The IT Skeptic - Comments for "ITIL Software Scheme comes under more fire"

or Joseph Heller

Charles T. Betz — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:45:28 +0000

"What Monty Python could have done with this beggars the imagination."

Or Joseph Heller... (Catch-22). Rewritten with apologies...

There was only one catch and that was Catch-1T1L, which specified that seeking to comply with the 1T1L standard was the goal of a credible vendor seeking to sell software.

Supporting standardization means supporting a process which defines and publicizes unambiguous standards. All ServSofCo had to do was ask for 1T1L standardization and as soon as they participated, they would no longer be participating in a standards process and wouldn't be credible. ServSofCo would be credible to ask for certification and not credible as soon as they got it, but if they didn't get it they wouldn't be credible. If they were certified they'd be not credible and if they weren't certified they wouldn't be able to sell software because they wouldn't be credible."

Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-1T1L and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-1T1L," Yossarian observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

Charles T. Betz
http://www.erp4it.com

grasp of principles

skeptic — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:49:17 +0000

APMG are a UK national accreditation agency. the fact that they signed up to a scheme with a secret proprietary standard demonstrates their grasp of those principles enshrined in the standards you reference.

ITIL Software Scheme comes under more fire

Peter Hill — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:07:06 +0000

For a certification scheme to be legitimate, it should at least comply with ISO 17021 and 19011. The basic requirement is that the compliance criteria and the audit criteria are publically available. If both are not published for all to see and evaluate, then the scheme is of no value. Ideally, the scheme should be registered and regularly inspected by a national accreditation agency. Transparency is the name of the game.

ITIL's long history of secrecy and inner-circle dealings

John Long — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:54:47 +0000

No offense to Aiden, but ITIL has long been subject to a secretive development process. The last revision was developed by a small number of contributors and reviewers who were selected by an unknown process. It seems ironic to now complain about the secrecy involved in the development of the ITIL Software Scheme.

Actual standards (as opposed to best practices) can take a long time to develop due to the lengthy nature of collaboration, consensus, and openness. However, at least there's a trail and history that can be followed to determine how you got there

too much prior art

skeptic — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:56:17 +0000

Luckily, no they can't patent, there is too much prior art. but Mickeysoft are trying to patent CMDB... amongst many other things.

Nor can OGC claim copyright over terms such as incident management or change. in fact ITIL is so generic I wonder just what they can enforce beyond specific phrasing (and the name "ITIL" itself of course, which is trademarked)

Kaching Kaching! goes the cash registers.

perthboy — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:45:21 +0000

I can see the future.The first step, we pay for compliance and certification.....
Then one day someone at OGC/ APMG wises up and realises they can patent the service management concept and charge us all not just for the tools and books but for actually using ITIL on a daily basis. :)

ITIL Compliance

Steven De Smet — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:31:26 +0000

Oh well, ITIL Compliance is just a buzz word invented by those clever marketing boys. It is too hard to them and for most of the "ITIL-tool" searching customers to really get into the objectives of ITIL. So they just create a new language, full of easy to comprehend and direct solutioness, out of the boxy and plug and playful words to generated business...

Where was it written that IT must talk to their customer in their business language ;)

Nuts!

DavidM — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:03:57 +0000

I've had a problem with this entire scheme (and it reads like one) ever since they announced the pilot assessment was performed by a group with a prior relationship with the company that submitted software for certification. Tainted!!!

This doesn't help!

I'd be happier with a Supports ITIL Processes and a mandatory list, but ITIL compliant? I'd also like to see a Supports ITIL Lifecycle as a higher level of certification.

Oh, did I mention lifecycle?

NUTS!

David

that's not ITIL compliance!

skeptic — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:17:30 +0000

Ah but Liz, OGC and APMG are tying themselves in knots to avoid saying "ITIL compliant". It is "process compliant".

You can't comply to ITIL but apparently you can comply to one process of ITIL even though there is no standard to certify against.

But that's not ITIL compliance! Ooooo my word no! nothing like it, quite different yes indeed! tut-tut for getting two such different concepts confused.

You are in good company though.

SMCG, creator of the scheme and first assessor:

an ITIL product compliance scheme to audit Vendor products, documentation and processes against the published best practices of ITIL ... a new compliance Standard... vendors can apply to have their products audited for ITIL compliance. Products which meet the compliance standard will be awarded an ITIL Compliant OGC approved Trademark... The “ITIL Product Compliant scheme will consist of several tiers... Tier 1: ITIL Compliant – Bronze ...

BMC, the first company certified:

the first ITIL compliant certification from the UK Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and the APM Group.

and again

BMC helps customers achieve ITIL® compliance without complexity
...to ensure customers receive an ITIL compliance solution “out of the box.”

CA, one of the first batch of companies to be certified, on the same APMG page as you quoted, the official announcement of the scheme:

Robert Sterbens, Sr. Director Product Marketing, CA Inc, said: "CA found SMCG's ITIL Product Compliance assessment to be..."

Public Sector FLEX (British Government initiaitve, this doc on OGC website):

Service Desk... ITIL compliant.

Butler Group

OGC to Endorse an ITSM Tool ITIL-Compliance Assessment

They're all wrong you see? There's no such thing as "ITIL compliant"

One ring to rule them all....

LBrewster — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:03:00 +0000

At the itSMF-USA conference in Dallas, TX this week, the ITIL Software
Scheme was announced:
http://www.best-management-practice.com/?FO=1274034&DI=620145

Of particular annoyance to me is this quote: "The new ITIL software endorsement scheme allows software tool vendors to submit their ITIL based software tools for assessment to a Licensed Software Assessor. Successful recommendations entitle tool vendors to use the official Process Compliant ITIL Swirl logo.". ITIL Compliant??? How on earth can you be compliant with a framework? This will just lead more unsuspecting, unknowing companies into thinking that a tool will save you from all your troubles.
Buy the tool, write your processes to match what the tool does (never mind how you actually do things), and you're "fixed". You are now "compliant".
There is no such thing as ITIL compliant. It can be compatable with ITIL, or be designed to support best practice and improvement initiatives, but this looks way too much like a band-aid, one size fits all approach that will ultimately lead to people not adopting best practice, but simply adopting tools.

Picking a vendor is already

Alex — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:26:48 +0000

Picking a vendor is already a painful process, as all the big boys are all pink verified and that has not seemed to help finding a tool that is as good as it should be, I can't see how a secret certification is going to give me or my clients any assistance whatsoever.

To be frank the neither of the big 2 tools work out of the box anyway, it's not only easy but also standard sales practice to answer every question: "Yes you can do that, but it's not out-of-the box", will that pass the certification?

itSMF is a volunteer organisation

skeptic — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:37:42 +0000

itSMF is a volunteer organisation. We have to make a living too. It seems to me that being a partner in a certification assessor is no worse than being an evangelist for a software vendor or being an author of ITIL books. It's the way it is done that matters, with consultation and transparency and - yes - governance.

Use your vote

JamesFinister — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:52:23 +0000

itSMF has got a balancing act to do, and can only represent the feelings of those members who make their voices heard. I don't always agree with them, but generally I'm happy with the way things are run in the UK and itSMF international.

If people really are unhappy can I suggest the itSMF AGM in November is the place to raise concerns?

James

the ultimate failure of governance

jvbon — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:52:08 +0000

Isn't the chair of the itSMF International Board commercially involved in this? I'd say that if the itSMF International Board allows that, it's definitely the end of the itSMF as a global power. Who would ever trust an organization that supports this?

Ahah

buraddo — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:34:58 +0000

Sounds like my conspiracy theories are starting to come out :)

Brad Vaughan