What is wrong with ITIL training?

ANSWER 1: EVERYTHING

• ITIL Training is just another way for consulting and education firms to get your money
• ITIL Training just focussed on the process theory and facts
• Multiple choice is an inadequate way of testing someone’s capability

I guess from a negative perspective the above statements are true (to a degree). ITIL V3/2011 has made the training path more complex: whereas before it was Foundations and then either Managers or Practitioners, now it is Foundations, either Lifecycle or Capability, or some kind of combination of those and then Expert ... In particular the distinction between Lifecycle and Capability is very unclear with large areas of overlap (for instance Service Operations vs. Operational Support and Analysis) and even more puzzling gaps (little or no CSI in the Capability Courses, limited Strategy, no Design Coordination ...). APMG could have done a better job with positioning the courses, and limiting the options.

The second (negative) argument is that ITIL training is (just) focused on theory. Again there is some truth in this, mainly as most courses will be followed by an exam, which focuses on the theory (see next point). But from Intermediate up, each course is supposed to provide more than 50% practical, interactive exercises. The exception is the Foundations which does require a lot of theory to be explained, and unfortunately due to market pressure, predominantly in a 3 day / 20 hour time span.

I think the 3 days are about the maximum what a ‘novice’ (or manager) can bear, so if we don’t want to tinker with the time-element of the Foundation course, then perhaps we should look at the content. Years ago a rumour surfaced that the Foundation course might be split in two: one basic with Operations & Transition; and one more ‘advanced’ with Strategy, Design and CSI. I thought this was a great idea, but unfortunately it never materialised. 

Most consulting\training firms, or in-house training organisations will have developed an ITIL Overview or Introduction which provides the basics in one or even half-a-day. And because there is no exam-pressure you can focus on the key-concepts.

And therewith we come to the biggest argument, which is that the exam ruins a good course. I think no-one will deny that multiple choice exams are an awfully inadequate way of testing someone’s capability (no matter how much 'Bloom's taxonomy you throw in). And unfortunately the ITIL multiple choice exams are no exception. At Foundation level the question often require knowledge of specific, theoretic factoids. Something that could be easily found in the ITIL documentation (, pocket guide or glossary-of-terms) and therefore hardly a necessary skill or capability. It should focus on the larger concepts of Service Management, the lifecycle and the key processes, perhaps with small (one or two paragraph) scenarios.

The Intermediate exams are slightly better with ‘scenario-based, gradient-scored’ questions. These questions at least relay the message that not all answers are wrong or right, but that some are ‘more right’ given the circumstances. But unfortunately then a significant number of questions still rely on knowing the exact, ITIL way or in other words more factoid book remembering, rather than true understanding.

Taming the Beast of Information Overload
http://www.foundationnews.org/CME/article.cfm?ID=1003:

And at Expert level this becomes an even bigger issue as the difference between the answers becomes smaller and the correct answer (at least in my opinion) almost always is ‘it depends’. With an essay-style question you can get points even if you made the wrong choice, depending on your ‘defence’ of that choice. With multiple choice it is an all-or-nothing. And sorry, I may be overestimating my own ITIL power, but if after 20 years of almost daily working with the material I still score a 0-point answer (on the MALC), I actually believe there is something wrong with the question, rather than with me or the theory.

ANSWER 2: NOTHING

I admit that all of the above arguments hold an element of truth. However, I think that in the end it is up to both the course candidate and provider to achieve a satisfactory outcome.

The provider of the courses needs to work within the syllabus (and exam requirements) but most courses give ample opportunity to add examples, exercises, discussions and other elements to ensure understanding and provide practical guidance.

The candidate also has a responsibility. If they just come to the course to be a few days away from work, or expect to find a silver service management bullet that will be spoon-fed to them (oops, mixing some metaphors), it will be a disappointing experience. The candidate needs to be open to learning, participate in the course, question everything (most trainers will welcome the challenge of questions as this will allow them to expand on the theory and provide insight for not only the questioner but the other participants too) and ensure the course enhances their understanding. I think it should be mandatory for candidates to create a next-steps plan after each course (and for their managers to demand, verify and control these).

The exam is just a bump in the road, and fortunately with thorough understanding of ITIL and a modicum of learning the exam can be easily passed (perhaps not with a 100%, but passed nonetheless).

In a future blog I might address the various type of training (on-line, classroom, blended) and well as the customisation or training and creation of a training path (with overviews, simulations, accreditation etc.). But I’ll leave you with a musing on the difference between education and training: education is more theoretic\school-based whereas training has a practical connotation. After all you wouldn't want your teenage-daughter to come home from school raving about the sex-training she had that day!

the ITIL Zealot
May 2012