What do we want from ITIL?

It’s good to see an open and honest update from itSMFi (International) on the progress with the ITILr Update. Basically this is a reminder that the update is a minor one (it’s being called ‘3.1’), that will correct errors and discrepancies and improve the Strategy book in particular. There’s no major changes or re-writes and little if any impact on the training system. Progress is behind time and the books are currently expected early in 2011.

What is interesting about this update is the frank admission that there are problems and failings in the v3 output. It’s suggested that these were caused by the pressures of time, delivery and cost. So the IP content that represents how we should approach projects and service management, was itself victim of the old problem of pressurised delivery, resulting in something that probably doesn’t match early expectations…!

So we’re now at the familiar stage of trying to patch up and fix problems with our ‘system’, that maybe we could have avoided if we’d been given more time and were able to check and match our delivery and quality against expectations and objectives.

It’s easy to be critical here and to suggest that we should have our house better in order, in order to set out the best example. I’m more interested however in getting the debate going around what we really want from the whole structure that is ITIL, because in my opinion, it has lost its way in its current form.

V2 needed updating – definitely – as there were many gaps. However most of these gaps were usually filled by common sense and good project management. The V3 project was very ambitious and aimed to take ITIL to new areas of IT and business – there are some new areas that have been successful:

• Lifecycle approach
• Portfolio Management – including service catalog
• More role definitions
• Taking a more strategic approach

However the format and style of many of the books was over-egged, the training system is overcomplicated and unnecessary, and there are still many questions and issues about how all the processes relate in terms of practical implementation. Most of all the core processes are not changed much so the result is that very few organisations are actually doing this stuff. The only real tangible way of measuring and demonstrating ITSM delivery is ISO/IEC 20000, which we should really focus on more and use in our projects as a target.

Going forward
So what should V4 look like – do we really need this at all?

I’d say we do, but only if this means that we can simplify both the content and the format. If we have another mega-project we will probably end up with another well-meant but complicated and confusing cauldron of ideas.

In particular we need to be clear about the messages for IT and business around the value that is actually delivered by ITIL – this has become more of an issue and CIOs are ever-more challenging about what they get for their money.

I’ve been doing ITSM projects for 25 years and I don’t think that this stuff needs to be voluminous and complicated – a lot of ITSM is common sense and practical experience and we need to re-capture that, albeit with an up-to-date approach.

I really think there should be a small author group – perhaps only 1 real author – who first confer and consult on the themes and content – as well as the approach. Once this is done they should be allowed to write a consistent, compelling and most of all concise book (yes just 1 book).

Maybe we also need to think about writing for particular audiences – so maybe there’s a book for consultants (which can be as complicated and convoluted as you like), one for operational people and a very short set of agreed papers and benchmark-based metrics for business people.

But – like all good projects – we need to be clear and get a consensus about what it is we are trying to achieve. If we don’t have that, how can we possibly be successful…?!

The problem of course is the diversity of the ITSM community, its vested interests and the resultant potential for discord. However most good ITSM people I know are actually good at getting agreement and consensus – so surely we can do this as an industry – can’t we…?