Comments on: R.I.P. FCAPS http://itsm.glennodonnell.com/2007/10/14/rip-fcaps/ Glenn O'Donnell's IT Service Management Blog Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:39:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Steve Atwell http://itsm.glennodonnell.com/2007/10/14/rip-fcaps/#comment-4939 Steve Atwell Wed, 19 May 2010 10:39:39 +0000 http://itsm.glennodonnell.com/2007/10/14/rip-fcaps/#comment-4939 There's a little known ITIL publication (although quite good, it needs updating) called ICT Infrastructure Management (see http://www.tso.co.uk/ict/index.htm) , which specifically refers to FCAPS and addresses the lifecycle of a service from a technology/infra point of view. Whilst ITIL is process-centric, it doesn't really prescribe the sorts of things you need to do in network management - ITIL comes from IT, eTOM and FCAPS come from networks. There's an uneasy place in the middle where they meet....(occasionally). So in my view you apply ITIL for the process in principle (except where it's a bit weak, like customer management for example) and then use the proper disciplines of FCAPS and eTOM where you've got networks to manage, and ICTIM where you've got IT systems to manage. What's the difference? It's getting harder to tell! There’s a little known ITIL publication (although quite good, it needs updating) called ICT Infrastructure Management (see http://www.tso.co.uk/ict/index.htm) , which specifically refers to FCAPS and addresses the lifecycle of a service from a technology/infra point of view.
Whilst ITIL is process-centric, it doesn’t really prescribe the sorts of things you need to do in network management - ITIL comes from IT, eTOM and FCAPS come from networks. There’s an uneasy place in the middle where they meet….(occasionally).
So in my view you apply ITIL for the process in principle (except where it’s a bit weak, like customer management for example) and then use the proper disciplines of FCAPS and eTOM where you’ve got networks to manage, and ICTIM where you’ve got IT systems to manage. What’s the difference? It’s getting harder to tell!

]]> By: Douglas W. Stevenson http://itsm.glennodonnell.com/2007/10/14/rip-fcaps/#comment-3406 Douglas W. Stevenson Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:19:21 +0000 http://itsm.glennodonnell.com/2007/10/14/rip-fcaps/#comment-3406 FCAPS dead? Hmmm... I actually read the specs. And when you begin to understand the form and function of Management Functional Domains and Management Functional Areas, you see that maybe FCAPS isn't quite as dead as you say it is. ITIL is about process and how to manage IT. FCAPS is a different look and a sifferent take - I feel that FCAPS and ITIL are complimentary. Just like if you say FCAPS is dead because of ITIL, what about eTOM? There's a dozen or so different "standards" but in the real world, you adapt, adopt, and abolish. ITIL new? hehehehehe!!! I've been doing workflow based ENMS Architectures since 1993... FCAPS dead? Hmmm… I actually read the specs. And when you begin to understand the form and function of Management Functional Domains and Management Functional Areas, you see that maybe FCAPS isn’t quite as dead as you say it is.

ITIL is about process and how to manage IT. FCAPS is a different look and a sifferent take - I feel that FCAPS and ITIL are complimentary. Just like if you say FCAPS is dead because of ITIL, what about eTOM?

There’s a dozen or so different “standards” but in the real world, you adapt, adopt, and abolish.

ITIL new? hehehehehe!!! I’ve been doing workflow based ENMS Architectures since 1993…

]]> By: Glenn O'Donnell http://itsm.glennodonnell.com/2007/10/14/rip-fcaps/#comment-39 Glenn O'Donnell Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:23:08 +0000 http://itsm.glennodonnell.com/2007/10/14/rip-fcaps/#comment-39 Hi Brian, Yes, I suppose nothing ever truly dies. All of this just fades off to form a historical reference from which to draw comparisons and to build upon. One of my points is that FCAPS does indeed resonate with those endowed by a good background in networking, but outside this circle, it's largely unknown. As we try to align FCAPS and ITIL, we see some problems. The 'C' in FCAPS is now spread across Configuration, Change, and Release in ITIL. The 'P' is all over the map, with most of its relevance to Capacity and Service Level Management in ITIL. Is one right and one wrong? No. It's just the same discussions being spoken in different languages. They're both mostly right, although ITIL is more formalized and better socialized across technology domains. I do think ITIL could be much better on its treatment of performance, but I guess we'll all have to work on that for future clarifications of ITIL. Tools are only beginning the migration from FCAPS to ITIL, especially network management tools. I shudder when I hear people talk so much about Fault Management, including within my own company. Such talk is neither evil nor foolish; it's just a reflection of the state of transition. I firmly believe that "Fault" Management has become an anachronism. Technology and business conditions have graduated to much more than that. It's time for us all to move forward with open minds (and tools) beyond faults. I do like your analogy of the "three day week as a wise old consultant to ITIL" ... great point! -- Glenn -- Hi Brian,

Yes, I suppose nothing ever truly dies. All of this just fades off to form a historical reference from which to draw comparisons and to build upon. One of my points is that FCAPS does indeed resonate with those endowed by a good background in networking, but outside this circle, it’s largely unknown.

As we try to align FCAPS and ITIL, we see some problems. The ‘C’ in FCAPS is now spread across Configuration, Change, and Release in ITIL. The ‘P’ is all over the map, with most of its relevance to Capacity and Service Level Management in ITIL.

Is one right and one wrong? No. It’s just the same discussions being spoken in different languages. They’re both mostly right, although ITIL is more formalized and better socialized across technology domains. I do think ITIL could be much better on its treatment of performance, but I guess we’ll all have to work on that for future clarifications of ITIL.

Tools are only beginning the migration from FCAPS to ITIL, especially network management tools. I shudder when I hear people talk so much about Fault Management, including within my own company. Such talk is neither evil nor foolish; it’s just a reflection of the state of transition. I firmly believe that “Fault” Management has become an anachronism. Technology and business conditions have graduated to much more than that. It’s time for us all to move forward with open minds (and tools) beyond faults.

I do like your analogy of the “three day week as a wise old consultant to ITIL” … great point!

– Glenn –

]]> By: Brian Scott http://itsm.glennodonnell.com/2007/10/14/rip-fcaps/#comment-38 Brian Scott Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:49:57 +0000 http://itsm.glennodonnell.com/2007/10/14/rip-fcaps/#comment-38 As a Service Management System Architect I find FCAPS still viable in helping me to communicate ITIL to engineers and then using this linkage back towards the Managed service designers. I still apply it to vendors in toolset selection process to inject the need for technical depth as well as all the pretty business dashboards. FCAPS is not dead - it's just doing a three day week as a wise old consultant to ITIL! As a Service Management System Architect I find FCAPS still viable in helping me to communicate ITIL to engineers and then using this linkage back towards the Managed service designers. I still apply it to vendors in toolset selection process to inject the need for technical depth as well as all the pretty business dashboards. FCAPS is not dead - it’s just doing a three day week as a wise old consultant to ITIL!

]]>