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

The Ghosts of a Service Management Christmas

Unbelievable, it’s December already ... again.

I guess it is only fitting around this time to conclude this year of blogs with a seasonal topic. In this case the ghosts of a Service Management Christmas.

The Ghost of Christmas past: Service Management

Let’s take a moment to reflect on and celebrate the achievement of Service Management!

Being a zealot, I come from a time when service management was literally unheard of, and we were pretty much preaching the good news. Since then there wouldn't many (IT) companies left today who aren't at the very least aware of the service management principles. And whilst it may not be perfect (far from), there is a certain acceptance.

ITIL is past the hype-curve. Although this poses new challenges (in the ‘through of disillusionment’), at least we've left the inflated expectations and start seeing for what it is: a descriptive guidance (not a goal in itself!).

And let's not forget (despite my earlier mentioned ‘zealot’ status) that there are more flavours in the service management universe: COBIT has matured to be a complete framework, AGILE and LEAN are in demand and ‘golden oldies’ like PRINCE2 retain their value. No one framework is king, they all excel in their own areas and we now realise that ‘mix-n-match’ is the name of the game.

The Ghost of Christmas present: AXELOS

For those of you that are still unaware of this: Capita has purchased 51% of the ‘best-practice’ portfolio of the British government, and together they have created a joint venture called Axelos as the IP-holder, accreditor etc. This has brought a lot of uncertainty to those currently ‘involved’ in the ITIL world (or PRINCE2, or MoR, or…): Exam Institutes, Accredited Training Organisations, consultants and the like.

So far Axelos has been saying all the right things (listening to the market, minimal/no immediate change, invest in product development, including alternative training products -read gamification-). But their actions have been less ‘insightful’: a £10 Foundation Exam app and a £1,000 ITIL maturityassessment all indicate a more expensive future.

Of immediate concern is now the training accreditation and examination. Exam royalties are rumoured to triple, but to-date no official pricing has been announced. With APMG relinquishing their role as the accreditor on 1 January (and becoming ‘just’ an EI) there are still a lot of unknowns: no copyright clarity, reaccreditation requirements (or timeframe) …

Whilst the market may hardly notice this, I think it has put most things ‘on hold’ of the past year, hopefully to restart again when the takeover has been completed. 

Which brings me to

The Ghost of Christmas future: ITIL 2015

This may be a case of wishful thinking: but with 6 months development, starting in the middle of next year, followed by a 6 months review and fine-tuning period; we could have a new ITIL in the middle of 2015 (giving me 6-months leeway ‘til the end of that year and the need for a different name).

And what an opportunity for Axelos to get it right and position itself in the market as THE premier service management framework provider. A few things that I’d like to see:

·         Real language (no bull): focus on the concepts\outcomes of ITIL, not the theoretic definitions. After all, ITIL is descriptive.

·         Consistency: link all books, all processes and loose the ambiguity where possible. For instance is CSI a process or not?

·         Integration: clarify the co-existence of ITIL with various other frameworks (overlaps, strengths …)

·         Focus & expand: ITIL has built a name in Operational processes (loosely including the Transition ones), so whilst Service Strategy is certainly important, it is unlikely organisation will adopt this ‘as-is’. Instead focus on the strengths of the operational process and expand the offering with more templates, (implementation) cases and support. People are always looking for a silver bullet and whilst ITIL will never be that, it can provide more guidance than its current 5 publications.

I get all warm feelings thinking about this, sign with me

Jingle bells – service management hell – ITIL’s on its way

Oh what fun – it is to write – a process manual

Wishing you all the best for the upcoming holidays and 2014!

the ITIL Zealot

December 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

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