| Author | Post |
|---|
ChrisR
Registered GP21
|
Posted: Sat Dec 15th, 2007 08:55 |
|
How closely does COBIT now line-up since the launch of ITIL V3, and I would be interested in finding further information as I have to plan a Regional meeting on this topic.
Chris
|
Stefan
Approved Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | Belgium |
| Posts: | 1 |
| itSMF Chapter: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17th, 2007 10:43 |
|
ChrisR wrote: How closely does COBIT now line-up since the launch of ITIL V3, and I would be interested in finding further information as I have to plan a Regional meeting on this topic.
Chris
Check out the comments of Robert Stroud on this message: http://www.itskeptic.org/node/423#comments
Which essentially comes down to "The COBIT Steering Commmittee are in the process of completing the development of the COBIT 4.1 and ITIL v3 mapping and the document is scheduled to be ISACA members and in the ISACA bookstore towards the end of Q1 2008."
|
RobS
Registered GP5
| Joined: | Thu Dec 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Shoreham, New York USA |
| Posts: | 31 |
| itSMF Chapter: | U.S.A. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 27th, 2008 23:37 |
|
The mapping of COBIT 4.1 and ITIL v3 is approaching the review phase. I will ensure that a post is made to forum when released.
Robert E Stroud
Chair, COBIT Steering Committee
|
jeroen
Approved Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | Netherlands |
| Posts: | 1 |
| itSMF Chapter: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 6th, 2008 12:25 |
|
I've just completed a second review of the COBIT 4.1 and ITIL v3 mapping document for ITGI and I must say that the level of process overlap has significantly increased.
Nevertheless I think that the two continue to be highly complementary to each other so there remains great value in combining them when organizing IT. Especially around control objectives and KPIs.
Biggest challenge that I see is that COBIT 4.1 does not recognize the notion of (IT) services and is mainly focused on managing individual resources and capabilities in context of an overall strategy.
More to come and discuss when the mapping document is officially published.
Regards, Jeroen Bronkhorst
|
akapteyn
Approved Member
| Joined: | Thu May 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | Bussum, Netherlands |
| Posts: | 18 |
| itSMF Chapter: | Netherlands |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 19:30 |
|
Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 19:32 by akapteyn
|
IT Skeptic
Approved Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | Porirua, New Zealand |
| Posts: | 38 |
| itSMF Chapter: | N Zealand |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 05:49 |
|
Increased overlap as compared to ITIL V2? Indeed. here's my recently published analysis of both the white papers that are out - there is still a ways to go 
|
akapteyn
Approved Member
| Joined: | Thu May 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | Bussum, Netherlands |
| Posts: | 18 |
| itSMF Chapter: | Netherlands |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 09:46 |
|
IT Skeptic,
I read your article and I fully agree with your conclusion. Those who have seen some of my stuff will know I am a big fan of alignment of ITIL and CobiT (and other like ISO if possible).
The most important reason for alignment in my opinion is that with the growing importance of IT Supply chains (no organization is an island these days, we all have customers, suppliers, partners, providers, etc.) it becomes more and more important to have one common language, not just within an individual IT Function but at least as much between IT functions from different organizations. Currently if an ITIL focused organization partners with one that adopted CobiT as its main industry model there is a lot of possibilities for misunderstanding because of different definitions, many-to-many relations between processes etc.
In my opinion one of the aims for the developers of CobiT 5 (and ITIL 4 if and when it is started) should be that the mapping table of CobiT 5 with ITIL 3 (or later 4) should have a new term: Aligned, this term should only be used when the definition of a model item is the same (mind you: Not similar, the same). For example the difinition of incident management as used in CobiT should be the same as the one used in ITIL. As an added benefit this would force a one-on-one relationship between models since I do not think that either CobiT or ITIL would have two different items internally with the same definition.
Since by the time the mapping tables are created the definitions are already set (for the new model versions) this challenge does not go out to the people working on the mapping tables but on those working on the new model versions. If, as I often hear, ISACA sees benefits in ITIL and itSMF sees the value of CobiT than take the next step and close ranks: Align the models into an open standard for IT Organizational design, making it easy for those organizations that want to adopt both models.
|
Current time is 15:15 | |
|