<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.itskeptic.org"  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>The IT Skeptic - Comments for &quot;Taking on the CMDB Deathstar&quot;</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/taking-cmdb-deathstar</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Taking on the CMDB Deathstar&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>CMDB and Fit For Purpose</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/taking-cmdb-deathstar#comment-7893</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Hey Rob, not sure about too polite to address your posts head comment. Here is response with a link to my responding article.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fit For Purpose ITSM Processes&lt;br /&gt;
A key principle of Lean thinking is that Over-engineered solutions are a form of waste (Muda). However, what if those solutions / management practices are so immature, inconsistent that they place the organization at risk? Or do they? The Answer is actually it depends on context!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.pinkelephant.com/index.php?/troy/comments/fit_for_purpose_itsm_processes/&quot; title=&quot;http://blogs.pinkelephant.com/index.php?/troy/comments/fit_for_purpose_itsm_processes/&quot;&gt;http://blogs.pinkelephant.com/index.php?/troy/comments/fit_for_purpose_i...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Troy DuMoulin</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 7893 at http://www.itskeptic.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
