects supporting ITIL processes under my belt and I've not bothered with either courses or qualifications, I've never been asked for them either, I just walk the walk and I don't seem to have a problem talking with the business, BAs, PMs or anyone else who understands the terminology and approach, which in my opinion a lot of people who have done the courses and have no real work experience actually don't.

Of course I'm "just a techie" though. If you want to spend your life in meetings with senior management and never actually touch a computer again things might be different.

[cojak]

Not really a question of being wrong ........ more a case of ITIL being a UK Public Sector standard

That was the case 15 - 20 years ago but not now. It's international and the UK Government doesn't even own it anymore.

[Taita]

You don't say..

Seriously, do you think I've been walking onto client sites for the last 30 years and just saying "buy product XYZ" and then invoicing them for £500k and walking away? I wish!

I've been delivering solutions all that time. And quite happily without ITIL.

And, as I quoted, I've the top books from the worlds best SOA experts sat on my hard drive. I've just searched them again for ITIL - and, once again, there is not a single mention of it in any of them. I guess the worlds best experts are all "wrong" too.

.


I guess so.

Not really a question of being wrong ........ more a case of ITIL being a UK Public Sector standard

[malvolio]

Actually it is all clear - when I asked about SOA I meant 'Service Architecture', not 'Software Architecture' - my bad.

But then none of us are Enterprise Architects, are we?

Ermmm...

But I stand by my original comment; the software (or the tin and wires) is not the service.

[cojak]

Yes, you are making yourself look like a fool here. Try to read the thread before you post.

I responded to the SOA question that was posed - twice. I didn't raise the SOA discussion at all.

All clear now.

Great.

Actually it is all clear - when I asked about SOA I meant 'Service Architecture', not 'Software Architecture' - my bad.

But then none of us are Enterprise Architects, are we?