What Service Is Being Delivered with ITIL Certification?

Let me preface this entry by reminding readers that I'm generally a fan of the current trajectory of the IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) and what it offers. I have also noted on several occasions that I do not kneel at any one methodology altar. SearchCIO industry writer Linda Tucci has an article out at TechTarget, reporting on proposed updates to the ITIL Version 3 Certification process. I'm not even going to try and regurgitate the specifics, but it did bring to mind the Mother Teresa muse, "We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing." The governing body of ITIL appears willing to do the impossible by certifying the unknowing without a complete curriculum. I guess that makes me ungrateful. Read the article and come back to me.

OK, assuming you are now equally baffled, I have to ask a few basic, albeit rhetorical, questions about the proposed certification scheme, some of the comments quoted in the article, and the underlying motives for the certification process itself.

The first and most obvious question is encompassed by the alternative title for this entry: "Who Left ITIL in Charge of Legitimizing IT Practitioners?" (ISACA?)

That leads into the next question — for all the IT operations folks out there, aren't you just a bit insulted about being called "cowboys"? Now, in Texas we generally take that term as a compliment rather than a slur, but I know that isn't the case elsewhere. By the way, since ITIL hasn't yet codified exactly what you must do to finally become an honest technician, you are still stuck with continuing to manage your systems as best you can until they can certify you on how to do it properly.

Next, is the proposed certification approach a good thing or a bad thing for furthering adoption of ITIL? My gut reaction (and some quick math about how much time and money it will take to be declared an Expert) is that most will skip formal certification and just continue to implement parts of ITIL informally.

But, then I compare the proposed approach to the similar PMI certification process for becoming a PMP. Certainly there has been no shortage of takers there, but is the discipline of project management as good as it could be today as a result? Perhaps ITIL could draw some corollaries and then carefully reassess its motives for ramping up certification.

When I first joined PMI in the mid-90's, there were about 6800 PMPs in the world, and they were project managers who built bridges and dams and the like. Certification was a big deal, and they were held in high esteem. I think back then certification required blood tests, FBI background checks and some bizarre indoctrination process that involved a candle-lit hall, large paddles and togas.

Today there are well over 100,000 PMPs among almost 300,000 PMI members. PMP certification is evidence of trainability and some basic understanding of the discipline — it is not proof of competency. As requirements were relaxed and the certification factory ramped up in the interest of growing the organization, the number of PMPs that were "All Hat and No Cattle" also increased. Let me quickly add that I have also known (and hired) many capable and deeply experienced PMPs — all I am saying is that certification doesn't make that a given. I am under no illusion that my ITIL Foundation certification is evidence of anything more than being informed well enough to understand the general subject matter. Certainly, it is not proof of any functional capability.

An added consideration is that wholesale acceptance of any single point of view can lead to a level of groupthink that stifles objective consideration of emerging innovative approaches that challenge accepted doctrine. Certification is a mechanism for indoctrination into a narrowly defined approach to a broader discipline. Where would we be today with the success rate of technology projects of new ideas like Scrum had been given more honest consideration years ago? Bear in mind that large international governing bodies that control the certification content and process tend to respond to change at a glacial pace, and only then when massive amounts of energy are constantly applied.

So, the real question is, is that the path that ITIL wants to go down? What is the objective of their methodology and associated certification process — to educate, or to verify capability and expertise? More likely, was the original goal for certification to drive further understanding of ITIL principles, thus adoption, adaptation and use? If that is the case, is "certification" the right term, or service, to offer? Referring back to the article, if someone goes through five days of classroom instruction and passes a section exam, does THAT constitute enough knowledge to manage a service that controls how money flows through a major bank? I suggest that ultimately it is the responsibility of individual organizations to assess and foster technological competency, methods and approaches using whatever standards it deems appropriate for their situation. There is no shortage of regulatory bodies to asses the results.

In the final analysis, OGC is a UK government entity that produced a very good body of work that has been held up as a model for others to use. I'm sure they never set out nor expected their results to have the degree of impact that is has had in the IT industry. But, should they be in the business of defining a singular worldwide approach to IT service management and certification? What should be role of itSMF or similar dot.org in this, compared to for-profit companies that provide the instruction and testing? Given the whole proposed certification scheme as Ms. Tucci reports it, you just have to wonder — are foxes in the hen house?

Comments

[The IT Skeptic]

Great artcile thank you.

itSMF will never play a part in this. Contrary to popular perception, itSMF does not exist to represent ITIL users. itSMF exists, by its own definition, to "advance Service Management". In practice, itSMF represents the interests of the vendors above those of the members; itSMF is about advancing the market.

As for OGC, not only are they embarassed and uncomfortable to find themselves in charge of such a beast, but they have outsourced the ownership of the whole certification space to APMG, a for-profit entity. APMG steer the creation of certification using a panel of "senior examiners" all of whom are by defintion in the training industry and most of whom are from the big vendors (HP, CA, BMC, Fox IT, Pink Elephant...)

Foxes aren't in the hen-house: they manage it and they are designing the new hen-house.

[Ian Clayton]

Terry

Very well written and thought out article. The ITIL Qualification Scheme has NEVER been a complete item. The V2 scheme suffered for years from an incomplete strategy at the practitioner level. The Foundation and Manager worked well, even if the exams were funky. Anyway, history is repeating itself it seems. Time this 'responsibility' was run by the profession, and not by a market led organization.

[projectmanagement04]

Project management certification and accreditation is determined by the passing of two exams. The Foundation exam is a multiple-choice test that lasts for up to one hour. The Practitioner test is a bit more complex, mixing in objective testing with multiple-choice questions, and clocking in at approximately three hours.