ITIL: Who Is Kidding Who?

It was with interest, tempered by low expectation, that we read the recent comments from APMG (Computing Magazine) with reference to ITIL training. Two in particular attracted our attention:

1. "Every training company we've spoken to is in favor of this level of assessment as they object to organizations that are offering ITIL training that are not accredited."

This is rather odd, considering that every training company WE have spoken to is not in favor of this change. In fact, when push comes to shove, neither were they in favor of APMG's 'appointed' role in this market. So exactly WHO have they been speaking to?

Clearly different sources to ourselves! Perhaps APMG might tell us, in the interests of clarity. The comment button is below.

2. "The last thing the market wants is competing products"

No, Mr Pharro. The last thing the market wants is a monopoly, controlled by a profit driven body. We have seen previously what happens in this sort of arena when this occurs, haven't we (Prince2 perhaps?). I rather think that this is an occasion upon which the vast majority will consider that competition is definitely healthy.

These sorts of statements, using unsubstantiated allies such as "the market" and "every training company", tend not to carry full credibility in serious journalistic quarters. Perhaps someone ought to tell APMG therefore that they would be better advised focusing directly upon substance, and at the very least, clearly substantiate references when used.


On wider ITIL issues, it would also be nice to see them comment upon how they intend to embrace the reality of the open movement, or perhaps how they intend to encourage the free entrepreneurial enterprise that has taken ITIL to where it is today. We suspect that we may be waiting quite a while for this.

Why ISO 20000 Puts ITIL in Further Peril

The publication of an international generic standard for IT Service Management was always bound to change the landscape. Even ignoring other considerations, the fact that its scope is wide enough to over-arch the different frameworks gives it the higher ground in terms of applicability.

The defining diagram is this one, from ISO 20000 Central:



The key here is that the ITIL block in the triangle is actually INTERCHANGEABLE. It can be another framework such as MOF, or it can be a number of frameworks. It certainly does NOT have to be ITIL.

LONGER TERM
The long term impact of this upon ITIL in particular is likely to be profound. Consider the following: ISO 20000 offers ORGANIZATIONAL certification. This in turn means that it can be a driver for market differentiation, effectively a direct profit driver. The attraction of this to corporates is therefore very clear and obvious.

Now drill down a little deeper. As ISO 20000 can be used to leverage corporate advantage, when corporates are looking to train their ITSM staff and to support INDIVIDUAL level certification, what sort of scheme do you imagine will attract them?

You have got it: an examination/certification scheme that openly embraces ISO 20000 from the bottom up. Is that ITIL? I don't think so.

This is where BCS-ISEB and EXIN may have been extremely cute. Even in their very first joint press release they explicitly mention ISO 20000. When they create their examination and certification process they have the opportunity to fully embrace the new scenario and the new ITSM world. They can link their scheme directly into the corporate objective: directly into ISO 20000. Now that is one hell of a selling point.

This could spell REAL problems for APMG/OGC and their much more contained, inward looking, ITIL scheme. As time progresses, from an executive perspective, this may well begin to look to be a narrow proprietary MOF type diversion. This impression becomes even more acute when instead of seeking ways to open ITIL to the market and to the world, they apparently focus effort on the creation of the hideously titled "Intellectual Property Rights Board".

And whilst they continue to attempt to build these walls around the framework - the relentless tide continues to flow.

ITIL Against The Tide

The open movement is of course well established, and continues to flourish. It has had a profound influence on most aspects of IT, starting with software and now extending to the core of the internet itself via 'Web2', of which wiki is a part. It is almost a tide of consciousness, as more and more people understand the benefits of the free collective in terms of product and added value.

Oh what a pity that the OGC seems to be so blind to this reality and to this concept. Even greater the irony given that this is supposed to be a government sponsored body.

Consider their flagship products, ITIL and Prince2. In terms of relative global adoption, one is a success, the other a failure. Why is this? An accident? A fluke?

Well, yes, I suppose it was. Almost by accident it would appear that ITIL was allowed out of the box of ultra-protectionism, at least in part. Whole infrastructures evolved around it by virtue of the 'free market', which is a term they do not seem to like at all. Training courses, support products, books, websites: a whole plethora emerged to add real value and to help to spread the framework into the fabric of IT service management.

Not so Prince2. It was boxed in from the start, some would say almost smothered at birth, in a relative sense. There was little 'open' or 'free' in that particular arena, least of all the market. APMG were the OGC appointed 'sheriff', metaphorically handing out deputy badges to 'accredited' suppliers for everything from consultancy to training, in the form of licenses. The results were perhaps inevitable.

So now, as documented widely, we face the staggering scenario of the OGC placing their Prince2 'sheriff' into the heart of ITIL town! It really beggars belief in some respects, but it is a fact.



Whilst we await further developments, and whilst some of the current major players reposition themselves in ways which may potentially damage or ultimately destroy ITIL, I thought I would scan the airways for opinion. There is plenty of it:

Jan van Bon (ITSM Portal)
"I expect that the ITIL case is a simple "repeat business model" for APMG as you say. At this moment the ITIL market is a rather open and free market. As soon as one party is going after the profit of the licenses, we will see a very different kind of market - and frankly, I'm not interested in that kind of market". "It's just like the Microsoft failure with MOF it was so highly protected an heavily licensed that hardly any provider was interested in it. Until now it hasn't come any further than where it was a few years ago - despite of its considerable quality! The very same goes for Prince2"

ITskeptic
"The horse has bolted with ISO/IEC 20000: the world sees it as “the ITIL standard” but OGC and itSMF have zero control of it. All we need is for someone credible to publish and certify ISO/IEC 20000-based guidance, and ITIL is stone dead"

Jayne B
"The PRINCE2 type route would cause severe and lasting damage to ITIL. I firmly believe that a major reason for its success has been its openness. Take that away, and many of those who push it now, will certainly do the opposite"

And so on and so forth.

Sometimes though no comment at all actually says even more, and at present this seems to be the position of the main four public facing entities on this matter:
itSMF: Silence
Itil Community: Silence
Exin: Silence and announcement of launch of rival scheme
ISEB: Silence and announcement of launch of rival scheme

I suppose from all this that the message to the OGC and APMG is that ITIL is already out of the box. If they try to put it back in there, they will surely kill it. Perhaps they care about that, perhaps they don't, but we will find out eventually. In the meantime, the relentless tide continues to flow.

Gartner's ITIL Crystal Ball

Gartner, the research, advisory and consultancy giant, have recently weighed in with their own vision of ITIL's future. Curiously, it is not too dissimilar in some ways to the views outlined in an earlier post.

Quoted on VNUnet, Gartner's research vice president for IT management strategies states that "The appointment of APM Group has created a division in the IT service management community, with APM Group on one side, the original examination institutes on the other, and the community split between the two camps".

I would go along with that, although it is rather more complex, and I don't see too much support heading the way of APMG from the community. Maybe he meant a split and a splinter in support, rather than a split?

He goes on to state that "This will effectively create a parallel qualification scheme in competition with the official ITIL-branded APM Group scheme...". Indeed it will.

Equally interesting is the relative silence from APMG. Nothing yet through the press, and nothing through the major ITIL representative bodies or forums. Perhaps they are in a state of shock. At the very least they will now understand all too clearly that there is a world of difference between the ITIL market and Prince2.

And what of the OGC, who actually created this situation? I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for anything at all from them!

ITIL Refresh Timing - Could It Be Worse?

Whoever decided that the whole ITIL market should be restructured at exactly the same time as the refresh/republication of ITIL itself surely has a lot to learn.

This conjures many visions. In the context of the EXIN/BCS-ISEB competitor certification announcement, one such vision may be of a symphony playing on the deck of the Titanic whilst the ship starts to sink. That is clearly taking it to ridiculous lengths, but you see the picture.

Of course, it could be argued that this is just an unfortunate coincidence of timing, and that the two developments just happened to come together simultaneously. I don't buy that for one moment though. Both developments were pro-actively triggered by someone within the OGC. Timing was always under the control of those guys.

At this stage ITIL will simply have to survive the upheaval. But it may well come out at the other end of the process somewhat weaker in stature than it started.

Or does anyone believe that the timing is actually beneficial in some way? The comment facility below is open if you do!

ITIL's Bumpy Road - Part 1

A cocktail of civil servants and vested interests in a growing commercial market was always destined to end in tears, or at the very least take a very bumpy road. This was forecast by many commentators, and the latest developments tend to substantiate their predictions.

Civil servants are never likely to really understand market dynamics, and are consequently more likely to be swayed and influenced by those commercial forces in their proximity. Losing sight of what is in the best interests of their own methods and the tax payers is always a risk.

In the ITIL situation we have a massive international market and a very limited number of players circling around the OGC golden egg. APMG won that battle, but how equipped are they to manage an open rather than a closed market environment? Given that they were the chosen ones in the Prince2 market, it is not difficult to see why some people ask questions about the relative failure of Prince2 as a global force. The argument is that the Prince2 market is so tightly controlled, stitched up, and regulated that it simply doesn't work. It seems to run like a monopoly, but it isn't one. Hence Prince2 has not expanded as it should have done. Thus runs the theory.

Yet one of the major players in that situation is now at the core of ITIL? Yes, so no wonder some people think it could be a disaster.

THE FIRST ROCK
The first rock on the bumpy road has now appeared. EXIN and BCS-ISEB, the examination bodies for ITIL, whose licenses expires next year, have announced that they are to forge an alliance and create a new examination framework for ITSM, to embrace a number of methods, not just ITIL.

This is a truly significant development in this field, to say the least. A competitor certification scheme for ITSM is on the horizon to compete with ITIL. Given the relationship of both examination bodies with major players in the ITIL market, it is a development that APMG must be seriously pondering.

And what of the major representative bodies, such as the itSMF and the ITIL Community? Again there seems to be little coming from any of these to suggest that they have warmly embraced either the OGC's re-organization or APMG's rise to prominence.

It will be an interesting few months ahead, but at the time of writing, the future of ITIL looks far less assured than it has for a long time!