SIAM blogs

With the release of the SIAM Foundation & Professional Body-of-Knowledge, I've created a number of SIAM related blogs, shared with Scopism (where you can also download the BoKs). 

You can find the blogs here:
Supplier Management Categorization: www.scopism.com/supplier-categorization-siam.

Supplier Management: www.scopism.com/siam-supplier-management.

Framework Integration: www.scopism.com/framework-integration-and-management. 

And as an extra-special present you can find my name & photo too!

Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year

the ITIL Zealot

December 2016 / February 2017 / January 2018

THE NEW STEADY STATE IS CONSTANT FLUX

A few weeks ago I read Mark Smalley’s‘Kill DevOps’ on the back of a year of increasing interest in Devops, in particularly when compared to the slow-and-steady ITIL.

Mark finished his article with ‘The only desirable steady state is a constantly evolving state of mind.’ And thus rejecting basically any system or methodology, including DevOps which embraces change like no other.

And that got me thinking: do we need stability (for which we often strive)?

Human nature often makes us conservative (maybe along the lines of ‘better the devil you know?’).

A majority of people prefer the status quo, the familiarity of the existing practices, the security of knowing how to do something.

From an organisational point-of-view stability is also preferred. Very few business models welcome surprise and change and are normally based around a status quo (which can be expanded, enhanced or sometimes just maintained).

Even CSI, which is in essence continual change, is based on improving SOMETHING that is more-or-less stable, that can be benchmarked and baselined; and from there to improve efficiency & effectiveness of the status quo.

In fact many of the best practice concepts around Service Operations, are based around BAU (or Business As Usual). By thorough design and testing we avoid any surprises in operations, thus enabling us to deliver a dependable, repeatable (, measurable), guaranteed service … day-in-day out … the same every time.

Based on the renowned Ivor McFarlane I often explain the Operations is supposed to be a boring place to work and that as an Ops Manager, if your staff gets excited … you should get worried!

Or I use a fast food chain as an example of a process based organisation, where everyone (almost regardless of past experience) can create the same quality food (using the term lightly), anywhere on this planet!

But those later ones are certainly not attractive examples of stability: boredom and fast food do not rank particular high on most people’s wishlist.

And thus despite our preferences, we are looking for change, for excitement, for new experiences, new horizons … a bucket list to work through before the eternal stability of death reaches us.

DevOps advocates rapid change and Disruptive Technology hardly preaches a dull and secure application.

So, which one is it: the security of stability or the excitement of change.

As per usual the answer lies in the middle, a bit like bi-modal IT, merging DevOps and ITIL, having your cake and eating too, having the best of both worlds.

I think chaos is change without a solid foundation, thus neither improving nor deteriorating the situation (which BTW makes chaos a constantly changing status quo … ooh, that’s deep).

Stagnation on the other hand is stability for the sake of stability causing dogmatic, micro managed often overly-bureaucratic organisations.

I can accept that change is inevitable and that potentially change is a good thing (as good as a holiday I’m often told!). But not all change and not change for change’s sake.

I see benefit in distinguishing improvement (the same but better) and innovation (different) and both will need a place in a mature Service Management organisation.

It is true that ITIL does not really deal with innovation (a bit in CSI, a bit under ‘new technology’ in Capacity Management), but neither does DevOps (or COBIT or pretty much any best practice that I know of). And where DevOps supposedly signifies the death of ITIL, Mark poses that ultimately DevOps needs to die as well to keep changing/improving/innovating/evolving.

Ultimately everything must or will change, including ITIL and DevOps, but I don’t think we need to actively euthanise either of them (just yet).

Rather (and as always) we need to apply the common sense guidance of either methodology (, framework, or whatever you want to call them) where and how it applies best; and make sure you have the right objective in mind (, business goals, value, again many terms that can be applied here). If there are ‘blindspots’ (like innovation) than make sure you augment your organisation with the necessary structures to fill these in.

For innovation specifically ‘Google time’ comes to mind (20% of time spend on ‘personal’ projects, which got abandoned in 2013), or something I picked up as 7x7x7: 7 ideas are given $7,000 to work on for 7 weeks. This keeps the wildly creative and anarchical innovation within defined time (7 weeks) and budget (7x7=$49,000) constraints and cycles.

So, let’s embrace change but makes sure we have a clear understanding of the direction of this change. After all ‘let’s go left’ only makes sense if you know where you are and where your destination is!

And let’s not blame our ‘system’ or methodology for the lack of innovation but instead make sure innovation is covered within the system (and yes, that includes innovation OF the system).

Onwards and upwards!

(to boldly go …)

the ITIL Zealot

May 2016

SIAM: FAD OR THE NEW BLACK

Another month (or two), another blog. The reason for this inspiration is the recent discussion on and around SIAM. 

The King of SIAM

Disclosure here (now that my ‘secret identity’ has been well and truly ousted), I am one of the authors of AXELOS’ white paper on SIAM (‘Who is the king of SIAM?’). So, whilst I will repeat various parts of this paper, these are merely my views and thoughts on what I think helps clarify what SIAM is.

The debate seems to be raging around whether SIAM is actually something new (i.e. different from ITIL), whether it’ll last or even whether it is something relevant. This recently erupted with Jan van Bon calling it a hoax (perhaps much like ‘the Emperor’s new clothes’), which in return solicited various passionate responses.

So, let’s try again:

SIAM is nothing new?

Like all good best practices (, frameworks or methodologies … I don’t want to split hairs here) SIAM is based on common sense. And, hopefully with few exceptions, common sense is already known and in many cases described somewhere, in some way.

ITIL is the natural comparison here, addressing Service Management across the entire lifecycle and incorporating such ‘SIAM notions’ as Business Relationship Management, Supplier Management, as well as reference to governance, measuring & monitoring and ownership.

In my opinion, at its heart, ITIL does incorporate all the principles that people associate with SIAM. It is based on Service Strategy (understanding the business, defining success) and Service Design (designing outsourcing models that will deliver the value).

One could argue that in its early days ITIL (v1, v2) was written for the internal service provider, but certainly since version 3 (2007) the current ITIL practices are well and truly defined around the use of multiple, external suppliers.

So no, SIAM is nothing new. IT is ‘the same’ common sense described in ITIL (and elsewhere), but written towards the current organisational challenges. See further (in the ‘relevance’ section) on why ITIL (alone) is not sufficient.

SIAM won’t last?

This is a question that is hard to answer. I think that if we look back in history many market experts (and organisations) would have said the same of ITIL back in the 90’s. And currently we see similar discussion on whether DevOps/Agile is a reaction of the market to current practices not working or whether it is the revolutionary change of mindset that will alter the way we work forever.

Gartner Hype Curve

I find these discussions not very fruitful. Eventually everything will be surpassed and slide down the hype curve, some things faster than others. Let’s just skip to the end and see what actual value or relevance we can obtain, rather than discuss the longevity or relative, theoretic benefit (or lack thereof).

SIAM is not relevant?

Which brings us to what I think is the most important question: is SIAM relevant? And even though it is nothing new (see earlier in this blog), I think that SIAM is hugely relevant in this day-and-age.

The crux here lies in the practical application of ITIL, or rather the lack thereof. In many organisations the ITIL processes are focussed on Operations (Incident, Problem Management) and Transition (Change, Configuration Management) with only traces of the ‘higher-level’ Service Design & Strategy processes (Service Level Management).

And meanwhile, whilst organisations are struggling to get the all-of-organisation, future-focussed, business aligned ITIL processes in place; their world has become vastly more complex with multiple providers offering a myriad of services, often supported through various frameworks (ITIL, DevOps, …).

What SIAM brings to the table is a renewed focus on the alignment with the business, the definition of value and the governance and control across the various providers. Nothing new in essence, but as Michael Bulllimoria expressed (in his response to Jan van Bon’s posting, see earlier) is that no CIO wants to talk about ITIL (anymore), but they are all interested in SIAM.

So whether SIAM is new and/or enduring may be in question, but no one can deny the interest it generates. So let’s leverage that interest to reinforce the common sense concept of end-to-end, business-focussed, measured services that are (relatively) independent of technology or supplier.

That is my number one reason to be interest and even passionate about SIAM: the opportunity it gives to ‘preach’ service management at the right level!

But, in addition, I think SIAM has more to offer. Unlike ITIL (or rather: in addition to ITIL), SIAM describes service management practices, but can ‘place’ these in an organisational context thus provides a functional layer ‘on top’ of the ITIL processes and practices. This functional structure provides (more than any of the other frameworks out there) a basis for the organisation.

Extending this ‘additional’ elements such as governance, audit (quality control) and CSI can be not only defined, but assigned within the organisational SIAM structure.

SIAM model

The key here are the three layers of Customer-Retained governance, SIAM Control & Management, and Service Delivery. These three layers can easily be overlapped with other concepts such as Strategic-Tactical-Operational, Defining-Designing-Delivering, Governance-Control-Monitoring etc.etc.

Probably more a topic for another blog (as I’ll endeavour to write more, more frequently).

For now I wish to clarify that in my opinion SIAM doesn’t necessarily bring anything new to the table, but at least SIAM is invited to be at the table. If we cleverly use the existing practices, like ITIL, and merge them into the SIAM functional model, this interest in SIAM can only be a good thing, improving our service management processes, our business relationships and our supplier management …

even if in another year or so we’ll move on to the next big thing!

the ITIL Zealot

March 2016

ITIL® PRACTITIONER: DO WE NEED THIS QUALIFICATION?

AXELOS is about to release the ITIL Practitioner qualification.

The cynic in me is questioning whether we really need another ITIL qualification. Surely this is AXELOS working on its bottom line in the only way it can: by pushing more exams (and more books)?

Some of the language used seems to support this, with AXELOS pointing out the limited uptake of the ITIL Intermediate (exams, the number of which has been somewhat stagnant over the last few years) and positioning the Practitioner to be ‘bundled’ with the ITIL Foundation, their ‘bestseller’ (similar to the successful PRINCE2 Foundations + Practitioner combination).

And it really annoyed me when they announced that NO (accredited) training is required for this exam (thus opening the market to include all grey training organisations and exam-only offers) but that the accompanying publication is required (thus increasing book sales). Surely something that is positioned to be PRACTICAL, cannot be learned from a book (and proven by an exam) but will require actual practice?!

I am still not convinced the actual certification (and the lack of mandatory, accredited, quality training) is a good thing, but having done some further investigation into the syllabus and the (draft) publication, I am starting to get enthusiastic about the possibilities and the need for this practical qualification.

The starting premise is sound: the ITIL Foundation is mainly a theoretic course, about the ITIL concepts, definitions and processes; and whilst the Intermediates address the capabilities required to manage or perform the various processes (in their respective Capability or Lifecycle module) it doesn’t explicitly address the more generic practical skills a Service Management professional needs.

So, in comes the Practitioner. Arguably between the Foundation and Intermediate courses, but also as a stand-alone option/qualification.

The architect team has done a great job identifying those practical capabilities needed and has structured them around the CSI approach (as everything in life could be considered an improvement of the existing situation). Within this approach they deal with Organisational Change Management, Communication and Metrics & Measurements, as well as provide 9 Guiding Principles applicable to just about anything you do.

The overall result (of the book) is a clear description of the required capabilities but also it provides guidance, and the approach for making a (service management) improvement.

As such the Practitioner could be seen as a syllabus around the much acclaimed publication ‘Planning to Implement Service Management’, described by many as the 6^th ITIL Core Publication. But as one of the Practitioner authors told me that where the ‘Planning to …' publication addresses large, full-scale ‘ITIL implementations’, the ITIL Practitioner focusses more on ‘everyday improvements’ that candidates/practitioners should be able to make right now (or at least after completing the qualification).

And the best thing … not only is the publication easy to digest, clear in structure and inclusive of many other ‘methodologies’ out there (SIAM, DevOps, Lean, Kanban, Scrum, Agile, Kotter, PCI, AIM, ADKAR, PROSCI, ABC of ICT, COBIT, CMMI, SFIA, Balanced Scorecard … they are all mentioned and included); but the publication actually provides templates and examples that can be easily applied!

This elevates the ITIL Practitioner out of the theory where people walk away with a lot of knowledge but no real concept of how to apply this (wood and trees anyone?). I myself often use the ‘excuse’ that ITIL is descriptive and that you can apply it in any way that is required and that it thus not prescribes you ‘how to do it’.

And whilst the Practitioner guidance is still not prescriptive, at least it shows a more defined way in which improvements can be made (with templates).

This is why I am getting exciting about the possibilities of this qualification: it provides really useful capabilities that will enhance the uptake and implementation of service management (ITIL or otherwise). Even the course syllabus is exciting that way as it is built around a 1:2 ratio of theory vs. practice and thus promises accredited providers to generate high quality and highly interactive courses, involving simulations, gamifications etc.

But … many ATOs would already have included practical elements in their (Intermediate) courses, in particular within the ITIL MALC course (which also includes elements of CSI, measurements, communication & organisational change). This leads to the question of whether this qualification ‘adds’ any value to the existing training courses and it may leave training providers with either duplicating elements across multiple courses or a significant redesign of most of their courses to ‘isolate’ the Practitioner elements (and somewhat devaluing those courses that loose those practical components).

And I haven’t even started on the exam (which, I should remind you, does NOT require you to do ANY training if you so desire), which is multiple choice and in my opinion does not validate whether a candidate has the practical capabilities sought.

The best quote I got from AXELOS was that in their opinion a candidate not undertaking accredited training is most likely to fail the exam and that this was how the market would self-regulate grey and inferior offerings. My counter-argument was that the whole structure of accredited training organisations provides the process to guarantee quality courses which will improve the acceptance and uptake of the material. ATOs pay to be accredited (, audited, measured …) and rather than being rewarded for investing in their relation with AXELOS, they now have to compete with organisations not hindered by accreditation (but that is perhaps a topic for another blog).

The Practitioner also doesn’t ‘fit’ comfortably in the ITIL Qualification structure. It does not deal with any specific ITIL theory (other than CSI), but it collects ‘enough’ points so that candidates can drop another Intermediate on their way to the Expert qualification (so, if I do the Practitioner, I don’t have to do Service Operations … or PPO …).

The prerequisites are the Foundation certification (only) but the material and difficulty of the exam, require a good understanding of organisational practices which are perhaps not found in all Foundations candidates (but more in those seeking the Expert qualification).

So, once again, AXELOS has left me somewhat ambivalent. I applaud their introduction of the ITIL Practitioner and recognising the capabilities required in the Service Management market; I am delighted with the content of the guidance, the clarity and the templates; and I am excited about the prospect of some really practical training products being developed.

But I am also sceptical about the exam and the market value it will provide; and I question the chosen approach of exam-only and the overlap between the Practitioner and the ‘other’ ITIL courses (Intermediates and MALC).

I sometimes lament ‘the good old days’ of the ITIL Service Manager. One course that covered all material, completed by two, 3-hour, written, essay exams that were torture. In fact the whole course was an experience that few people ‘enjoyed’ (or so I have been told ... multiple times). But those that came out on the other side had proven something, to themselves and to the world and you knew that the ITIL Service Manager ‘had what it takes’.

I would love the ITIL Practitioner to be that (and as such perhaps even be ‘exalted’ above the ITIL Expert qualification as providing proof of theory+practical capabilities) but without a defined, controlled, quality, practical training program I fear it will become just another certification ‘tick-in-the-box’.

Time will tell.

the ITIL Zealot

January 2016

ITIL® is a Registered Trade Mark of AXELOS Limited