When
in 2007 ITIL v3 was released, or perhaps even earlier when the name was made
public, automatically the previous version became v2 and the original one v1. This
then became the topic of many a debate about what was wrong with version 2 and
whether organisation needed to ‘upgrade’.
I
actually wrote a white paper in those days comparing ITIL v3 with Windows Vista
(remember, this was early 2007). Vista had sparked similar debate where people
admired some of the new functionality and visuals (mainly aero) but were
unconvinced about the need to upgrade from Windows XP. To a large degree the
same discussion can still be had about Windows 7 and Window XP (and with
Windows 8 just around the corner get ready to revisit this discussion once
more).
I’ll
digress slightly here by going off-topic and tackling the issue of justifying a
change (sure to be a topic for future blogs as well). One of my
favourite ways of stirring up people is to say there is no such thing as an IT
project! There are projects with IT deliverables, but ultimately a project
should be done for a business reason\benefit. Thus the business case for
Windows (8, 7, Vista, …) should not be about niceties, but about utility and\or
warranty improvements. The moment Microsoft stops providing support for a
product, is when the case for upgrading can be made, not before (unless the new
version offers additional and needed functionality). With this in mind now try to write a business case for an iPhone!
Anyway,
back on the topic of the debate of ITIL v3 and v2. To a degree I myself partook in
these discussions. As a self-confessed ITIL-dinosaur and conservative I
believed that the new ITIL version 3 was nothing more than v2 in a shiny coat
and didn't add any real value. I have to admit the error of my ways and over the
years have found appreciation for the lifecycle ordering, the process
‘refinement’ and the Strategy ‘add-on’ (I guess all of them worthy of a blog at
some stage).
I
concluded in my white paper that unlike Windows, ITIL is not a product that
gets installed or upgraded, but instead it is a framework of structured
activities (processes). And these
activities are generic or perhaps common sense (I now, common sense isn’t
always common … and doesn’t always make sense either! Hence the need for
frameworks to help us follow common sense). The fact that ITIL v3 had added new
activities (mainly Strategy) or had moved them around (‘old’ v2 incident
management split over new v3 incident, request and access management) did not
invalidate the ‘common sense’ activities but provided merely a new way of
structuring these same activities (i.e. in the Lifecycle).
So
when last year the rumours of v3.1 (let alone v4) surfaced I was bracing myself
of a repeat performance of these discussions. Never mind the commercial
mistrust where many believed ITIL v3 was just there to increase book sales and
training opportunities. Therefor I was more than pleasantly surprised when not
only there was no training upgrade required, AND the updates were logically and
improved or enhanced the existing theory but that ITIL had dropped the v3
moniker and had gone back to being ‘just ITIL’, the best practice framework for
IT service management (another return after a short dalliance with good
practice).
Of
course PRINCE2 has applied this way of version numbering for a long time. After
the initial 'upgrade’ from PRINCE to PRINCE2 in 1996, several subsequent
versions have followed in 2002, 2006 and 2009 without making it PRINCE3 or
PRINCE2.1. The new version comes out and 6 months later all publications and
training of the old version is gone and PRINCE2 (and now ITIL too) remains THE
framework it always was (and will be).
We
‘experts’ are often positioning ourselves as critics, with better or improved
interpretation, application or communication of the theory, but I think it is
important to recognise the goods things too. And ITIL (2011) is such a good
thing, a common sense improvement on a common sense framework. Makes sense
really!
the ITIL Zealot
No comments:
Post a Comment