The IT Skeptic - Comments for "ITIL Software Endorsement Scheme dropped on an unsuspecting public"

Interest noted!

clickspice — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:33:18 +0000

John

Confirming Email received

Awaiting the further interest from others in order to proceed

Alec Dorling
ISO/IEC 15504 Convener

I am interested !

John Worthington aka MySvcMon — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:32:12 +0000

I've sent you an e-mail to the address in your post; and am gathering interested candidates at this time. I am already a member of SPICE; mySPICE page is at: http://www.spiceusergroup.org/profile/John

Anyone interested in joining please contact me.

John M. Worthington
MyServiceMonitor, LLC

Contributing to ISO/IEC 15504 IT SM PAM

clickspice — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:10:22 +0000

There is another way to contribute to the development of the ISO/IEC 15504 IT Service Management PAM .... read on

If there would be a minimum of five people wishing to contribute to the development of the ISO/IEC 15504 IT Service Management PAM, the SPICE User Group can set up such a group. The SPICE User Group has a formal liaison, can contribute comments that have to be addressed by the working group, and can send delegates to ISO meetings.

The conditions would be that
1) such a group would establish a coordinator who must coordinate comments and present a consensus viewpoint
2) all members of such a group shall join the SPICE User Group (free membership - just goto the official web site and join http://www.spiceusergroup.org )
3) all members of such a group would be asked to contribute USD 50 per annum for access to all ISO documents and collaborative communication infrastructure

If there is any interest in doing this then please contact info@spiceusergroup.org

Note also the following
a) ISO/IEC 15504 is in a revision cycle starting May 2009 - there is still a chance to influence the future architecture and development
ISO/IEC 15504 is expected to become the ISO/IEC 31001 series of standards, externally developed PRMs/PAMs will be able to be forwarded as PAS and fastracked for registration with the standard
b) a new standard has been approved for developed on Conformity Assessment for process capability and organisational maturity
c) there is already an assessment and certification infrastructure in place through the PATHFINDER scheme

Alec Dorling
ISO/IEC 15504 convener

Quality control...

GetOffMyLawn — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:59:08 +0000

Given APMG's inability to create syllabi and exams that are typo-free and easy to understand, I can only imagine what kind of half-assed, sloppy thing this is going to look like.

I may be an ITIL Expert, but I am not at all impressed with APMG.

APMG make further annnouncement re ITIL Compliance

skeptic — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:11:00 +0000

APMG have now pre-announced the ITIL Software Scheme - why not? itSMF and SMCG already have.

software endorsement scheme approved by the OGC... entitle tool vendors to use the official Process Compliant ITIL Swirl logo.... tool has been reviewed for compliance with the ITIL brand... compliance with the ITIL processes. "

Uses the word "compliance" twice and "Compliant" witha capital "C" once, so pretty clear what they are assessing. But the word "standard" has been dropped in favour of compliance with a "brand". Hmmmm.

And still no word on the origins of the "brand" criteria. So we continue to wait for "OGC ...official press release closer to the time whereby further information on the scheme will be available".

Glad to hear it

JamesFinister — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:46:19 +0000

John, the ony way to get directly involved is indeed via your national standards body. Most, I suspect, would welcome specific service management input. And it does involve a lot of trouble and effort to devlop a robust standard. Of course if you are OGC you just ......no I won't say anymore.

James Finister
Wolston Limited
www.wolston.net
www.coreITSM.com
http://coreitsm.blogspot.com/

re: good news...

John Worthington aka MySvcMon — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:42:00 +0000

That IS good news! I tried to get involved (via SPICE) in the development of the PAM for ISO20K but was unable to. I guess I have to go through ANSI in the US and it became more trouble than it was worth. I did have some time and was hoping to contribute, (as well as get a sneak peek at was was brewing).

If you know of any way I can get more involved in the effort, I'd be willing to help (or at least add my 2 cents). I actually started developing a 15504-based PAM for Event Management but dropped it; if you're doing it alone you're doing it wrong anyway...

Keep us posted; this is an important deliverable!

John M. Worthington
MyServiceMonitor, LLC

Then I've got good news for you|!

JamesFinister — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:17:19 +0000

John,

OK now I understand what you mean I've got good news for you. The current work on building a capability model as an addition to IS0 20000 is indeed aligned with ISO 15504. I've got a spreadsheet in front of me showing how they map on to each other

James Finister
Wolston Limited
www.wolston.net
www.coreITSM.com
http://coreitsm.blogspot.com/

I don't think you're confused...

kengon — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:17:56 +0000

John,

For what it's worth, I don't think that you are confused. I think it's a good thing that you're bringing this up into the conversation. I think we need to be looking deeper into what standards activity can provide to us, even (especially?) if they are not "IT" standards. For example, ISO 12207 and 15288 offer some excellent insights into life cycle management and enabling processes. There's lots of benefit that can be gained, for those willing to invest the time and stay open enough to find it.

kengon

I admit it may be me who is confused ....

John Worthington aka MySvcMon — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:37:43 +0000

I admit it may be me who is confused .... From what I can figure out based on my research of ISO 15504, it is a standard that specifically addresses how to assess processes. Not just the SDLC processes, but ANY process, and because of that is is indeed pretty general.

However the thought of having ITIL/ISO20000, CMMI-SVC, et al all be 'compliant' with ISO15504 --- even if the Process Reference Models and Process Assessment Models are specific to each framework --- just seems like a really good idea. I get it now that ISO15504 for standalone use may not be that valuable, which is why I am eager to see the 15504-8 exemplar. Wouldn't that be the closest thing we have to a V3 self assessment?

I can also see how many clients could benefit from understanding ISO's view of process maturity, and why any process reference/assessment model should be consistent with the ISO 15504 standard. I just don't get the feeling there is much consistency around how people assess processes. In addition, I am thinking (wrongly perhaps) that if we had 15504 compliant PRMs and PAMs for various frameworks (ITIL, CobiT, et al) then it would be much easier to mix and match and compare assessment criteria from the various guidance.

Finally, while you may train assessors on multiple assessment approaches, wouldn't you need them to have a 'foundation' (poor choice of words?) in the underlying assessment standard? I have seem 15504 referenced as a 'harmonizing' standard; that's not from me (both SPICE and SEI I believe used those words).

Because of ISO15504's long association with SPICE and historically tight linkage to software processes, along with it being used primarily by framework suppliers to build 'conformant' assessment models (are they building conformant assessment models?) it is largely ignored by customers.

It just seems like it might be nice to know the underlying basis of the various "methodologies" to assessment, especially those that may be a bit too 'creative' in their approach. I blogged on 15504 at : Exit here for Standards-Based Process Assessment if you're interested in more of my blathering....

Customers focusing on 'tools for tool selection', when they have done very little to understand process....is that what we're teaching now? The process work can be much more difficult, take longer to do effectively and directs you to cultural change (pain), and given the choice most will avoid it.

I like the fact that 15504 is not specific to any particular framework or guidance. Constantly going back to the basics, using a standard like ISO15504, doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. We don't need people to focus more on tools; they'll do that without our help. Investing in a non-proprietary (standards-based) process improvement/assessment approach seems less sexy (and perhaps less fun), but may pay off more in the long term.

John M. Worthington
MyServiceMonitor, LLC

PinkVerify criteria free to download

skeptic — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:11:00 +0000

Well now, here's an interesting thing. (Yes I have verified this post is indeed from David Ratcliffe, President of Pink Eelphant).

So what Pink are selling is the PinkVerify logo, the service of verifying against their criteria. We understand that. What I for one had forgotten is that the criteria are available for download. Of course the criteria are copyright so you can't run off and start your own assessment service without Pink permission, but you can use them yourself in-house as David says.

One assumes that SMCG's criteria will also be public information, especially since they are a standard. So the same arguments apply.

The market will decide which logo (and which fee) it prefers. Or whether it even cares: we will watch with interest to see how oiften either verification is a mandatory buying requirement.

My concern with both is that if they make it too stringent the vendors can't get it so they don't try and if they make it too easy then it is just a rubber stamp and doesn't tell you much. Guess which side I think both these verifications err on.

Disclosure: I have been in private correspondence with David because I am a speaker at the next Pink Elephant conference in Las Vegas in 2010. Since I have already spoken at four itSMF conferences worldwide I think I can demonstrate that it will not affect my impartiality :D

cool with the concept - part 2

David (a Pinker) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:05:08 +0000

Skep, before you get carried away with the idea of a free tool assessment, don’t forget, PinkVerify is free too. It’s free to anyone wanting to look at the list (as opposed to Gartner’s Magic Quadrant). And the assessment criteria is free to anyone – including vendors - to download.

In fact, there’s nothing stopping either the enthusiastic Access/Excel designer of a home-grown tool, or a real-live commercial vendor from doing their own PinkVerify assessment, and then bragging about the results afterwards.

In fact, if a vendor:
1. ONLY wanted to do that.
2. And NOT have Pink do the independent verify.
3. And then publicly claim that their tool supports xx processes on the PinkVerify list - without having our endorsement to prove it.
We really don’t have a problem with that.

As practitioner (potential vendor customer) I’d then simply say to that vendor:
1. So you haven’t asked Pink to do the independent verify.
2. And that's why your tool isn’t on the PinkVerify page.
3. But you claim to meet the requirements anyway.
4. Because the PinkVerify assessment criteria is freely available for anyone to download.
5. So you’ve done the self-assessment and came up with the confirmation that you WOULD have been PinkVerified.
6. OK - show me!
And if that vigilant practitioner was confident enough to judge that the demo really does replicate the vendor’s claim (which isn't really too difficult – they just have to follow the same assessment process) then – voila! The practitioner can add the tool to their short-list, even though it’s not on the PinkVerify page.

Keep in mind the first step for a vendor to get official PinkVerify status is that they must download the criteria and do their own self-assessment anyway. That's what they're instructed to do first, before asking us to do the independent assessment.

So all of the above can happen with no money coming Pink’s way at all, and I have no problem with that. Our purpose with PinkVerify was not to make a living from it, but to help customers short-list tools and help vendors show that they've taken ITIL into account when building their products.

Money only changes hands when the vendor asks us to do the independent verify of their self-assessment. And if they meet the requirements - we put them on the web site and permit them to use the logo. Depending on how many processes are involved it could take from half a day up to 2 days to do this independent assessment.

There is more work done on Pink's part, but I'll not bore you with that here. But if you really want to know what else we get up to in administering the PinkVerify web pages, I've explained a bit more on my blog at - http://blogs.pinkelephant.com/president - just look for the recent posting "Why PinkVerify?" I'll stop here as I don't want this to sound too much like a commercial - I just wanted to explain that people can use the PinkVerify stuff without actually paying Pink, or even contacting Pink, at all.

fuITILity

skeptic — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:13:04 +0000

"fuITILity"? You and me need to work together on RealITee, the next version http://www.realitsm.com/realitee

I'm pretty sure an OGC-branded assessment stands a better chance of becoming a standard buying criteria.

People have wanted a standard for a long time. I too want it. I'd even like to have a say in it, and be able to read it and refer to it, or - gosh - agree on it, like a real standard.

It is extraordinarily British isn't it? Standards by decree. Does ISO know about this? This could save so much time and messy discussion....

Caroline, you are right. I'm tempted to throw a tea party

Rodrigo Flores — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 19:23:59 +0000

Caroline, you make an excellent point.
Speaking as a vendor and as a software start up entrepreneur, I can tell you that smaller, innovative, open source and hosted-type of vendors will ignore this kind of certification due to cost and perceived-bureaucracy. Unless the customer makes it a buying criteria, they serve no purpose.

How would a scheme like this help? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. It'd be more like a tax. Taxes can be good things if they build infrastructure for our ITSM society--we'd all benefit. But a tax is bad if it goes only to sustain a bureaucracy that provides no real service.

i'm familiar with Pink Verify. I think it serves to educate the market of high level requirements, but it's not a standard, doesn't really serve for RFP's, and at best serves to get a list of vendors. But then, so does Google.

I have not had our software "Verified" -- and never had a customer have an issue with it. It's simply not a buying criteria.

Also, as founder of newScale, we've been doing service catalog and service request software since 2000. ITIL v3 added Request and catalog in 2007. So what would a scheme like the one proposed add? Where would the expertise come from? Are they software architects? Are they running software catalog systems today? If not, then I wonder how a customer gets value from that scheme.

There's a real need to for standards in the ITSM tool world. I'm working on one right now, and the level of detail, definition and work necessary is tremendous. The interoperability standards take time and major investment from vendors. These proposed certifications would not help with those problems.

Having said that, Skep. As a (Latin)-American colonial, I'm always fascinated with how the British Empire practices live on; the queen of England will certify my ITIL-ity? :) No wonder the Brits invented Monty Python!

I'm tempted to throw a tea party for the ministry of fuITILity. (Hey, I just came up with Skepic!)

Confused

JamesFinister — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:05:58 +0000

John, I'm a little confused why you keep mentioning ISO15504. The next version of ISO 20000 will harmonise across all the ISO standards it touches on. 15504 is a very, very general standard. In practical terms I don't think it adds that much value

James Finister
Wolston Limited
www.wolston.net
www.coreITSM.com
http://coreitsm.blogspot.com/

'Standard' Chum in shark-infested waters

John Worthington aka MySvcMon — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:03:44 +0000

Tactics like this, and the emergence of competing frameworks, will drive the need for a harmonizing standard like ISO15504.

See 'Standard' Chum in Shark-infested waters

John M. Worthington
MyServiceMonitor, LLC

cool with the concept

skeptic — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:37:20 +0000

The objective of such an assessment, same as PinkVerify, is just to help build the shortlist, not pick the final choice. It is a crude broad-compliance assessment that sorts the sheep from the Access databases. As I said, I'm cool with the concept. I'd have been a lot happier if we built a real standard. Still, if anyone can write a standard maybe its time I released my own ITIL assessment compliance program that I've been toying with for a year. Difference is mine is free.

What type of a standard

mbuzina — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:39:33 +0000

Is a simple paid for service, that assigns a bronze, silver or gold plaque to a tool a standard? Are the IT service providers so similar and interchangeable that a single tool standard can be defined? Will a tool that receives a gold "standard" which targets an IT service provider that provides datacenter services to 500 different clients in the banking sector be gold "standard" for a shop that provides internal deskside support for a large enterprise with 120.000 PCs?

ITIL can be a standard because it does not go into too much detail. Tools need the details. A single role called change manager can be a single person with a single backup in one organization and can be 10 teams of 10 people each for another organization. How could a single tool be a good fit for both unless you customize like "hell"?

I would welcome a criteria and target list of what each tool does and how well it does it. But that is not a single badge but a complicated assessment with a complicated result. Easy answers sell best, even if they do not fit the question.

what constitutes a standard

skeptic — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:26:02 +0000

Yes, OGC, APMG and itSMFI are all demonstrating a total ignorance of what constitutes a standard. Actually, knowing many of the parties involved, let me rephrase that. APMG and itSMFI either do not understand or are wilfully ignoring what a real standard is. Standards are agreed not decreed.

This is yet another commercial verification, that just happens to be run by the owners of ITIL.

I welcome a standard

Mark — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:52:04 +0000

I welcome a standard demonstrating tools adherdance or alignment (not compliance) to ITIL. Caroline, you mention some of the benefits.
The problem here looks like it is a single pesons view that becomees the standard.