ITIL BLUE BOOK

adminComment(0)
    Contents:

cover colors, as "the blue book" (Service Support) and. "the red book" (Service Delivery). The IT Manager's Guide to ITIL v3, an bestthing.info IT Management . ITIL® ITSM with its ten basic processes and Service Desk function Service Support - Blue Book is focused on the user of the IT services. I am recommending to organisations starting out on ITIL that they focus on the red and blue books of V2, and mix and match some good bits from V3 if they are.


Itil Blue Book

Author:PAULINA PAGELS
Language:English, German, Hindi
Country:Denmark
Genre:Art
Pages:443
Published (Last):03.06.2015
ISBN:632-1-20453-109-7
ePub File Size:24.87 MB
PDF File Size:8.19 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Sign up for free]
Downloads:38271
Uploaded by: WILDA

ITIL for SMBs presented by Alex D Paul in InnoTech show, San Antonio, United States. ITIL V2 Modules Red Book Blue Book; 7. ITIL V3 Core. ITIL, formerly an acronym for Information Technology Infrastructure Library, is a set of detailed . The ITIL 4 Edition starts with the ITIL Foundation book, which was released on February 18th ITIL Version 2 Foundation Badge ( green); ITIL Version 2 Practitioner Badge (blue); ITIL Version 2 Manager Badge ( red). In contrast, ITIL v3 is centered on a service lifecycle approach to help IT (Note: Processes covered in the ITIL v2 “blue book” (Service Support).

ITIL is clearly being positioned as the overarching system that can provide guidance for managing the entire IT shop while incorporating and integrating other management methods and disciplines, such as Lean, Agile and DevOps.

DevOps — Start where you are inspired by Agile — Collaborate and promote visibility a key concept — cf. The more I think about these, the more I like them. They also bring the concept of developing an organizational culture support service management to the forefront, and this is another positive. The guts of the Continual Improvement material is pretty similar to that found in v3- but it is made a key part of the Service Value System.

This is an advantage of the SVS concept; such central ideas as Continual Improvement clearly wrap the entire framework. The same principle applies to governance.

It is front and center and also wraps around the SVS. This is also a good thing. That said, I think the rebranding is a positive. This avoids some misinterpretation which arose from v3 — which placed each practice process back then in a particular book that represented a lifecycle phase.

This caused some confusion — because the processes were always intended to apply throughout the lifecycle. Some notes on specific practice areas while we await deeper coverage in the intermediate materials:. This helps keep it straight from managing organizational change and project changes.

I also think it more clearly describes the objective of the practice.

They have separated and clarified Release and Deployment as two separate and distinct processes. A Release can include multiple Deployments… whew!

The scale of ITIL V3

Rob England is the IT Skeptic. Belief is like a red helium balloon. You can't bear to let go of it. But letting go is easy, and once you do it floats away and you wonder why you ever held it. Work, politics, race, religion The world changes, beliefs don't. They deflate.

This book is about how to run services, in any organisation, in any industry. It describes the basics, the core stuff, in realistic pragmatic terms.

And it is pragmatically brief - we kept it to 50 paperback pages. There is no doubt that the re-engineering has been extensive.

The following diagram makes that clear. The original routines are still in there somewhere but the manuals sure look different! Sure ITIL2 is still in there somewhere but not so as you'd notice. If true, this will serve to mitigate the increase in scale considerably. Please forgive the fact that in any flat diagram there will be some over-simplifications or even distortions, but the key ideas this diagram tries to impart are: There was actually much more to ITIL2 than the ten processes in the red and blue books, but often you wouldn't know it to hear folk talk.

Some of the processes making ITIL3 "longer" are these "lost processes" being brought back into the core. Others aren't - they are specific to running a lifecycle.

Latest update: This diagram is not copyright - it is placed in the public domain. It would be appreciated if you would retain the attribution to the IT Skeptic and place a link to www. Sooner or later it is going to dawn on people that they do need to retrain upgrade , they do possibly need to change the way they do things service lifecycle , and there are more than twice as many processes to learn and implement.

Personally I think it is a good move - there had to be a quantum step and one assumes it is aligned with the majority of the feedback.

People hate change so there will be much howling and gnashing of teeth, but in a few years I think we will view V2 as quaint. If you found this post useful, and you are a Facebook user, please Like this blog: I am relieved to see that I hadn't missed something in my fruitless search of the manuals, as this mapping still reinforces that ITIL has deemed the project management process as obsolete and no longer a necessary part of managing change in IT.

Thank Goodness; projects and project managers are such an annoying pain in the butt anyway, so I say good riddance. As long as we have a RFC and a release plan, what happens in between the two is of no particular concern.

In the area of software engineering, they publish or did publish SSADM, which may be moribund - anyone know? I wouldn't rate a namedrop as a reference. Not just "between". Nor should a major Release Plan be executed with project management - we have Release Managers for that.

In my view this has always been ITIL's big weakness - it doesn't adequately deal with the interface between project management and service management..

Dear Skeptic I do agree that V2 is getting old and quaint but I doubt that anybody will be doing V3 for a long time.

User login

The reason for my skeptism is that V3 is so badly written. The books are uncoordinated and conflicting. One customer told me that there is already a clash of ITIL schools at his company. V2 and V3 trained people have different opinions on almost every operational process. For most IT Service managers the key issue is to improve the stability and quality of their services. The war of versions is not going to help. I am recommending to organisations starting out on ITIL that they focus on the red and blue books of V2, and mix and match some good bits from V3 if they are up to it.

On the other hand, I don't think the V3 books are bad. Sure I'm critical of a number of aspects, but nothing is perfect. As user organisations mature in coming years they will get into V3 and find it useful, especially if forewarned about a few things: I don't warn people off V3 because I think it is defective.

I warn them off because it is too ambitious, too advanced. When you've been immersed in ITIL for years or decades, it is very hard to step back and see it as someone sees it who has only just now looked at it for the first time. The really big bit missing is the meta-lifecycle - the lifecycle of implementing the service lifecycle.

I admit there are useful parts in V3 and I'm pretty sure there are ideas that I have not yet understood.

I have also noticed that subsequent materials have fixed some of the most glaring errrors in the original books. In my environment ITIL is pretty new, most companies have been using it only a couple of years. I think the danger lies in hopping from V2 to V3 in the middle of V2 implementation. It takes time for people to really understand the concepts of itil and it does not help at all that suddenly there are 25 new processes and the barely familiar processes have changed.

My advise to my customers is: Lots of it!

It is a very good body of knowledge. Sure it has its deficiencies, which we have discussed on this blog somebody has to do it but in general it is good stuff. Skep - late to this chat but I felt I wanted to chip in a thought. In theory - an ITIL centric service management initiative should start with seeking out issues and tabling them as improvements, building a compelling case for an investment of scarce resources that many view as a diversion.

Again, in theory, the replacement guidance, dare I say best practices, are described in other books in such as way as to make for easy interpretation and application to the issues identified.

Third party advice is important but I would suggest just as an accelerator, and to help reduce the risks and costs involved. Unfortunately, some of the methods you might need such as defining a problem and its impact are elsewhere - check Service Operations, and incomplete it does not actually explain how to do either but How to use and apply some of the methods presented in CSI are described better elsewhere you will likely rely on Google here in finding good sources , and how to analyze the organization, identify stakeholders and their interests, missing completely.

Any attempt to implement the entire ITIL Service Lifecycle is at best foolish given the scope of control and number of pre-requisite artifacts and resource commitment. Starting with a particular 'process' area seems sensible but again fraught with risk - for example, what if we were running a hospital and decided to completely re-engineer one key operational aspect, such as appointment scheduling - in flight - without having suitably defined why, and the impact of such a radical change?

Has anyone out there actually started with defining the issues service management and ITIL will address, and in taking this approach attempted to use the CSI book as the tip of the spear? A long time ago I was a statistician and I used the CSI 7 step model as a model for statisticical data analysis.

When I became a consultant I realized that the steps are usually simple and easy but the step 7 is far more important and difficult.

A beautiful analysis and a great report is not enough. A typical problem is that if one uses an advanced statistical methodology, no decision maker understands it and is not willing to do anything about it.

The goal of CSI should be to fix problems, not just show the symptoms. My Improvent model would be something like this 1 Use CSI 7-step model to regognize symtoms 2 Find root causes by talking to people 3 Help people to find solutions to root causes 4 Support change to implement the solutions 5 Check results and go back to 4 6 If succesful, go back to 1.

I agree that there are a lot of new processes being added into V3 like supplier management, evalation, access management etc. In my view there isn't much difference between V2 vs V3. Now, if we had read The business perspective book from V2 framework, then it is mostly similar to Service Strategy book of V3 framework. In a nut shell, V3 is well packaged and shown with a service view, but V2 was shown as process view. Broadly speaking Ajay what you say is true.

As i said above in the post There was actually much more to ITIL2 than the ten processes in the red and blue books, but often you wouldn't know it to hear folk talk. But only broadly. I only know three books from V2 at all well so I'm prepared to be corrected here but I belive portfolio, event, request, knowledge, evaluation, testing of service and a number of other processes are not in V2, certainlky not explicitly and I think not really at all.

The transformation between event-to-incident is the critical junction where Application Performance Management APM and ITIL come together to provide tangible value back to the business. The term "standard change" means pre-approved, repeatable, pre-defined, low risk changes. If the change does not meet these criteria then it is not a standard change and should be defined as a request for change.

Main article: Problem management Problem management aims to resolve the root causes of incidents and thus to minimize the adverse impact of incidents caused by errors within the IT infrastructure, and to prevent recurrence of incidents related to these errors. A "problem" in this context is the unknown underlying cause of one or more incidents, and a 'known error' is a problem that is successfully diagnosed and for which either a work-around or a permanent resolution has been identified.

The CCTA Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency defines problems and known errors as follows: A problem is a condition often identified as a result of multiple incidents that exhibit common symptoms. Problems can also be identified from a single significant incident, indicative of a single error, for which the cause is unknown, but for which the impact is significant. A known error is a condition identified by successful diagnosis of the root cause of a problem, and the subsequent development of a work-around.

Problem management differs from incident management. Problem management aims primarily to find and resolve the root cause of a problem and thus prevent further incidents; the purpose of incident management is to return the service to normal level as soon as possible, with smallest possible business impact.I'm unsure how we could call ourselves professionals if we only read the minimum.

The purpose of a root cause analysis is two-fold:.

The scale of ITIL V3

In other projects Wikibooks. That said, since most of the changes to ITIL v3 clarify and augment the previous library, a 1. Sooner or later it is going to dawn on people that they do need to retrain upgrade , they do possibly need to change the way they do things service lifecycle , and there are more than twice as many processes to learn and implement.

Rian Daeli. Unit 1 lectures 12 Supply Chain Management Overview. Dani Parada.

CINDIE from Port St. Lucie
I enjoy reading novels fully. Also read my other posts. I have always been a very creative person and find it relaxing to indulge in krabi-krabong.
>