Readers may think I'm exaggerating about the spread of crap factoids. Back at the end of 2006 we spotted the crap factoid "ITIL reduces costs by up to 48%". This one was particularly pernicious because it had the Gartner name behind it, which gives it a CF multiplier of 2. Where is it now? Let's see.
The monthly newsletter of the IT Skeptic: all the news on ITIL, CMDB and other IT topics that is fit to print... and then some! Subscribe here. Privacy respected. No registration required.
Submitted by Neil Hepburn (not verified) on Tue, 2008-04-15 16:28.
It's true, there is so much of that crap.
If I'm ever confronted with these numbers, I just put my data management cap on, and proceed to unravel the sources and methodologies used to produce these numbers.
When laid bare, it usually becomes obvious that there is no secret sauce, and the study was anything but scientific.
But here's another question: Does anyone that thinks pay attention to these numbers any more? When a statement is sufficiently vague, the author is practically begging to get their ass kicked.
What a fantastic post. The collection of stories which show how people exepct other people to accept their unsubstantiated claims is brilliant - blogrolling you now! You'd better believe it LOL :)
If a company actually believes this kind of hyper-puffery from their consultants, vendors or service providers - then I wish the best for them.
The average IT spend on bought hardware, software and telecommunications - no labor - is 52% (ranges, generally, from 40% - 60%).
So, the "best practices are the key to cost reduction, with potential savings of up to 48%" roughly equates to totally eliminating ALL labor costs. Wow, these "best practices" must be awesome.
I didn't do an exhaustive search, I sure would like to have a copy of the original Garter article. When individuals cite only an enormous body research like Gartner, and not the specific article, then any aware adult understands this is likely to be out of context.
I appreciate you finding this one. And, chasing down all the references to it. It is particularly funny.
It seems to me that this should call to question the truthfulness and trustworthiness of all the indivduals and companies who have used it.
Comments
Re: Crap factoids
It's true, there is so much of that crap.
If I'm ever confronted with these numbers, I just put my data management cap on, and proceed to unravel the sources and methodologies used to produce these numbers.
When laid bare, it usually becomes obvious that there is no secret sauce, and the study was anything but scientific.
But here's another question: Does anyone that thinks pay attention to these numbers any more? When a statement is sufficiently vague, the author is practically begging to get their ass kicked.
how many people think?
Your question : Does anyone that thinks pay attention ?
My answer: no.
My question: how many people think?
Well I guess that ITIL
Well I guess that ITIL reduces TCO by on average 48% looking at all these reports :)
(nudge nudge, wink, wink)
Gullibility: the extraordinary spread of crap factoids
What a fantastic post. The collection of stories which show how people exepct other people to accept their unsubstantiated claims is brilliant - blogrolling you now! You'd better believe it LOL :)
Caveat Emptor
If a company actually believes this kind of hyper-puffery from their consultants, vendors or service providers - then I wish the best for them.
The average IT spend on bought hardware, software and telecommunications - no labor - is 52% (ranges, generally, from 40% - 60%).
So, the "best practices are the key to cost reduction, with potential savings of up to 48%" roughly equates to totally eliminating ALL labor costs. Wow, these "best practices" must be awesome.
I didn't do an exhaustive search, I sure would like to have a copy of the original Garter article. When individuals cite only an enormous body research like Gartner, and not the specific article, then any aware adult understands this is likely to be out of context.
I appreciate you finding this one. And, chasing down all the references to it. It is particularly funny.
It seems to me that this should call to question the truthfulness and trustworthiness of all the indivduals and companies who have used it.