We received this very interesting (anonymous) comment on Dr. ITIL yesterday and I've reproduced an edited version of it here (for your viewing pleasure) to highlight that we do read your comments and like to consider your views in helping to shape the content of this site.
One reader provided some really interesting insights into the "Alignability" post we put out a few days ago...
Have a read and see if you agree... why not post your own comment to add to the debate?
"Dr. ITIL, I was extremely curious about your discussion of the Alignability Model from HP. (Editors note - it is actually produced by Service Management Partners INC and implemented via country specific implementation partners).
Having been through ITIL implementations for Global 1000 companies on four continents over the past eight years, most of them outside of the U.S., I just couldn't imagine such a thing being possible.
I found myself thinking, "...I wonder if it really works!", so I went to analyze the model.
After reviewing just the service support high level process designs of the model I would say that such a thing is still not possible... for most enterprise class firms.
For smaller cooky cutter companies lacking the type of complexity often seen in global enterprises with lots of legacy in their environment and lots of organizational issues, the Alignability Model would appear to be useful, and shortcut much of the time consumed by defining future state processes.
However, I actually spent the time to compare some of the previous processes that came out of some of the global implementations that I've been part of, and not one could have been stuffed into the Alignability Model.Global organizations are most often sprawling matrixes of non-standardized desktops, custom built applications and legacy systems, with organizational structures that often simply cannot support moving to the models shown in the Alignability tool within a 30, or even a 90 day implementation window.
Take a recent company as an example. It runs well over 200 applications, 35 of which are busines critical, and only 5 of those are standard applications. Everything else is a custom built system or tool.
They have a new org structure that was assumed within the past 18 months that places nearly 15 customer facing support organizations in charge of their specific applications or infrastructure support.
They are not about to reorg again, and the service desk does not contain a level of knowledge even remotely close to what is required to be able to even ask the right questions about most applications, let alone actually attempt to support them. To move this organization to a single point of entry model within 30-90 days would be suicide for every part of the support organization. Not only would they have a customer revolt on their hands, but the numbers of every support organization would plummet.
My advice to those people looking at the Alignability Model is BEWARE. If you are a smaller company using standardized applications, with a great amount of application support capability in your service desk already, perhaps the Alignability Model is for you.
If not, don't be fooled, my money is on the fact that you would spend as much time attempting to tweak the model as you would designing your future state processes from scratch.
Thanks for letting me get this off my chest! "
What's your view on the model and these comments? Have your say - write a post...