MOF v.4 IT Service Lifecycle Defined

re: MOF v.4 IT Service Lifecycle Defined

Anon — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:15:44 GMT

I would personally like to see MOF become more prescriptive. I.e. I would like MOF to have packages that help you implement ITIL v3 as opposed to being another framework. In my opinion it can confuse the marketplace.

re: MOF v.4 IT Service Lifecycle Defined

josephmi — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:00:40 GMT

Seems like you have missed the "unit of work" concept in the MOF v3 and tried tied inject too much MSF into the operations space. Changing the v3 Process model simply to change it is couter-productive to refining what was already a working model. This simply adds more work onto all those that understand the current version and I frankly don't see the benefits.

Understanding the process model in terms of service delivery with the a particular service as the unit of work (such as Messaging) shows that there is nothing lacking in the current version.

You all have gone way too far in this revision.

re: MOF v.4 IT Service Lifecycle Defined

davidl — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:02:12 GMT

I really like the new MOF Lifecycle model and SMF structure. In particular, I'm very pleased with the addition of the "Design & Deliver" SMFs. In my experience, a significant percentage of avoidable production incidents are rooted in people & process errors that occur during the project phases of the lifecycle. MOF v3 guidance does not address this space, but MSF guidance does. If the intent is to leverage MSF guidance in the Design & Deliver phase, I think that constitutes a brilliant move.

I also think the new model could help IT Management teams, Solution Development teams and Production Ops teams learn to think more holistically about their work. This, in turn, could help reduce instances of "throw-it-over-the-wall" syndrome. I really think you are on the right track. Nice work!

re: MOF v.4 IT Service Lifecycle Defined

Gary Roos — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:09:07 GMT

Really thinking about why operations has so many challenges, and following the root cause, it would be hard to go past the fact that operations is not generally regarded as strategic. This is probably why ITSM has relatively low adoption and an inordinate amount of difficulty in justifying improvement investments. On the flip-side, maintenance and operations consume 70-80% of IT spend. You can probably figure out some of the reasons for this yourselves.

MOF v4 takes a more pragmatic approach to ITSM. All the underpinning principles and concepts of ITIL and MOF are still there. Now it is wrapped in a governance layer - which really will help to bring the strategic value to the surface, and all the goodness that comes with this understanding. Practically there is more IT Pro guidance to help the IT organisation better understand their respective contributions.

It is not such a radical departure as you may initially think. MOF v4 is a different, more practical way of looking at what service management is and how it is performed. I am sure as more details are revealed that this will become clearer. What really is fantaastic is the community contribution - that helps to shape and evolve this thinking - so I would strongly encourage the continued submission of ideas and good open discussion.

Cheers

re: MOF v.4 IT Service Lifecycle Defined

prinz — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:42:17 GMT

What about MOF Team Model? how its going to align with new service cycle model? And will be there any changes in Team model it self?

re: MOF v.4 IT Service Lifecycle Defined

Cleber Marques — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:31:46 GMT

Hi Jason,

I'm anxious for news about MOF, let me say to you a great news: I'm the first MOF Foundation Certified in Brazil.

See you

Best regards,

Cleber Marques

Projeto MOF Brasil

CleberMarques.com

contato@clebermarques.com

Surviving Microsoft SharePoint - Addressing Risks

The Bamboo Team Blog — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:21:21 GMT

I recently saw the slides from Mark Gilbert's presentation –”Can the CIO survive Microsoft SharePoint