Perdão, mas...
O foco deve ser na *CARREIRA*, não no *EMPREGO*.
;-)
EL Cohen
PS: Afinal, qual sua opinião, conterrâneo?!
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:00 PM, MansurR <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Prezados (as),
Prezada Olivia,
Recomendo ler o post CARREIRA PROFISSIONAL EM TI. VALE A PENA
INVESTIR TEMPO E DINHEIRO NELA?
<http://itgovrm.blogspot.com/2009/10/carreira-profissional-em-ti-vale-pena.html>
no
http://itgovrm.blogspot.com/ <http://itgovrm.blogspot.com/> para
entender melhor a questão do emprego.
Cordialmente
Ricardo Mansur
http://itgovrm.blogspot.com <http://itgovrm.blogspot.com/>
http://twitter.com/itgovrm <http://twitter.com/itgovrm>
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Olivia A. Vassalo <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2009 3:46 PM
*Subject:* RE: [itsm_br] ITIL Certificaton Scheme - Para
profissionais ou para Fornecedores?
Mas cohen,
Como comprovar sua competência, quando se é ainda “nova” como
eu e somente um curriculo por si só, as vezes não diz tudo?
Fui declassificada em processos seletivos por nao ter feito
uma faculdade de renome, por exemplo. Ja ocorreu por duas
vezes chegar a ultima etapa e estar concorrendo com
participantes que tinham até menos experiencia que eu, mas
estudavam em universidades como PUC, ITA, etc.
Estou procurando trabalho no momento, e me estou me deparando
exatamente com esse tipo de problema. Por não ter certificados
(ainda) além dos da graduação e do pós graduação, não sou
selecionada.
Olivia.
*From:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Roberto Cohen
*Sent:* Saturday, October 03, 2009 11:18 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [itsm_br] ITIL Certificaton Scheme - Para
profissionais ou para Fornecedores?
Gustavo,
Um profissional para ser competente não precisa de certificação.
Conheço um jornalista que é gerente de serviços de uma
mega-empresa multinacional prestadora de serviços de TI.
E ele foi escolhido não pelas suas medalhas - as quais deve ter -
mas por sua competência.
Abraços,
EL Cohen
http://twitter.com/robcohen <http://twitter.com/robcohen>
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Gustavo Tavares
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Olá ITSM-Br,
Na última discussão
<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/itsm_br/message/5537> que
eu participei aqui na lista levantei algumas questões que, na
minha visão, são importantes para avaliar a atuação dos
profissionais que trabalham com o ITIL; mais especificamente o
ITIL v3. Na discussão eu questionava a posição assumida pelo
ITIL v3 como *formulador* da estratégia da organização. Sua
orientação aos /market spaces/ e a definição de /strategic
assets/ que possibilitariam a organização se posicionar em
situação de vantagem no mercado. Infelizmente a discussão não
prosperou. Ela acabou se limitando a aspectos e abordagens que
já são consenso entre os praticantes, ficando os desacordos
restritos mais as questões de semântica do que de conteúdo.
Gostaria agora de, se me permitem, levantar _mais uma_
polêmica a respeito do ITIL v3. Na verdade mais a respeito dos
acessórios do que da biblioteca em si. Antes de mais nada um
/disclosure/: já trabalhei em consultoria especializada em
ITIL (uma Accredited Trainer Provider) e hoje trabalho também
como consultor de um projeto baseado principalmente no ITIL.
Mas apesar de defender o ITIL, primeiro como fornecedor e
agora como consultor, tem um aspecto que sempre me incomodou:
O porque das barreiras e restrições do modelo de certificação
profissional? *Porque um profissional que deseja se certificar
como Practitioner ou Manager precisa, obrigatoriamente, passar
por um curso de formação de uma associação registrada?*
Hoje um profissional que deseja se certificar como
/Practitioner /ou /Manager/ (V2 ou V3) precisa, antes de mais
nada, passar por um curso ministrado por uma ATP. Destes
cursos de formação, o mais barato não sai por menos de R$ 3k.
Um profissional com 10, 15 ou mais anos de experiência em
operações de TI, que durante os últimos 5 ou 10 anos tem
tentado aplicar o ITIL à sua organização não pode simplesmente
se inscrever para realização de uma prova (com o preço médio
de U$ 150) e comprovar os seus conhecimentos.Ele tem -
obrigatoriamente - que passar por um curso ministrado por um
profissional que não necessariamente possui o mesmo
conhecimento e experiência que ele.
Vejam, não estou tocando aqui em um ponto da minha história
particular ou fazendo um desabafo. Os cursos de formação dos
quais eu participei sempre foram ministrados por instrutores
muito mais qualificados do que eu. Mas a idéia de que: somente
um conjunto de empresas, que pagam uma certa taxa anual,
possuem condições de ler e interpretar os conhecimentos de um
conjunto de livros é um tanto quanto arrogante. Quer dizer que
só a partir do momento que você paga uma taxa à EXIN você
consegue ler, interpretar e ministrar treinamentos baseado em
um conjunto de conhecimentos publico? Seria mais ou menos algo
como Kaplan e Norton dizerem o seguinte: Ninguém que leu os
nossos livros entende de Balanced Score Card a não ser que nos
pague uma taxa. *Concordam com esta minha linha de raciocínio?*
Em outras palavras: O modelo de certificação é orientado às
necessidades dos fornecedores ou dos clientes? Ele é criado
deste jeito justamente para garantir uma reserva de mercado
para os ATP? Não seria uma incoerência muito grande que um
conjunto de conhecimentos público que prega o atendimento das
necessidades do cliente desconsiderar a necessidade do seu
mercado para manter uma estrutura de comercialização que
privilegia os fornecedores? *Enfim, o que vocês acham destes
pontos por mim levantados?*
Um outro /disclosure/: Não forneço e nem vou fornecer no
futuro serviços de treinamento em ITIL. Ou seja, não levanto
esta lebre por conta de dificuldades que eu encontro no
mercado. Eu não trabalho e nem vou trabalhar neste mercado.
Sou consultor e atualmente estou empregado.
Abaixo um outro texto que fala um pouco sobre isto e
principalmente sobre a complexidade que o ITSM traz para os
ambientes de TI. Acho que ajuda um pouco esta nossa discussão...
[]'s
Gustavo Tavares
Lkdin: www.linkedin.com/in/gustavares
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/gustavares>
Via6: www.via6.com/gustavares <http://www.via6.com/gustavares>
*Killing the Goose: The Commercialization of ITIL*
July 16, 2009
By David Mainville
<http://www.itsmwatch.com/feedback.php/http:/www.itsmwatch.com/itil/article.php/3830306>
*The commercialization of ITIL is making it overly complex,
bureaucratic and less effective, writes /ITSMWatch/ columnist
David Mainville of Consulting-Portal.*
Like most good things, the development of IT service
management (ITSM) processes was born out of necessity. Back in
the early 1960s the computer started moving out of the lab and
into the heart of mainstream business. Back then only the
largest and wealthiest firms could justify having a computer
due to the immense costs associated with purchasing,
maintaining and operating these behemoths.
These early computers were as finicky as they were expensive.
The hardware, operating systems and programs of the time were
still in their infancy and “uptime” was measured in hours. The
business, which was footing the bill for these systems, was
becoming ever more dependent upon these machines and started
demanding a better return on their investment (and they
haven’t stopped since).
The sheer volume of outages demanded that a methodology be
developed for managing incidents, getting to the root cause of
problems and for mitigating the impact of making changes to
the system. And thus an entire industry was born. Enterprise
Systems Management or as it is now known, IT Service
Management evolved to meet this challenge. This multi-billion
dollar industry launched a whole suite of jobs, processes and
tools all designed to improve the reliability, availability
and serviceability of the computing environment.
And it worked! The people, process and technology helped
nurture computing from its infancy to a mature adult where
data centers became fully automated “lights out” environments
with “uptime” measured at 99.999%.
And most of this happened before ITIL was even conceived.
As most of the readers know ITIL was first published in 1989
by UK government’s Central Computer & Telecommunication Agency
(CCTA). Like all good work it stood on the shoulders of those
who came before―it didn’t actually invent the processes―but it
collected the best practices already in place and documented
them into a framework all could freely access.
Access to these best practices was becoming increasingly
important due to another development in the IT industry, the
introduction of distributed computing. By the early 1990s the
mainframe environment could be described as the mature,
reliable and boring “grown-up” of the IT industry. The
mainframe got the job done but with it was a degree of
bureaucracy that the business had to accept. Things changed
radically when distributed computing burst onto the scene.
*Distributed Computing*
Distributed computing was everything the mainframe wasn’t. It
was fast, bold, exciting and promised lower costs and faster
implementation times. Distributed computing was a young rebel;
and a rallying cry against the stodginess and bureaucracy of
the mainframe. It was the latest celebrity. Well, celebrity
has a way of fading. We quickly learned that while distributed
computing had a lot of promise it was still very immature.
There were very few tools to manage the environment and the
support processes developed in the mainframe era were viewed
as old fashioned and as roadblocks to getting the job done.
George Santayana once said: “Those who cannot remember the
past are condemned to repeat it”. Well, the IT industry not
only forgot its past, but it went out of its way to ignore it.
Support costs for distributed computing skyrocketed. Without
the right tools and processes, the people costs went through
the roof as duplicate IT departments were formed to manage
this new environment.
Once again, out of necessity, the IT industry responded. New
support tools were developed, organizational structures were
rationalized and once again process was in vogue. Except now,
we were able to leverage the documented frameworks such as
IBM’s IT Process Model, HP’s ITSM model, Microsoft’s MOF and,
of course, ITIL.
ITIL’s role in communicating the value of process to a new
generation of IT professionals cannot be ignored. The fact
that we now speak a common service management language has
helped the industry pull together in a common direction. The
fact that vendors have developed tools that can support and
automate the processes has helped improve efficiency while
reducing support costs. Now that senior management are aware
of ITIL, well, this is both good and bad, but more on that later.
*ITIL Backlash*
So, how can I say that ITIL’s success may result in a backlash
against ITSM? Because I believe that ITIL is turning its back
on the past. This public domain collection of best practices
built by dedicated volunteers is now on the fast track to
becoming an overly commercialized, complex, bureaucratic and
expensive endeavor.
This may sound hypocritical coming from someone who is an ITSM
advocate and a partner in a consulting and training company
that leverages ITIL best practices. But it’s my very passion
for service management that is at the root of my argument. I
have learned over my 30 years in IT that it’s fairly easy to
design a process or buy a tool. If you want success in ITSM
you have to do the hard work.
It’s not enough to design an incident management process and
install a tool to support it. You need the dedication and
governance to make sure people understand why they have to
enter an incident; that they enter the right information into
the incident record; and that someone uses the information for
continual improvement. The same could be said for any of the
ITIL processes.
The commercialization of ITIL is taking focus away from doing
the hard work and is placing it on certifications, compliance
schemes and on taking something relatively simple and making
it overly complex and bureaucratic. The introduction of ITIL
v3 has placed the focus squarely in the stratosphere with the
introduction of dozens of new processes, roles and CMDB-like
data-stores. Schemes are being designed to “certify” a
vendor’s tool compliance to ITIL. What does that even
mean―other than a chance to impose additional cost on the vendor?
I made a comment earlier in this article about the fact that
senior management’s awareness of ITIL is both a good thing and
a bad thing. It’s always good when dedicated IT executives
place focus on improving IT services; it’s good for IT and
it’s good for the business. But if these same executives see
additional bureaucracy, exercises in empty process design,
added costs for training and re-training … well, they may just
come to the conclusion that ITSM is just another management
fad straight from the pages of a Dilbert cartoon.
It wasn’t long ago that the mainframe, and the people who
managed it, were ostracized because of their perceived
bureaucratic and process heavy approach. The business took a
detour into distributed computing because it offered the
promise of freedom and better time to market. Will the
business look at ITIL as the right path or just another road
block put up by the IT department? Will the business feel the
need to take another detour away from the bureaucracy?
I’m not knocking process at all. Effective and efficient
processes are required to manage the complexities of today’s
computing environments. But I think its time that we take our
heads out of the clouds and focus on the core of what makes an
it organization run. A successful IT organization needs to fix
incidents and provision service requests and they need to do
it faster, cheaper and with a focus on customer service. To do
that requires only a handful of well designed processes, the
necessary tools to automate and a focus on execution.
I believe there is a real danger of an overly-hyped and
commercialized ITIL leading people down the wrong path having
them focus on the wrong things. This of course will result in
failure and lead to a backlash against the very thing that can
help IT be more effective in supporting the business. Let’s
not repeat the mistakes of the past. Let’s learn from our
mistakes and apply process in a practical, lean and pragmatic
way. Let’s focus on our customer, namely the business, and
help them do things faster and with better quality.
The last thing any IT professional needs is a backlash against
the very thing that will improve the delivery of services to
our clients.
/David Mainville is CEO and co-founder of //Consulting-Portal/
<http://www.consulting-portal.com/index.php>/, an ITSM
consulting and ITIL training company focused on helping
Fortune 500 and mid-size companies assess, design and
implement robust IT Service Management processes.
Consulting-Portal also offers a full curriculum of ITSM
education including: ITIL, ISO and CobiT./
