Author Archives: Beardy

The great ITIL swindle

By guestblogger Beardy:

From the “No *expletive* Sherlock !!!” department….

For the better part of a quarter century we’ve been fed a complicated and more importantly self-serving lie… that ITIL was the IT Holy Grail that would bring the equivalent of the manufacturing industry’s QA to ITSM, felling in one swoop all the ills of IT…. sorry, wrong.

Even the most quality-conscious engineer will tell you that “QA” only aims to deliver a consistent level of output. Not premium quality. No iterative improvement in quality. Most importantly, no guarantee that the resulting output is always zero-defect. The aim is consistency, not quality. If your base quality is good, then you will deliver a quality product consistently by applying QA. Sadly, if your base quality is poor, then guess what…. QA will only ensure you deliver that consistently….. whoops..

Enter a bunch of British government braniacs… now you KNOW that will result in a quality outcome ! *choke*

So it came to pass that these bureaucrats came up with *drum-roll*…. a bureaucratic, documentation-heavy “solution” to implement an IT-oriented QA system with levels of qualification, individual certifications, etc, etc, etc…. how NOT surprising for a bunch of bureaucrats….

Now it is packaged and sold to businesses globally as “ITIL”, which is now in its 3rd iteration of trying to get it right…. so…. v1.0 must have been typical software “quality” (we ALL know better than to buy into v1.0 !)…

So, like so many other certification systems, the cost for certification is horrendous. It almost makes the software systems that are meant to support these “best practices” look cheap….

So with billions of dollars expended globally on making businesses “ITIL aligned”, you would expect that ITSM was now pretty mature and safe for non-aligned businesses to adopt…. wrong…. if a certain tier-1 OEM’s “best of breed” software for managing ITSM and implementing business practices that a business can leverage to make themselves “ITIL aligned” is anything to go by….. well, let’s just say, that business better have deep pockets and VERY patient staff and customers…..

If it is such a pain; so problematic to implement; so expensive, etc.. then why do businesses persist ? Well as I see it (yes, brace for soap box time…), the reality is that the CIOs, CTOs are all so indoctrinated by the “Institute of Management” spiel and government agencies are SO risk-averse, that it is now an almost unavoidable necessity for most medium to large enterprises if they want to do business at the “big end of town”. Meanwhile SMEs will struggle to justify the cost….

Which leads on to the quote near the end of the article…. can you say “self serving” ?

Whose idea was this, anyway?
Where did the standard model come from in the first place? The answer is both ironic and deeply suspicious: It came from the IT outsourcing industry, which has a vested interest in encouraging internal IT to eliminate everything that makes it more attractive than outside service providers.

“Everything you’ve been told is wrong: What IT should do instead”
http://infoworld.com/print/108477

Ref:
http://www.itilsurvival.com/itilhistory.html

New US law will give US president emergency control of the Internet

by guestblogger Beardy…

When I saw this, the FIRST thing I did was check the date… 1-Sept, not 1-Apr…. ok, so it’s not a bad joke… well not that sort anyway…

I *think* I understand the US view on this in this post-911 era (as alluded to by the author), but somehow I have my doubts as to how effective such a plan would be…. Sure, all the tier-1 or root servers for DNS, ICANN and many of the core routers around the globe are directly or indirectly (ie: owned by US govt, US businesses or with parent companies that are US businesses under US govt jurisdiction) controlled assets that the US govt *could* conceivably order around:

(1)…plan that encompasses all aspects of national security, including the participation of the private sector, including critical infrastructure operators and managers;
(2) in the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network…

Given that the US gov has successfully forced nations (UK, Oz, CA, etc…) with ties through WTO to write into Law even the most draconian legislation (eg: the DMCA complete with the anti-circumvention and anti-reverse-engineering clauses), in theory they may even be able to create so-called “cooperative Acts” passed by the same countries thereby extending the reach of this bill if it passes into Law…. IANAL, but history has shown some disturbing anti-rights scenarios played out against common sense, common decency and even Common Law.

The real questions are;

(1) would any telco infrastructure or ISP be exempt?
(2) if any telcos would be outside the scope of the likely flow-on Laws, could the independent backbones and ISPs provide sufficient of the meat of the Internet to keep it going under what would amount to martial law?

“Americans continue plans to switch off the internet” – The Inquirer
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1531879/americans-continue-plans-switch-internet

“Bill would give president emergency control of Internet” — CNet
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Ref: (excerpt from proposed bill)
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/rockefeller.revised.cybersecurity.draft.082709.pdf