ITIL reflection

Hi, this is probably my last blog before the annual Australian itSMF LeadIT conference (in August, in Canberra), which also marks two years since I ‘created’ this alter-ego of the ITIL zealot (and my 26^th blog). Perhaps a good time to reflect on my take on ITIL in the current market.

Apart from ‘zealot’ I often refer to myself as an ITIL dinosaur. I did ITIL Foundation in 1992, and my Managers in 1994, both on version 1. Version 2 wasn't really much different but put things together in more structured books. I loved it, and by now (early-2000’s) my career focussed more-and-more on ITIL training and consulting.

And having moved to Australia in the late 90’s, there was a lot of work to be done as ITIL was largely undiscovered. Here I think my name (the ITIL zealot) got hold as in my enthusiasm I really saw ITIL as ‘the one true way’ of achieving IT service nirvana. I dismissed other frameworks (MOF, COBIT) as mere ‘copies’ of the ITIL principles that would never get the same buy-in and thus results as ITIL.

I have to admit that ITIL v3 in 2007 was a bit of a shock for me. Initially I rejected it, dismissing it as nothing more than ITIL v2 in a new jacket, and quick to point out its discrepancies and flaws. But as reality sank in that it was here to stay, and I started using it, first in training but then in various consulting projects too, I started seeing the benefit of the lifecycle and the added maturity of the ‘extra processes’.

I welcomed ITIL 2011 as it seemed the quality improvement step that should have been taken prior to releasing v3 in the first place: no more version number, more consistency and flow and above all a much more coherent Strategy and a CSI books that actually seemed practical.

But the period in between (2007-2011) made me not so much doubt ITIL, but rather question its purpose both for me and in the market. It seemed to have become too big to be easily understood and ‘implemented’ (a term I hate, but it does convey its meaning well). At the same time the competition was making great strides in becoming more accepted, more known and more applicable (mainly COBIT, see The Alternative to ITIL).

What kept me on the path of ‘righteousness’ was the ‘installed base’ of ITIL. There was simply too much existing investment and too much market demand to just let it go.

It did however force me to put things in perspective and it crystallised some of the things I really had known all along but perhaps never given too much thought:

• It’s not about ITIL it’s about Service Management

o    ITIL contains concepts that are common sense, make sure you understand those concepts, not the verbatim definition

• It’s not about doing ITIL, it’s about using ITIL

o    ITIL is maturity level 1,000,000 and you’re not, so use the theory to make your practical situation a (little) bit more mature

o    You don’t have to do it all (or even at all) but use what gives you the most benefit

• Processes are only the beginning

o    With tool (products) getting better, and most organisation having some level of ITIL-inspired procedures, we should focus more on the people (and the ABC)

After all this, I am still an ITIL zealot, but one with what I would consider realistic expectations. There is no reason to denounce ITIL and to throw out all that is good.

Instead we should build on all the good stuff, that installed base and that market recognition. ITIL 2011 was certainly a step in the good direction, but I have a (sceptically) positive feeling about AXELOS. I am hoping that this new joint venture will blow out some of the cobwebs and invest some time\energy to bring ITIL to the next level, into the future.

To me this next level should include some realism. For instance realism that ITIL is not the only show in town, so it should stick with what it is good at, and openly integrate with other frameworks to utilise their strong points (project management, risk management, …).

Also realism that training should be both more accessible and more practical. More accessible, by making the exams less about fact-learning and more about concept understanding. In fact, if possible get rid of multiple choice exams all together (or adopt the PRINCE2 Practitioner model). Also an ‘easy’ step in for operational staff might work better, rather than forcing them to learn Strategy, Design and CSI concepts and models (in the current Foundation course) which they will not understand nor need. How about a ‘Foundations’ on Operations & Transition (2 days, with exam) … I think this would be more applicable for many organisation’s more junior staff.

The introduction of any ‘gaming’ into training and education can only be a good thing.

And finally and perhaps most importantly, the next level ITIL needs realism that it is not an island and that is needs a structured and open global user group allowing to share experiences, templates and improvements. This will make ITIL even more relevant in todays (and tomorrow’s) service management world.

I BELIEVE!

the ITIL Zealot
July 2013

The Alternative to ITIL …

If I follow the social media ITIL seems to be over the hype-curve, with many people predicting its impending demise, often due to various reasons:

• The joint venture with Capita (AXELOS) will make it too commercial
• COBIT (or …) is better
• DevOps will replace it
• Cloud computing has made it obsolete
• BYOD has made it obsolete

In our MALC course we actually debate the relevance of ITIL, whereby I as the facilitator take the opposing view, often using the very reasons I’ve highlighted above. It is refreshing to go over to the ‘dark side’ and attack the ITIL framework for all its weaknesses (or heralding the benefits of those mentioned above). At one stage we nearly decided to quit the course and start doing COBIT Foundations instead!

But it also makes me realise all the good things about ITIL and how to actually, practically apply it. I will address the ‘negative’ reasons in reverse order, but first I think it is important that at the heart of all this we are talking about IT service management. Service management is all about delivering (IT as) a service to the customer: a fixed-price, black-box, repeatable, guaranteed, managed & measured value.

This immediately invalidates any reasoning that a new kind of technology (for instance Cloud, BYO) will replace ITIL. ITIL\service management is not about technology, but which processes (\activities) to follow to make sure the technology delivers the benefits (=value) they’re supposed to. So, whilst Cloud and BYOD may make it easier to manage the technology, it is still required to define business value, guarantee the design, transition this, operate it and measure to validate or improve.

Service management is also a ‘best practice’, of which my favourite definition is ‘common sense written down’. And common sense doesn’t really change, so any ‘movement’ or development (like DevOps, return-to-core, rightsize, … even Agile or Lean) can at best only marginally change our opinion of common sense, but not completely invalidate it. Thus they won’t replace ITIL, but provide a different perspective on the guidance it provides.

ITIL is nothing more than the best-known proponent of the IT service management best practice. It has been around for a long time (25 years+), is recognised globally and arguably is the most accepted of the methodologies (certainly in terms of people certified, tools sold and ‘implementation’ performed).

This does not mean ITIL is perfect (despite the nom-de-plum I’ve chosen, even I don’t believe that). I fully recognise the weaker points of ITIL: its generalisms, inconsistencies, less-than-complete or defined strategy processes, its lack of dealing with the real-world (although complimentary publications like the ABC of ICT, Planning to Implement Service Management etc., do a good job of that).

As a consultant (and trainer) it’s these imperfections that make ITIL such as rich source of work: it has to be understood and adapted before it will succeed!

But ITIL has a few things going for it that will make it hard to ‘usurp’ as the leading service management methodology:

· Its ‘completeness’
· Its ‘installed base’

ITIL (since v3) now covers a lifecycle, which means that it just about covers everything you want\need in an IT organisation. Sure, there are some glaring omission (organisation & risk management, or a better defined governance framework) but by-and-large everything is covered.

Many of the other framework focus on one particular element (PRINCE2 for project management, Agile for development, Lean Sigma for process improvement, ISO2700x for security management) which at best makes them complimentary to ITIL, not a replacement.

There are but a few other ‘complete’ frameworks out there. MOF (the Microsoft Operations Framework) is not vendor-neutral and Microsoft hardly has the right audience (too many techo’s, not enough business managers). Plus it is by-and-large based on ITIL anyway. ISO\IEC 20000 is also based on ITIL and its prescriptive nature makes it less friendly to adopt & adept (though together with the additional guidance that is being released it certainly provide a good source of content, perspective and ideas).

This leaves us with COBIT (OK, potentially TOGAF or USMBOK but this is not meant to be an exhaustive comparison). Without going in too much detail, I’d consider COBIT the biggest ‘competitor’ to ITIL. In many perspectives COBIT is better than ITIL (more consistent, contains better governance and risk, provides a quick start, has ‘default’ RACIs, …). In fact if I were to start with a greenfield organisation I might even consider using COBIT instead of ITIL … but, be honest, how often do we come across this.

And so, based on the installed base of ITIL-trained people in the market (including consultants), the number of ITIL-based tools deployed (and/or available) it is very hard to ignore ITIL as the premier service management methodology. Again, this does not mean ITIL is perfect and many of the other frameworks referred to in this blog can be used in conjunction with ITIL, but they’ll not replace it.

Thus the best alternative for ITIL is … an updated ITIL. Which bring us to our last argument: the new joint venture AXELOS who now owns ITIL. A great opportunity lies before them to invest in ITIL (and the other best practices in the portfolio) and bring an update to the market that includes lessons learned in the market, benefits from other methodologies but above all in a consistent package with supporting products (quick guides, implementation guidance, …).

Currently they’re making all the right noises, so I will remain cautiously optimistic that AXELOS will improve ITIL. However, there is a very real risk that AXELOS could instead be the death knell for ITIL too: if they overemphasise the commercial side or focus too much on the UK\home market they will restrict the use and global involvement of the community in the on-going development of these best practices.

In that case I might switch my allegiance to COBIT or USMBOK, but for now I’ll remain the ITIL Zealot.

the ITIL Zealot
July 2013