Quality over Quantity?

I returned from holidays last week and boldly started 2014 with a ‘polarising’ tweet:

OK, I'm back from holidays and have stepped into 2014.What's new? Has @AXELOS_GBP messed up #ITIL yet? #ITSM

Admittedly quite a blunt tweet, but I was hoping for some responses and got exactly what I bargained for with specifically two interesting ‘discussions’ following (using the term lightly as it was all in 140 character twitter statements, thus lacking some ‘finesse’).

One was rather obviously about AXELOS’ performance to date. More on that later, but first the other discussions which diverted into whether (ITIL) training should be of the best quality or the most accessible. John Custy (@ITSMNinja) mentioned that if ITIL exams were more expenses (based on AXELOS’ price increase) ‘maybe fewer, but more right people certified...’

This got me thinking, as I have always been a great advocate of training quality and a skeptic of the current ITIL certification scheme (see my blog from March 2013 on Action Based Learning).

However at the same time I can see the importance of training be accessible to a large audience, particular at the basic/entry/foundation level. Hence the title of this blog: Quality over Quantity/Accessibility.

The current ITIL Foundation course (or rather ‘Foundation Certificate in IT Service Management’) has become a volume-seller with around 20,000 exam each month. Plenty of organisation are sending all their IT staff to this course and the prevalence of the ITIL Foundation certificate has certainly helped to make ITIL the ‘de facto’ standard in IT Service Management.

Compare this for instance with COBIT. COBIT is seen as an equivalent if not better alternative to ITIL (with more prescriptive guidance, standard RACIs, a direct link to governance, risk, project management …). However, whilst there are COBIT qualifications available, it comprises mainly of Foundation, with then ‘specialised’ implementation or assessor courses which are not focused on general staff. And it is much harder to obtain with fewer organisation (in fewer locations) offering this course less frequently (although there is always the on-line option).

And it is a similar story with MOF (Foundation only), TOGAF (Foundation or Certified qualifications), LEAN or AGILE. Whilst there certainly is certification in those methodologies, it is far less known, far harder to obtain (not because of difficulty but because of availability) and far less recognised.

As mentioned, I believe this is part of the success of ITIL and in order to maintain this it is important that AXELOS not only maintains the quality of the ITIL certifications, but maintains or even improves the availability/accessibility/quantity. Most certainly at entry/Foundation level but also for Intermediates, which have a far smaller uptake. The more people are trained and certified in ITIL, the more people will want to use it (and the more people use it, the more we can work towards quality improvement of the theory).

That doesn’t mean that quality is not important. And whilst I hope that future updates to ITIL will improve the quality of the theory, and with it the quality of the certification (for instance a lower, operation-only Foundation, more practical and less factoid based, periodic exam refreshers to maintain higher levels, …). We need to look at the situation at hand: The Foundation is course is so prevalent that a lucrative and significant grey circuit has developed offering courses that do not (always) meet the existing quality standards. This (in my opinion) is a real threat to both AXELOS, the ATOs and the market.

For instance I believe we can all agree that the existing ITIL Foundation syllabus only just fits in a three day format. There is a lot (too much!) theory to explain and the danger is of the course becoming death-by-powerpoint, theory-overload with not enough time to discuss practical application of the principles. So, I was not overly impressed when I was approached by a (non-accredited) training organisation with the question whether I could deliver the Foundations in two (albeit extended) days … over a weekend … including the exam. I declined and sincerely question the quality and outcomes of a course like that.

Because as important as certification is, there is more to training than that. However we need to look beyond the IP-owner and training organisations and realise that it is the responsibility of the organisation/manager who sends staff to training to obtain ‘value’ from it (as well as the staff attending training). I advocate an immediate follow-up on training: at Foundation level an attendee could do a review of existing procedures, tools and documentation (and discuss any questions or suggestions with the process manager/owner). At Intermediate level this can become a more formal assessment and CSI/SIP and at Expert level the scope increases (all lifecycles) and would include tactical or even strategic customer relationships.

Anyway, bringing this rant to a close: the quality of training is paramount and any customer/participant of training is responsible for choosing the best training and getting the most out of it. The better training organisations (and fortunately there are plenty of them) will maintain quality and inject this into their offering.

The role of the ‘examiner’, in our case AXELOS, is to design a qualification scheme that is acceptable by the market, but also to maintain a delivery model that will make it available to that market.

Whilst this includes maintaining quality (EIs, ATOs, …) there is more to it. And a first action of increases the price of exams (and thus their revenue) does not necessarily give out the right signal. But that is a different discussion (on AXELOS’ performance, which I promised Andrea Kis (@AndieKis) to have in 170 days).

Best wishes for 2014!

the ITIL Zealot

January 2014

ITIL vs Dev-Ops (itSMF debate)

This month I participated in our local itSMF branch seminar. As it was the last quarter of the year, we were already a bit in the Christmas mood and as it is called the silly season we tried to make the content light and entertaining. To this regard there were 4 IGNITE session. This is where each speaker has a limited number of slides (in our case 20), which auto-forward (in our case after 30 seconds) so that the presenter has not control over the presentation behind him/her. And by asking the speaker to present not only in this format, but also in a more polarising way, we kept it quite entertaining.

But in addition we also introduced two DEBATEs. I’ve used this format in my training whereby the candidates are either in favour or against a statement (like ‘outsourcing will make all our problems go away’ or ‘you should always charge for a service’). This makes them think about all the arguments in favour, but also the weak spots of these statement and phrase there position and rebuttal accordingly.

For the itSMF seminar each team (for or against) presented an IGNITE (although the more traditional 15 slides and a 20 second auto-forward), and then a rebuttal. The debate topics were:

•    Chicken or Egg, what comes first: process or tool
•    Traditional Service Management vs. Dev-Ops.

I was on the latter debate, obviously defending traditional service management. My role was to present our case through the IGNITE, and I’ll provide a brief synopsis of that. To this effect I’ve shared my slidedeck HERE.

I first [slide 2] narrowed the debate down to ITIL vs. Agile and decided that a battle of this magnitude could only be properly debated, explained, reflected by using that other epic battle of good vs. evil: Star Wars!

No doubt that ITIL takes the role of the Jedi here [3]. The ancient, ruling order, steeped in mystic, historical processes but in essence a democratic society for the common good.

Agile on the other hand has more similarities with the Sith [4]: powerful, challenging the ruling order, using emotional, rash decisions (over rational, risk averse ones) and attractive to young padawans/developers.

A good example was the Deathstar [5], a somewhat rushed project that contained a fatal flaw, causing it to blow up with considerable damage to the customer (the republic).

So, what did they do: they build another Deathstar, with the same flaw and put it into production before it was even completed. No surprise then, it blew up again, with even more devastating customer impact (victory to the rebellion).

In my opinion, a lot of this has to do with perception [7, yes I skipped 6 which only served to further focus on an apparent lack of planning with Agile]. You see, Dev-Ops or Agile is currently at the height of the Gartner Hype-curve. In the minds of some people it can do no wrong, and should be used for everything and anything.

ITIL on the other hand is done the bottom of the curve, in the ‘through of disillusionment’. Many organisation have tried and perhaps not achieved the results they were hoping for. Now they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, completely rejecting any of the common sense best practice IT Service Management approach that ITIL describes.

To a large degree I think this is because of the perceived bureaucracy that ITIL introduces [8]: processes, procedures, templates, workflows, … everything needs to be documented, reviewed & approved.

Perhaps so, but ITIL never actually identifies how complex, wordy, lengthy or formal these procedures need to be. Or even whether they should be written down at all.

More important is to understand WHY something needs to be done (rather than how) [9]. PRINCE2 (from the same best practice stable as ITIL) actually identifies tailoring as a must for every methodology and that tailoring is not about whether to use it or not but about how (formal) to use it. This is driven by factors of size, risk & complexity.

Change Management is a prime example [10]. This often becomes a bureaucratic bottleneck, because people focus too much on the formalities, paperwork, CAB meetings etc.

The ITSkeptic told at the Australian itSMF LeadIT conference, how one dev-ops engineer exclaimed that he could but a new version in production, ‘before you could get an Emergency CAB together’. That last statement doesn’t leave me with a lot of confidence, in particular if it was a mission-critical service/application we are talking about here.

Instead we should focus on the real goal of Change Management, which is to minimise impact. ‘Horses-for-courses’: sometimes you can go slow and secure, other times you need to go quick, but you better wear a helmet!

And Change Management accommodate the Dev-Ops concept of ‘failing fast’ [11] through defining different categories of change, each with their own level of documentation, assessment, approval and oversight.

1.    The Emergency (or ‘oh-shit’) Change means we don’t throw caution to the wind, but instead apply a different, faster, less rigorous process (basically we decrease time, but increase risk)
2.    The Standard Change allows a cookie-cutter approach to frequent, repeatable change, which will significantly reduce overheads
3.    And the use of ‘minor’ Change categories will allow a less convoluted path to be followed, whilst still maintain the appropriate governance.

The key here is no to be afraid of failure, but also not to close your eyes to the risk [12]. Mistakes are part of everyday life, and in fact mistakes are essential for growth, improvement and innovation. I call this the concept of making ‘deliberate mistakes’ [13].

So in our battle of Dev-Ops vs. Service Management, we find that ITIL actually incorporates everything that Agile is trying to achieve. But then, it does much more, allowing for both fast and slow changes; and with a lifecycle that includes Strategy & Operations (as well as Design, Transition and Improvement) [14]

Thus there can be only one outcome, and the (ITIL) Jedi must win [15].

But perhaps rather than looking at Star Wars as the fight of Luke against the Empire (and his father) of the first (now the last) three episodes, perhaps we should encompass the whole (6 episode) series as the lifetime of Anakin Skywalker (from good to bad, and back to good): In Anakin we find good and bad, jedi and sith, passion and ration, similar to how Dev-Ops and Service Management attempt to achieve the same goal (-better- value of services) through different approaches [16].

As long as the good side wins in the end!

(May the ITSM force be with you)

the ITIL Zealot

November 2013

Making deliberate mistakes!

For a few days now I have been pondering what to write about for this new\my next blog. In this ever-changing world there is actually remarkably little happening in the service management space. I guess we’re all waiting to see what AXELOS will bring to the party next year (or perhaps we're secretly plotting a defection to COBIT).

Mostly people are providing (excellent) examples of how to actually apply the service management concepts, or they are bashing the (perceived) rigidness of ITIL, especially compared to AGILE or DEV-OPS. And in particular on that last topic, I have felt the need to ‘come to the rescue’ of ITIL to explain how its generic concepts apply, even in the modern, fast-paced world of DEV-OPS.

At the core of ‘my’ argument is that ITIL is a best practice, and my favorite definition of that is: “common sense... written down”. Now admittedly common sense isn't always common (and in ITIL's case doesn't always immediately make sense either) and it definitely isn't written down.

The thought behind this is that we need to move from ‘best-effort’ to ‘best-practice’. Best-efforts are individuals doing their individual best. In itself nothing wrong with it, but individuals are just that, and best-effort often means that different people are dealing with the same issues in a different way. The end result of that is a differing experience (for the customer) and something that is not repeatable, consistent or guaranteed.

Those last two words (repeatable & guaranteed) are key in delivering a service. Customers want to be able to rely on the value provided, which is why we negotiate SLAs etc. and try to provide measurable targets. After all: You cannot manage, what you cannot measure.

But in extension: You cannot measure what you cannot define!

And this is one of ITIL's greatest strength, it defines processes and concepts (like Incidents, Problems, Events, Changes, CIs, SLAs, …) within the IT service provider, allowing them to become measurable and manageable.

So, defining something allows you to make it (more) manageable, and then writing it down allows you to share it with others, making it repeatable & consistent.

I think most people understand the benefit of ITIL here: the one language, the structure and definition of the processes are all very helpful in building a more effective and efficient service organisation.

However, the writing down bit is where things often go wrong with ITIL. It manifests itself as procedures, flow-charts, RACI-matrices, forms and that often becomes bureaucracy.

Now, I've lamented before that we need a level of documentation (a pilot landing a plane without a checklist is .. scary) and that ITIL actually doesn't specify how big procedures need to be (80 pages, 8 pages, 8 paragraphs or 8 words). In this context I've referred to size, risk and complexity are factors that determine the amount of documentation that is applicable.

I guess we all agree that ITIL needs to be adopted, based on your organisation and objectives. As much as we look for a prescriptive silver bullet, this was never what ITIL was intended to be. It has always been positioned as guidance to help you.

In determining HOW to adopt ITIL, it is important not just to understand WHAT ITIL is defining as best practice, but -more importantly- WHY ITIL thinks this should be done.

And I believe that a lot of the detractors of ITIL are focusing on the WHAT (and sometimes on very specific phrases in the publications) and not on the WHY.

So, take DEV-OPS. Change Management is all about (the WHY) delivering new\better value to the business and minimising impact (of not changing or badly changing). DEV-OPS (or AGILE), in my opinion, is not different to that, it is just focusing on rapidly changing. Traditional ITIL may perhaps focus on preventing all (or at least most) errors (through assessment, CABs, testing, ELS, …) but that is just an interpretation.

There is nothing wrong with making a ‘fast change’ (emergency change would be the defined concept) is that provides a better value to the business.

And now we’re getting closer to the title and thus the message of this blog. I believe that almost everything we do in life is based on a risk-reward judgement: is it worth the risk (of failure) to obtain the reward?

Often we try to make this measurable, and then again often in financial terms (ROI, TCO). But in essence this can be a very subjective, individual judgement.

And we don’t like individual actions\decisions in the service management world, or at least we’re trying to make sure that different people make the same decisions, and preferably the right one (although who is to judge which decision was right in the end).

To me, this is a key principle behind ITIL: it is not a silver bullet, a straight-jacket of procedures to be followed, a regimented framework which will avoid errors at all costs (through design, transition and operation). But it is a framework that allows an organisation to collect better information (measurements) which will lead individuals to make better (, more consistent, repeatable) decisions through which to deliver more value to the customer.

Now, no-one is perfect, and I don’t think ITIL (processes or rather their documentation) should be something that an individual should hide behind, afraid to make a decision.

After all a process never covers all eventualities and if people follow process-for-process-sake it’s the equivalent of announcing that the operations is a success, but the patient died (but look at the stitching … beautiful, consistent, text-book)!

With service management, we also need to create a culture of people understanding the WHY and giving them the ability, confidence and security to make decisions.

Even if those decisions are wrong. I often say that I don’t mind people making mistakes, as long as they were deliberate mistakes!

Deliberate mistakes you can learn from, and the next time you will change your frame of reference, and make a better decision. ‘Random’ mistakes however have no inherent learning built in, and there is no guarantee the results will be better (or worse) next time.

Most of this is based on an anecdote of IBM CEO Tom Watson. There are various versions of this, differentiating in time, people\departments involved and the amount at risk, but this version explains the message quite well.

Trust your people, and use ITIL as a tool (, framework, guidance) for them to structure their work better, and to provide them with better information, to make better decisions and deliver better value.

the ITIL Zealot
September 2013

What I learned at itSMF-A LEADit

Last week was the annual itSMF-A LEADit conference. Three days of presentations, keynotes, workshops, hot topics and yes, even some fun. But what did I learn in those days?

Firstly that there is nothing new under the sun: ITIL is still ITIL, no new version or revolutionary changes (perhaps AXELOS will provide those in the coming year). No new version of COBIT or any shocking development around any of the other frameworks (AGILE, LEAN, PRINCE2, ..), standards (ISO20000, …) or regulations (governance, outsourcing, …).

The ‘newest’ thing that I personally saw was a presentation on SFIA. Not that that is new, but I hadn't personally been told about a case study of a company actually using it. Great example of mapping less tangible skills (capabilities in ITIL Service Asset terms) onto people and roles, and then managing the gaps.

What was new though, or rather more prevalent than the previous year, was the tendency to do some ‘ITIL-bashing’. In more than one presentation, including a keynote, ITIL was described as old-fashioned, overly rigorous (read bureaucratic) and no longer fit-for-purpose.

Aale Roos in his keynote spoke about ‘unlearning ITIL’ and highlighted several of the idiosyncrasies of ITIL (including the ‘silly’ ITIL v3 Service Strategy publication). He proceeded to explain how the use of the ever-increasing number of processes in ITIL can lead an organisation to be lethargic. He used Nokia as an example and how it failed to quickly respond to the iPhone and smartphone market.

I think Rob England had the right idea by illustrating how ITIL is now at the bottom of the hype-curve (the 'trough of disillusionment'). He lamented that rather than being skeptical of, he found himself in recent times more often defending ITIL.

He continued the picture by showing how dev-ops is currently at the peak of the hype-curve (the 'peak of inflated expectations'). In fact various presentations during the conference highlighted both the need for rapid change, as well as the methodologies that supported this (dev-ops, AGILE .. note NOT ITIL). Case studies for Amazon and Netflix showed their large number of changes and their ability to not only absorb this, but also deal with unfragile systems (not robust, but not fragile either).

This was epitomised by the remark (again from Rob) that it was quicker for dev-ops to put a new version\patch in, than for ITIL to convene an Emergency CAB.

As self-appointed zealot I need to come to the defense of ITIL as in both cases (Aale’s and dev-ops’) it is not so much unlearning or bypassing ITIL, but rather applying it in a practical way. As I have said many times: nowhere in the ITIL publications does it speak about procedure-manuals and how many pages they ought to be. Instead it describes the activities to be undertaken and suggests some rigor to make sure these activities are performed repeatable (for the best outcome).

And the fact that ITIL has more processes now than ever before, doesn't mean there are more activities required (or people, or tools), but it allows each process to be managed separately (from an accountability and reporting point-of-view). If not required, these processes can be easily ‘collapsed’ into a single process(-manual).

It is all about how much rigor  documentation is required, which is dependent for each organisation or even each service. Personally I refer to PRINCE2’s definition of tailoring, which is not about deciding on WHETHER to use any of the theory but on HOW to use it. The level of documentation is then dependent on the size, risk and complexity of the project\organisation\service.

Little side-note: I thought it was comical to, in one of the sessions, see Rob England try to avoid ‘dead cats’ by having an Operations function getting involved in design & test; (i.e. more rigor  and then straight after, on the big stage in a keynote, he is searching for KAMU: a middle-ground between ITIL stability and dev-ops responsiveness (i.e. less rigor).

This is not immediately contradictory  but also not congruent. However I kind of see the point of and agree with both: using Ops-involvement (and sign-off) is great for medium/major changes (on critical services), whilst some of the dev-ops & AGILE principles are more aligned with how Change Management deals with minor or standard changes (with devolved authority and less formality).

So, Aale, we don’t have to unlearn ITIL. And dev-ops and AGILE are just utilising fast-tracked ITIL processes. The basics (of ITIL, of the service lifecycle, and the process-activities) are always applicable, whether you call it ITIL or not (that’s the definition of Best Practice: Common Sense, written down).

ITIL may be at the bottom of the hype-curve, but this is perhaps the time to push it back up to a ‘normalised’ level (the ‘plateau of productivity’), where we can see it for what it is: guidance on how to structure and organise IT activities, in order to deliver value through services to the business. Not a silver bullet but certainly also not old-fashioned.

And here lies the task for AXELOS (and the wider ITSM community) to work towards an ITIL that is more readily applicable. Because I do agree with Aale that some of the sections in the book are ‘silly’, inconsistent and perhaps too open to interpretation. ITIL is never going to be prescriptive, but it would be nice if the next version (4?) was a bit more practical, perhaps with more templates (RACIs etc.) and quick-starts.

And maybe next year there will be more to learn at the conference!

the ITIL Zealot
August 2013