The IT Skeptic - Comments for "Rant vs counter-rant: the ITIL V3 Certification Scheme"

after the goldrush

skeptic — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:24:15 +0000

Like all goldrushes (e-commerce, iPhone apps ...) ITIL training is turning into a tough slog. The industry (and the consumers?) has devalued the product to a commodity. Add to that the recession and everyone has to battle. Most of the gold-miners gave up in winter.

I don't share Chris's gloomy view of ITSM's future though. ITIL's days may or may not be numbered but ITSM is here to stay, as one castor of the seat of IT Management.

Watch Out!

kengon — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:00:38 +0000

Next thing you know, you're going to have training companies knocking down your door wondering how they can make money "hand over fist"!!

Last I recall hearing, it doesn't seem like the pickup rates (via testing numbers) on the core products indicate that to be what's really happening.

Be Thankful

ServiceSphere — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:01:24 +0000

Can't we be happy that people somewhere out there are making money hand over fist on a scheme that doesn't measure shit as we watch our ITSM world pass away. Come on, we have at least 5 years left let these organizations rake in millions/billions of dollars to give to their children to spend. The children that will never know a world of ITSM. Be thankful that we live in a world where you can sell shit to anyone because "That's what everyone is doing".

I miss being called 'someone

riCh chestMat — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:46:36 +0000

I miss being called 'someone who has the ITIL Manager's Certificate'. Well actually I suppose that's still true. How about 'someone who who holds the ITIL v3 Expert Certificate' as a compromise for the time being? That way I'm not pretending to be an expert but merely someone who picked up a piece of paper that has the word 'expert' printed on it.

Expert is only a label that ...

CyberJMC66 — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:12:05 +0000

Rob/Ken - ABSOLUTELY agree, Expert is not a good "test for" label..

=====
From Wikipedia; An expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status "by their peers" or "the public" in a specific "well-distinguished domain". An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study.
=====

I have always held that if a customer or colleague wants to call me an expert, that's great, but I will never call myself one (even if I ever do take the bridge test). "Expert" is a relative term and should be something as stated above - broadly accepted by peers or publicly. I think more importantly, "expertise" isn't going to result from what you know, it's going to be based on how you apply and use what you know in real world situations. Did the outcomes result from your expertise in the matter? Expertise should be and has been in my experience, a result of results and outcomes in customer and colleague terms that were not part of a test.

When an "Expert" witness is called to the stand in a court case, their expertise is challenged by the other legal team since they will be providing "opinion" even if they were not witnesses to the case.. I don't think "I passed a test" would pass the legal definition of an expert.

John M. Clark

Topic Worthy Of Discussion...

kengon — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:48:30 +0000

I'm glad you posted this. I think it's a topic worthy of discussion. I have a number of thoughts on it, but let me launch off with a few high level ones:

1. What the IQS should be should be driven by what's in the best interest of the consumer (applicant/professional) and the CUSTOMER (who pays the bills and gets the value)

2. There's nothing wrong with volunteers preparing questions or participating in the design, provided that:

Someone versed in instructional and exam design helped establish the foundation upon which the curricula and exams are based
The people who create questions are taught how to follow the design guidelines
They actually follow the rules during the construction
Quality and conformance testing is used to assure that all of the design guidelines have been met.

From what I can tell, there's nothing about any of these points reflected in how the current testing scheme was established. Just using the term "Blooms Taxonomy" in a document and actually following the guidelines it represents are worlds apart.

3. On the ITIL Expert moniker, I agree with you. It's little more than a resume differentiator to the holder and potentially misleading to a customer. I talked about this a little bit in the ServiceSphere podcast that I did with Chris Dancy, Matt Hooper and Steve Chambers. If you're an "expert" you had better have the knowledge and experience to back that up. Ideally, the governing organization has established a set of standards that are used to evaluate someone against that are as free from bias as possible that serves as the foundation for the "credential". It would take into account necessary prerequisites to qualify, knowledge standards, behavioral and performance objectives. Have someone pass one of those and I'd happily endorse the use of the term "expert".

kengon