A vision for ITIL

examSince the UK Government transferred ITIL (and the rest of their best management practice portfolio) to AXELOS there have been lots of suggestions about what they should change. I’ve been involved in discussions about the future of ITIL with many people, face-to-face and in social media, and there is clearly a lot of passion as well as many creative ideas. This article is my contribution to the ongoing debate.

Three is the magic number

When I think about ITIL, I think of three distinct things, and it is really important to distinguish these, and to make sure we plan what is needed for each of them.

  1. A body of knowledge that can be used by IT organizations to help them create value for their customers. This body of knowledge is available in the form of five core publications, plus a number of complementary publications, but I think of knowledge as something that lives in people, that they can use to do something useful. In this sense, ITIL really is owned by the huge community of service management practitioners who use it to inform decisions about how they will plan, build and run IT services.
  2. A collection of training courses that people attend to develop their knowledge, understanding and competence. These courses are based on the ITIL publications, and often lead to certification, but they are distinct from both of those. The purpose of the training should be to help people develop knowledge, understanding and competence that they can use to help them improve how they manage IT services to create value for their organizations or customers.
  3. A set of exams that are used to certify that people satisfy the requirements of specific syllabuses. These exams are used to demonstrate that people have knowledge of ITIL when applying for jobs or tendering for contracting opportunities.

One mistake I have seen in many discussions is to confuse two of these things. If we don’t look at the requirements for each of them separately then we will never plan well, but if we plan them each independently that won’t work either!

Here is what I would like to see in each area.

Body of Knowledge

The body of knowledge has a number of problems which should be addressed in a future release.

  • It needs to adapt to a rapidly changing world. It doesn’t offer sufficient guidance in areas such as Supplier Integration and Management (SIAM), integration across the service lifecycle (ITIL service design has virtually nothing about application development for example), management of complex virtual and cloud environments, and many other areas. It would be great if ITIL could adopt ideas such as Rob England’s Standard+Case for example.
  • Even though the 2011 edition fixed many inconsistencies, there are still some contradictions between how terms are used in the different publications and how inputs, outputs and interfaces are defined.
  • The books are very long, and somewhat repetitive. It is a huge challenge for most people to actually read them!

The ITIL body of knowledge also has a number of great features which I would hate to lose. Probably the best feature of ITIL is that it is NOT a standard, it is a narrative. It tells stories and provides examples of how other organizations have done things that can be copied. Any future development of ITIL must retain this narrative approach.

I think we could resolve the issues with the ITIL body of knowledge by defining a service management architecture. This could be done at a fairly high level and would allow us to simultaneously define a lifecycle, and processes, and many other views and ways of thinking about service management.

The architecture could show how the bits fit together without providing excessive detail of how each part works. We could then charter authors to write narrative that fits within the architecture. This would retain the narrative approach that ITIL does so well but put it within a more formal structure which would improve consistency.

It would also allow for different narratives that could even contradict each other, that fit within the same architecture. For example there might be different descriptions of incident management for use in a complex multi-supplier environment and an in-house IT department.

I don’t think we should be in too much of a hurry to create a new version of ITIL, it’s more important to get this stuff right than to get it fast, but I would love to see AXELOS working towards this vision of a properly architected approach to IT service management, especially if they can adopt the ideas I have previously suggested in ITSM Knowledge Repository – proposal for ITIL owners to ensure that we get input from the widest possible community of ITSM practitioners.

Training Courses

I see many different problems with ITIL training courses:

  • In my opinion they are too focused on the exams rather than on helping people to develop knowledge, understanding and competence. There are some very good training providers, but price pressure in the market drives many of them towards lower cost, shorter, exam-focussed courses.
  • People often leave the courses with a complete misunderstanding of what ITIL is, and how it could be used to help create value for their customers.
  • Due to the above issues, many people think that ITIL is a rigid framework of bureaucratic processes, this leads to some very poor practices that don’t provide value to anyone.
  • Very large numbers of people attend ITIL Foundation, which is often simply an exercise in cramming facts. There is a lot of material to learn in a fairly short time, and only a very talented trainer can motivate people to really care about creating value for customers while communicating this amount of information in the time available.
  • Almost all of the courses focus on ITIL exam syllabuses. These may not be appropriate for everybody in the organization, and many people would be better off with more focused training that teaches them how the things they do contribute value and how they could improve their practices.

There are a number of things that could be done to improve ITIL training. I would like to see more training organizations provide courses that focus on how ITIL can be used to create value, rather than on fact-cramming. I love the ITSM simulations created by G2G3 (and other organizations), and I am very encouraged that Capita (the majority owner of AXELOS) now also own G2G3.

I think the main thing that is needed to improve ITIL training is to somehow separate it from the exam system. We could do with some really good marketing of non-examined training courses that help practitioners develop the knowledge, understanding and competence that they need to create value for their customers.

Exams

I don’t think the ITIL exams  should be changed in the short term. It will take a long time to create a new version of ITIL, especially if AXELOS follow the suggestions I have made above, and I think that making significant changes to the exam system before there is a new version of ITIL would create significant problems for the market. It would take more than a year to create a new exam system, and training organizations would then have to create new courses.

There would be confusion over the value of the retired exams; training organizations would incur a huge expense to create new courses for the same expected revenue; and if there is an expectation of a new version of ITIL in 3 to 5 years then the ITIL exam market may stall completely. These issues are amplified by the need to release exams and training courses in many languages to support the worldwide community.

In parallel with work to create a new version of ITIL, I think that AXELOS should work with all the stakeholders in the exam system to understand what is working well and what could be improved. The first step of this should be to identify the correct stakeholders. We talk to exam institutes and training organizations, but spend far too little time trying to understand the needs of the organizations that use ITIL. AXELOS should talk to a wide range of IT organizations, IT recruiters, outsourcers and other users of IT service management about what they want from an exam system.

In summary

I think we should be working towards releasing a new version of ITIL, based on a formal architecture, in 3 to 4 years, and I think we should create a new exam system at the same time. Meanwhile we should help create more value in the short term by creating more innovative training courses that are not solely focused on the exams.

Image credit

Future of ITIL workshop – some shared feedback

Word Cloud of all feedback from attendees Not just feedback listed in this article
Word Cloud of all feedback from attendees
Not just feedback listed in this article

Following on from the two-day AXELOS workshop, ITSM Review reached out to the attendees with three simple questions:

  • How did the workshop go?
  • What were the key achievements?
  • What do you think are the key opportunities for the future?

We also asked the AXELOS team to summarize their thoughts from the two days.  The following article is an overview of everyone’s responses – common points made by attendees have been moved to the introductory paragraph of each section.

So, how was it?

The workshop was deemed a great first step from AXELOS (and hopefully the first of many). It was a dynamic, open and customer centric series of discussions and debates, which were received well by all those who provided feedback.

“Good to feel part of a team – level of consensus very encouraging”Ivor MacFarlane, IBM

“The workshop was wonderful, it was a great opportunity to participate with other thought leaders”Anthony Orr, BMC

“It was exciting. I’m now much more optimistic about the future of ITIL”Claire Agutter, ATO Council

“It was refreshingly forward thinking. I felt that my input was listened to and all divergent views were given respect”Sharon Taylor, Aspect Group Inc

“It was great to see AXELOS’ openness and receptiveness to suggestions and feedback from the workgroup for improving the highly successful ITIL framework” – Colin Rudd, itSMF UK

“I really enjoyed sharing thoughts, ideas, challenges and opportunities with other experts and I was amazed by how much consensus there was about most of the issues we faced”Stuart Rance, HP

What were the Key Achievements?

The consensus was that the future of ITIL looks very positive. The collaborative approach was praised and the group felt that there was a real focus on increasing the success and value of ITIL to both businesses and individuals. AXELOS are listening (and they do realize that more input is needed from a wider cross-section of stakeholders from different geographies) and are clearly focused on opportunities to deliver value to the market without radical disruption or alarm. They also realize that market research and communication are critical before making decisions and open dialogue with the community is therefore very important.

“The key achievement for me was the recognition by AXELOS that our community is diverse and complex and that there will need to be extensive consultation and care to avoid unnecessary disruption to the services. It was clear that this is not an exercise of ‘fixing’ ITIL but of actively planning its future evolution to meet needs” – Sharon Taylor, Aspect Group Inc

“The biggest achievement was in listening to the “voice of the customer”, listening to those who actually use ITIL”Andrea Kis, Tata Consultancy Services

“Lots of input provided from different perspectives, covering ITIL content, exams, training and ecosystem” – Stuart Rance, HP

“There was a welcome absence of politics and person agendas, it was all about the success of ITIL”Jayne Groll, ITSM Academy

“The ‘role-diversity’ of attendees allowed us to not only see the bigger ITIL ecosystem but also to offer different perspectives on legacy issues”Stephen Mann, ServiceNow

Where are the Key Opportunities moving forward?

Everybody agreed that AXELOS need to keep the momentum going and must continue to have open communication with ITIL users, stakeholders and the wider community. They need to remain committed to providing visibility of the ‘what’ and ‘why’ behind ITIL moving forward and must ensure that there are no surprises for the market by sharing with us their long term plans.

“There is a real opportunity to elevate value of ITIL to organizations, executives and community as a whole” – Anthony Orr, BMC

“For me, the key opportunity would be the “onion” layers of content that could be available to the community (some for free, some for a fee), including benchmarking and more practical application. Couple this with potential digital technology to deliver dynamic intellectual property and the industry becomes better able to adapt and supplement” – Jayne Groll, ITSM Academy

“The opportunity is to continue to collaborate with ITIL users, stakeholders and the community and use these discussions as a basis to improve and develop a business model that supports timely, well planned, inclusive, transparent and communicated information. The JV model releases former constraints of ITIL management and frees up the innovation opportunities to bring ITIL forward in step with need and not chasing them.” – Aspect Group Inc

“Global-best-practice looks like it could finally become global best practice” – Stephen Mann, ServiceNow

What did AXELOS have to say?

Of all the qualities we might look for in a SAM Managed Services Provider - proven track record is key.
The workshop group on day 2

“The workshops tackled a vast array of content regarding the future of ITIL and PPM, all in a relatively short time.  It was intense but we maintained a positive outlook, stayed focused on the future and left no elephants in the room.

It was good to move from listening to doing, in this case to work through the main priorities that need to be addressed.  We’ll now factor those into the planning process for this year and for 2014 when AXELOS is fully operational.

Key achievements included the development of ideas and concepts like the “Onion” or “Doughnut” (for PPMers) that provides a framework to enable community collaboration, development of modular materials and potentially tackle “two speed ITIL”.  It was also useful to discuss the needs of the wider global community and also what this all means to the end user or practitioner.

Where to next?  Well it’s great to have crossed the start line and now these workshops have provided us with a script for wider stakeholder engagement.  The skill is going to be in maintaining the momentum whilst focusing on the priorities and this is where AXELOS will need to demonstrate leadership.

Overall, great debates, great ideas and great opportunities.” – input provided by Chris Barrett, Director at AXELOS.

In Summary

It’s a great start. There was much consensus, risks and opportunities were agreed, and the two-day event ended on a very positive note.

AXELOS knows that it needs to elicit more, focused input, particularly from other regions, and that communication in general is critical.

So, there is still a lot to do, but on the evidence of this workshop it’s clear that AXELOS is doing all the right things ­– and AXELOS knows that the world is watching and waiting.

Again, if you have an opinion as to the future of ITIL, please respond to this blog or email AXELOS direct. You can also follow what’s happening by looking for their communications on Twitter or Google+

Future of ITIL workshop – a little insight

AXELOS

The following comment piece is contributed by Stuart Rance of HP and Stephen Mann of ServiceNow.

Yesterday a number of ITSM professionals convened in London to talk about the future of ITIL. From the get-go, it was stressed that the purpose of the meeting was to provide input to AXELOS’ thinking and not to make decisions.

Who was involved?

It was a passionate group of people that represented: ITIL authors, examiners, consultants, service providers, vendors, penguins, and AXELOS. The attendees were:

Of all the qualities we might look for in a SAM Managed Services Provider - proven track record is key.
AXELOS CEO, Peter Hepworth and ITSMPenguin

And of course ITSMPenguin. Everyone had opinions and ideas to share and it was a good mix of people.

Some attendees travelled a long way to attend: Anthony from Houston, Sharon from Canada, Jayne from Florida, and Rob Stroud would have attended from New York but for personal reasons. Even though most of the attendees reside in the UK, they work for global organizations and as such have global experience and global views. Not withstanding this, we all agreed on the need for more input across geography, culture, industry, and language.

If you wish to provide your input please respond to this blog (in the comments section) or email AXELOS direct.

Community input

You can already see much of the input from things people have already shared with the ITSM community:

Scope and content of ITIL

The discussions included the scope, content, and structure of both ITIL and the ITIL exam system. And started with people suggesting ideas for strategy and principles for ITIL going forward. It was surprising how long this took (shouldn’t we already know this?) and not unsurprisingly everyone agreed that ITIL should be driven by business and customer needs.

Other suggestion related to:

  • Having a visible set of values
  • Separating architecture and structure from narrative and examples
  • Collaboration with a wide community of practitioners, examiners, trainers, consultants, vendors, and industry bodies across geographic and industry boundaries
  • An emphasis on relevance to end-user organizations
  • Quality being more important than time to market.

From a content perspective, AXELOS introduced the concept of what it calls the “Onion Model”, shown below, that encompasses the previous feedback on how there is a need for different types of content and, importantly, community input to the ongoing development of ITIL.

photo

Where:

  • The centre has the very stable ITIL core
  • The next layer has modular content such as role or industry-specific information
  • And then further layers have more practical content such as templates, guides, and case studies
  • The very outside layer is community owned and community driven with AXELOS and the community curating and promoting this

Content is able to move inwards as it becomes accepted best practice.

                                       Training and exams

Of all the qualities we might look for in a SAM Managed Services Provider - proven track record is key.
The workshop group

We discussed the importance of people, culture, and organizational aspects. In particular the need for more practical guidance about how IT organizations can benefit from the experience of others, and how they can start to gain value from ITIL within their own organization.

There was a lot of passion around training and exams. An interesting point was the absence of guidance on the development of skills such as negotiation and management as part of effective IT service management. Everyone recognized the need to make the exam system more valuable to both individuals and employers. But there was a consensus that that any change requires more input, more time, and needs great care not to disrupt the status quo. Again, if you have an opinion as to the future of ITIL exams, please respond to this blog or email AXELOS direct.

Next steps

Following day two of this workshop (a second blog will follow), AXELOS will continue to seek out global community input.

If you want to follow what’s happening, please look for their communications on Twitter or Google+

As always, thoughts and comments are encouraged.

Capita and ITIL: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

GBU

The Cabinet Office has entered into a joint venture with the outsourcing firm Capita to develop the ‘Best Management Practice’ portfolio, which includes ITIL and Prince2.

For readers outside the UK the early announcements may benefit from some context.

The UK treasury is between a rock and a hard place financially so joint ventures that generate cash from government owned intellectual property, whilst allowing the government to hold (49%) of the coat tails of growth in the future is good publicity.

This explains why most announcements in the popular press or general IT press in the UK have focussed on the ‘cash generated for taxpayers’ angle rather than the implications for ITSM.

“The government expects to earn £500 million over ten years from the deal” Computerworld, 26th April.

Unsubstantiated rumours from SITS13 suggest that APM Group/TSO, Pearson and EXIN/Van Haren were the other companies bidding for the portfolio.

Forgetting where it all started?

I have been interested to see industry veterans and ITSM spokespeople alike bellyaching about the irrelevance of ITIL after the announcement. I find this short-sighted nonsense similar to those irate individuals who get frustrated behind learner drivers.

Is ITIL the ITSM gospel? No. But it is the starting point and development path for a huge amount of individuals in the industry who work in ITSM yet don’t necessarily associate themselves with the ITSM industry.

Is ITIL perfect? No. But everyone has to start somewhere and as a framework for unifying an industry and generally raising standards I would say, in the context of other IT disciplines over the last two decades, it is true success story.

So what does the future hold for ITIL under the stewardship of Capita?

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

Capita – The Good

Capital Plc. is a FTSE 100 publicly listed company with 53,000 staff, which has shown good growth over the last five years despite a grim economic climate.

So it has exactly the right resources required to give the frameworks the attention they deserve. Equally, you could argue that Capita could easily write off the entire mess if it isn’t happy with it without batting an eyelid, but overall a well financed company on the up has to be better than a cash strapped government running the show.

A view echoed by Barclay Rae:

“We should view the investment opportunity as a possible means to further professionalise the approach and delivery of ITIL – moving away from the cottage industry to a proper business model. So hopefully this will mean a more professional and co-ordinated writing and editing approach for consistency, plus I hope e.g. we can see more clear business metrics and data that support the value derived from ITIL”

The UK government spun off the former defence research department (DERA) in 2001 in a similar fashion to form Qinetiq, which is now a FTSE 250 company, pocketing over £250m for the UK taxpayer on exit in 2008. So at first glance the model works if executed correctly.

Just before the announcement of the joint venture, Capita also acquired G2G3. This is a good sign according to Pink Elephant President David Ratcliffe:

“The timing of Capita’s acquisition of G2G3 – just days ahead of the announcement of the partnership with the Cabinet Office – looks to me like Capita may have their act together with a strategy for how to promote and deliver more valuable training in the ITSM field. I just hope I’ve read this correctly and am not setting myself up for a huge disappointment! (Fingers, toes and everything else crossable all crossed!)”

Mark R Sutherland of G2G3 is clearly pleased at the platform this provides his company:

“Capita’s strength, scale and global reach. As part of the Capita family, G2G3 now has access to resources that will help us strengthen and build upon our products and services and bring our latest innovations to life. We are clearly at a ‘tipping point’ with respect to our capabilities; the application of gaming dynamics and experiential learning across enterprise organizations is about to go mainstream – and we’ll be ready to make it happen.”

Mark also makes an interesting point regarding the ITSM industry as a whole:

“a chance to build a future for our industry which is based on community, collaboration and engagement.”

Stuart Rance with ‘Two speed ITIL’ and Stephen Mann with #Back2ITSM may perhaps now get some formal recognition. Is Capita listening? Let’s hope so.

Capita – The Bad.

So far so rosy?

Those outside the UK might not be familiar with the public image of Capita.

Screenshot_02_05_2013_22_11

Capita does not have the strongest reputation. The satirical magazine Private Eye regular refers to ‘Crapita’ as an example of ‘failures and setbacks in the public sector’ and cynics will argue that Capita is an expert at winning tenders rather than delivering them (to be fair I hear this of all outsource companies).

Lost convicts, the CD with everyone’s inside leg measurements or accidently dropping the cat down the well – all archetypal Capita public bungles. Although you could argue that this goes with the territory of managing high profile public services (National census, criminal records, TV licensing, Major city call centre, health and safety executive etc.).  As the saying goes: Where there’s muck there’s brass.

For an industry crying out for more collaboration and industry participation the last thing we need is a big faceless corporate. Especially, as Chris Evans points out, if they take an industry best practice framework and try to apply their own badge to it:

“When any large organisation is involved in something, they will exert a proportionate influence.  Be it an alliance of countries/airlines/software companies, it is inevitable that they will want something out of the deal.  My concern is that ITIL (specifically as it is my day job) which has always been ‘industry’ best practice, might slowly evolve into ‘CapITIL’ where the organisational thinking of the parent company controls the direction of the product.  It is true that Capita as a services provider and outsourcer has a strong perspective on their market and that input will of course be welcome in future development but there is a risk that the model will lean towards their world and not the more holistic picture.”

Capita – The Ugly

Finally, it is worth considering the nature of Capita’s core business.

Capita is a Business Process Outsourcer. So Capita’s competitors might argue that a Burglar Alarm company just bought the Police Station (I’m sure there are more appropriate metaphors). The new joint venture will have a job on its hands to persuade the Accredited Training Organizations and others in the ITIL supply chain of the true vision and motives of the, yet to be named, joint venture company.

As Forrester Analyst Stephen Mann points out:

“Will other IT service providers still want to use something that “advertises” their competitors?”

As an eternal optimist I believe it’s a great move forward for the ITIL cult and ITSM industry as a whole. Exciting times.

For those with ITIL at the core of their day-to-day work – it might be worth considering the following over the next couple of months:

“All great changes are preceded by chaos.” -Deepak Chopra.

Image Credit

Two-speed ITIL – what next?

My recent blog Is it time for a two-speed ITIL? seems to have generated a lot of interest. As well as a large number of replies on The ITSM Review site, there were many tweets and Facebook posts where a wide range of people offered their thoughts and opinions.

A variety of approaches

The overall consensus seems to be that we need a fast-moving online repository of up-to-date IT service management guidance. This repository must be moderated, to ensure the quality of the content, but the moderation should allow for a wide variety of different approaches to be published even if they are not yet considered to be best practice, and even if they contradict generally accepted best practice.

Can we get this off the starting blocks?

This should be part of ITIL

Some people agreed with me that it would be best if this repository is managed as part of the ITIL brand, but others seemed to think it would be better if it were completely separate. There are a number of reasons why I think we should first try to do this as part of ITIL:

  • ITIL has a worldwide reputation as a trusted source of best practice. People may be more likely to contribute content, and to find and use the content contributed by others, if it is seen to be related to ITIL
  • If a small group of ITSM people set up the repository then other people may be less included to contribute, and may choose to set up alternative sites of their own, this could lead to a situation where instead of working together to create value we compete for attention, distracting us from the more important things we should be doing
  • If the repository is part of ITIL then it will be able to provide valuable input to future publications, either as updates to the ITIL core publications or as new complementary publications. This will provide a means of progressing ideas from concept through wider publication to accepted best practice.

I will discuss this idea with the Cabinet Office to see if I can persuade them to make it happen. If they are willing to try this then I will do what I can to help it succeed, but if they don’t want to then I will look around for alternative ways we can make this happen.

A moderated community

I have been thinking about how this repository might work, and I think we should consider some of the following:

  • We must have a transparent governance process, with clear criteria for why contributions will or won’t be accepted
  • We need a fair approach to intellectual property rights, encouraging people to contribute material but making sure that others can reuse it without fear of copyright issues
  • Each contribution should have an associated discussion thread, so that people can help improve the content – either by making improvement suggestions or by reporting the results of their attempts to implement the ideas.
  • We need to decide how maintenance of each contribution will take place. Will new versions of a contribution require approval from the original author, or will there be a process for others to create and edit new versions?

What do you think?

What other features and governance principles do you think we should consider?

I have a daytime job, providing strategic ITSM consulting to HP customers, so I can’t arrange a meeting with the Cabinet Office for a few weeks. Once I have spoken to them I’ll let you all know the outcome.

Image credit: © mezzotint_fotolia – Fotolia.com

Is it time for a two-speed ITIL?

Do we need faster access to new ITIL concepts?

At the UK itSMF conference this month, somebody asked me “What do you think the ITSM community are looking forward to next from ITIL?” As I tried to answer this question I realized that we don’t really have an ITSM community with a shared set of objectives.

We have many different people with different goals and objectives, and we all want different things from ITIL. Over the last few years I have seen an increasing divergence between two distinct groups of ITIL users and I think it will become increasingly difficult for the ITIL we currently have to satisfy both groups.

We all want different things from ITIL

One group includes training organizations, exam institutes, tool vendors, and organizations that have made investments in developing ITIL related solutions. These organizations are looking for stability, so that they can realize some value from the large investments they have made in ITIL related products, services and solutions. There was a major release of ITIL in 2007 and a smaller release in 2011, and they really need time now to consolidate their work and extract value from it.

The second group includes organizations that are creating and adopting new ways of working to create increased value for themselves and their customers. Some of these are using DevOps and Agile to deliver very rapid rates of change for their customers, some are using complex multi-supplier relationships to create value, and some are adopting BYOD to increase productivity of their users. These people and organizations are looking for ITIL to release new material to support them, and tell me that although the underlying concepts in the core ITIL publications still apply to them, they need significant and frequent updates to provide guidance that is suitable for these rapidly changing environments.

We cannot support all needs with a single set of publications

I think that ITIL needs to support both of these groups, as well as all the other shades of opinion in between, but I don’t think we can support such disparate needs with a single set of best practice publications. The solution I propose is to create a new set of “ITIL Fast Track” publications. Let’s keep the core ITIL 2011 publications unchanged for a few years, so that organisations that need stability can extract value from their investments, but let’s also create new ITIL publications to support those on the leading edge. These ITIL Fast Track publications could be based on leading edge practices and what’s happening in the industry now, rather than on tried and tested best practices. They would not be intended for exams, but to provide guidance on how to apply great service management practice in a way that works with the latest practices from other sources.

We could produce ITIL Fast Track Service Strategy with ideas from COBIT5 and recent work on supplier integration and management, ITIL Fast Track Service Transition and Service Design with ideas from DevOps and Agile, ITIL Fast Track Service Operation with guidance on how to use Rob England’s Standard and Case

A chance to create new ‘best practice’

The really good thing about this solution is that in a few years’ time some of the material in the ITIL Fast Track publications would have been tried and tested by sufficient organizations that it would become best practice, and could be merged into the ITIL core in a future update.

So what do you think? Would you be interested in reading ITIL Fast Track publications, or do you just want to stick with the ITIL core?

(A Russian translation of this article is available on the itSMF Russia website here: http://www.itsmforum.ru/news/all_interest/2012_12_13)

Image credit: © flucas – Fotolia.com