Visions of the Future of ITIL: First Vision

On a freezing Southern midwinter solstice night last month, beside a driftwood bonfire on wild Pukerua Bay beach, New Zealand, the IT Swami gazed into the future to give us his “Southern New Year” predictions for the IT Infrastructure Library. I was shivering as I wrote so some of my notes are a little illegible but here is the first of his visions that I recorded:

Swami: Let us consider what is to be coming for the ITIL on the endless wheel of life: for now, at the end and what will come after. Firstly there are those present earthly perturbances that cloud the future view, second we are looking at the most likely end that will come for the ITIL in this life, and at the last we will be looking into the further distances of time to be seeing what will rise up for all the nice people of Service Management.

So to begin I must clear my sight of the visions that arise from today. I see a crowd in a desert, wandering lost. There is a city but it is not for them.

itSMF members are dissatisfied. Some practitioners don’t join and vendors don’t sponsor. In the USA, participation and dues payment are low [7000 out of 350 million is woeful and don’t ask how many of those 7000 actually pay up or show up].

The IT Service Management Forum (itSMF) exists to advance Service Management, a function it performs well. It does not exist as a professional body to represent its members, though most of those members labour under such an illusion, hence the dissatisfaction.

The Institute of Service Management (IoSM) fulfils this role in the UK but is struggling to establish in the USA, and will continue to do so until the role of itSMFUSA is clear to the general population. Worldwide, the IT Skeptic believes having two organisations will only cause confusion.

The professional body should be itSMF by broadening the organisation’s aims or having two arms. That is what most members think it is for and they stand ready to make it so globally overnight. itSMF International just has to say the word but of course they can’t now as they have given IoSM the franchise. Overall the constituency’s need for representation is not being addressed.

More visions to come...

Second Vision


Sometimes good practice has the speed of a turtle

The separation of the incident, event and service request processes is still perceived as 'revolutionary', while some companies did that back in 1992 in their very first 'ITIL project'....
ITIL is a hype. At the same time ITIL is one the most misunderstood frameworks of all times. And that misunderstanding (or the ignorance of so-called ITIL consultants with a Foundation certificate) costs us billions every year.

Where some have done this from day one in the early nineties of the last century, others seem to see the light much later. The separation of incident, event and service request was recently advocated as 'a great thing' of itil v3.

As probably only very few know, the whisper is that the joint treatment of incidents and service requests (first page of the Incident Mgt chapter) in itil V2 was not the result of deep discussions in a team of spiritually enlightened experts - but merely the result of an influential tool provider who couldn't separate incidents from service requests in his tool. Anyone with a decent mind hasn't made a fuzz about that and of course applied this differently in their own practice. Only the dogmatic believers, who didn't "adapt & adopt", practiced this as it was preached in the holy books. Bu according to some, this now is 'a great move by the authors of v3' (
Sometimes good practice has the speed of a turtle.

Ignore incidents (for now) service requests are the key


Good prompt - the humble service request is the key to service management success. Its the '311', '411', and '511' call combined, whilst incident remains the '911', or '999' as I knew it back in my days in Blighty! Anyway, to me an incident is a type of service request. The business, especially the service industry, has approached it this way from the get go. Its easier to record and report as its all in one record and sliced by classification. The type of request helps set its path through the service organization...

If that were not enough, conservative estimates suggest service requests represent 60-80% of the operational workload and costs. There are major benefits to be gained out of finding and refining a few humble service requests - just as the business has been doing for years. As for ITIL.... I am looking forward to the companion guide that expands on the 1.5 pages on 'request fulfillment'.

And... you can't build a service catalog with any confidence of it being actionable without first pinning down the service requests....

service request - or support request

Ian - I'd prefer calling the incident a 'support request' instead of a service request. In an incident the customer simply complains about the fact that they didn't get what was agreed in the SLA (or expected).
In a 'service request', the customer would address an element of the service, which - as you know - is composed of many smaller items in a list, often known as "The Service Catalog".
From what I've learned from practical estimates, incidents can cover 40-70% of calls, where service requests cover 20-30% and change requests cover the rest. This btw is quite depending upon the maturity of the service organization.

The 'service request companion guide' is on the list of books we're developing as the enhancement of guidance provided in the itil v3 books. It will be covered in the Operations Management book. Which btw will finally cover that enormous white spot that itil left open for 20 years...
If all goes well in the IT service organization..., if no changes are requested by customers or kicked off by changing conditions or internal improvement initiatives.., then WHAT are the people in the organization doing all day? Playing cards? I'd say not: they're at least delivering the service by planning, scheduling and performing a lot of regular tasks, and monitoring the systems to see whether everything runs as expected. That very basic responsibility has only been slightly touched upon in the itil books. The only process book that was written on this, afaik, was the Operations Management Pocket Guide, written in 2001 as a companion guide to itl v2.

Its a service request

Jan - feel free - in my world they are all requests for service separated only by types. In fact there are at least 8 types of service requests that include complaint (as per ISO 9000 lingo). The percentages you mention are very different when service requests are actually recorded! Often they are not thus skewing the percentage towards break-fix.

Glad to hear there is a companion book tabled. As for your rhetorical question about what IT might be doing - don't forget that a service request is the container for ALL input to the service organization, including thr four types of maintenance/change - well at least thats how I describe it in the USMBOK and the new service request management 102 best practice guide...

Why have multiple inputs - after all - its a goal of 'process management/improvement' to standardize all inputs to eliminate variation...

as always - definition rules

many discussions between 'deeply involved' pactitioners come down to matters of definition. Especially when you start from very different perspectives.
The examples brought forward by Charly Betz, starting from a data management perspective, illustrate my point. There obviously are differences in perspective from where the Dutch start, compared to where USMBOK is coming from. But in the end, if we compare defnition sets, we should easily be able to find each other (I'm still working on the ultimate IT Management Compendium!!).
I'm looking forward to having you again as a guest speaker at this year's national Dutch Spring Conference (if we can solve the last details), since that offers us the opportunity to exchange those perspectives - and that's where we can learn most from eachother. Maybe you can throw in a special Master Class for the people in Europe who are really interested in refreshing their perspectives?
And if we can again have Brian Johnson and Paul Wilkinson there (as I expect), we may have another go at the biggest prize of all in the IT Skeptic Awards: The Grand Sagan Candle for IT Skepticism!

Real incident

Please remember the basic nature of incident. IT Service is faulty and things do not work. (Read Skep's complaints of Vista for example.) According to my experience over 80% of incidents (or service requests) never come to Service Desk, users/customers try to fix them alone. Fighting with IT-solutions eat far too much time from business. In many cases the root cause is that people do not know how to use the system but neither does Service Desk.

Looking this from Customer Service point of view, lousy service quality is the key issue. There should not be so many incidents or service request. This is still the the heart of the matter, ITSM is or should be about improving IT service to acceptable level.

The main fault in V3 is the redefining and misunderstandfing of the concept of incident. It looks like the author did not know or understand what the V2 definition of incident is and wrote down some loose text. To me, this gives V3 the credibilty of subprime loans.

Here is the definition for those who have not bothered to read the book:

In ITIL terminology, an ‘incident’ is defined as:
An unplanned interruption to an IT service or
reduction in the quality of an IT service. Failure of a
configuration item that has not yet impacted service
is also an incident, for example failure of one disk
from a mirror set.
Incident Management is the process for dealing with
all incidents; this can include failures, questions or
queries reported by the users (usually via a telephone
call to the Service Desk), by technical staff, or
automatically detected and reported by event
monitoring tools.

If it looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit; don't taste it.

Aale Roos

Not likely

The lead author of Service Operations (where IM is defined) was David Wheeldon. The same Dave who helped author V2 and V1.

I doubt he "did not know or understand" the V2 material.

I know

I know but it does not make the definition any better.

What hurts

Yes things break in IT, and users get annoyed at the time, but generally understand that is the way of the world, after all their home computers go wrong and "I'll fix it in five minutes dear" becomes "Are you ever coming to bed?"

What users and customers alike just can't stand is when a commodity task, such as adding a new user, takes weeks instead of less than a working day. Or when they make a complaint but nobody seems to realise it is a complaint

types of request

Jan, congratulations on winning the Candle in 2008 [do readers know where the candle comes from?

My copy of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark has a nice big candle on the front cover. One of the greatest works of enlightened skeptical thought ever. Far from a perfect book but a must read.]

As for types of request, here's my 2¢:

Real ITSM considers all requests from users to be a Request . After sufficient information is obtained, Real Requests can be classified as :
• Incident: An Incident is defined by Real ITSM as an unplanned interruption to the normal operation of IT or a reduction in the quality of the perception of IT.
A Major Incident is one with a significant risk of the Board of Directors (or Minister/Secretary) hearing about it, or of it getting into the newspapers. See Damage Management, page 82.
• Request For Change: Some organisations allow users to open RFCs directly, others have some form of gating process such as Requests. Real ITSM requires gating via a Request, as one more step in delaying change.
• Proposals: The Service Desk can be a front-end to the demand component of project portfolio management. Think of it as a request for project. These should be declined or ignored for as long as user patience lasts: see Demand Management, page 80.
• Provisioning: User requires access to a service or part of a service, e.g. security permission, menu option, digital certificate, client install, desktop device, phone, etc. These are also best ignored (see Access, page 69).
• Advice: How do I …? Should I …? Which is the best way to …? This category needs to be closely linked to the Known Idiot database, see page 79. And ignored.
• Booking: Scheduled attendance at training, seminar, meeting, reservation of a resource, annual leave. Also best ignored, especially if users have an alternate path for doing this themselves.
• Ordering: Books, desks, catering, stationery, travel... See Booking, above.
• Work Request: Run a report. Move a PC. Install a projector. Paint the kitchen. These make good busywork that draws resources away from projects that are moving too quickly.
• Help: Correcting data arising from user error, restoring a deleted file, sending a document, untangling a mess. Likewise good busywork.
• Feedback: praise, suggestion, idea. Praise should be immediately forwarded to management, while other feedback is best omitted from reporting in the interests of brevity.
• Complaint: complaints are a form of feedback but they are best dealt with separately, so that they can be ignored in a more focused manner and so they can be reported separately (or not at all).

from Introduction to Real ITSM

A more serious version of the list was originally published by me in the article The Evolution of the ITIL Request on ITSMWatch, where I said:

ITIL v4 will, most likely, I predict, finally recognise that the Service Desk deals with generic Requests/Tickets/Issues/Incoming. These Requests have multiple categories. Each category has its own variant of a more general process that applies to all of them, in much the same way as there are several categories of Change which all undergo variants of the general Change process.

Just to note the Trademark Infringement


I know I've mentioned this before - but it has to be done wherever their is an expsoure....

The IoSM is a stated trademark infringment of my company's registered trademark - IT Service Management institute. This is why they have created another named organization (Institute of certified Service Managers), which flies just as close to the trademark wind of another previously trademarked term 'Certified Service Management Professional', and probably accounts in part for their slow rollout here.

The other simple reason is that folks would prefer, or actually believe, the itSMF should or is already doing this. The third and most compelling reason is that folks here don't take kindly to the 'totem pole' style of ranking how professional you are. We tend to rely upon track record, references, and results achieved FROM CUSTOMERS!

As is plain to most folks the 'Institute of IT Service Management (IoSM)' is a bit close to the 'IT Service Management institute (ITSMI)'!!! Rather like Coca Cola and Cola Coca, or Windows and Lindows.

Our position is clear, was communicated to itSMF USA in 2004 and resulted in a Board mandate to all members NOT to use or promote the IoSM term (!). As for the itSMF UK they can do what they wish in the UK. If they, or anyone else come to that, earnestly markets and promotes the IoSM under that name in the US - they will be subject to action. The itSMF UK has received suitable notice way back in 2002 when it was first floated, in 2003 when it was launched, and again this year to ensure its removal from the ITIL V3 Glossary.

If anyone wishes to learn more about this unfortunate and frankly infantile strategy of the itSMF UK then please feel free to contact me directly -

Trade descriptions act

Coca Cola and Cola Coca
I've wondered how they have managed, with a name like that, to avoid prosecution under the trades description act after they took the cocaine out...

Marijuana Juice.. marketing 101 and regulatory compliance

Anyway, I don't see the relevance to what was being discussed? The name IoSM is too close and in the same industry area as to be confusing to existing and potential customers - one of the key criteria for proving infringement. I suggest they but a copy of "Trademarks for Dummies" and check it out...

But since the comment is there lets have some fun around this unfunny topic.

Trade descriptions kicks in on eyecatcher byline or advertising claims (marketing) - if they had said - "Its the coke it contains that makes the difference", and it did not contain 'C' - false claim. However, some regulations trump others - the law against putting illegal substances in goods would trump trade descriptions. Also, there are stipulations on the number of years of unfettered use passing and the plain common sense that folks know it doesn't contain 'C'.

Its a plain fact you can advertise a product such as 'marijuana juice' and get away with it if you include a discliamer (does not actually contain marijuana). I think someone did that here in the US in 2007!

US centric

Of course we have to be careful when discussing legislation of taking an international view. In the UK we can't protect a business process as I believe is possible in the USA. Personally I've never understood how people can protect Pantone colours as part of their corporate identity when I always presumed Pantone would own the rights to all of them.

As for the IoSM... being UK centric, can anyone remind me what a UK organisation has to do to become chartered? I'm sure that would make a big difference to UK take up, but IoSM without that magic word in it does sound a bit empty as a concept.

Interesting view

Interestingly I view itSMF as the body I'm a member of via my companies registration. i.e. it's the place for news and conferences etc. But IoSM is where I'm a personal member - as I view that where I can look to my personal career development.

I can see where you are coming from - the BCS fills both rolls in another space with it's SFIA and SIG structure.

The itSMF is the ITIL User Group!

From my notes.

The itSMF started out in 1991 as the ITIL User Group. It was a loosely formed club of enthusiasts driven largely by an inner circle of UK Government employees. It became a legal entity on 7th November 1991 and was renamed to the IT Infrastructure Management Forum (ITIMF). In 1993 the ITIMF changed its organizational structure to one consisting of a Management Board and Council of 'Members' and rented space at the CCTA (now OGC) building.

The ITIMF did not LEGALLY become the itSMF until 2nd April 1997 - or rather the itSMF UK, and not 1991 as widely claimed.

The itSMF International was not LEGALLY formed until July 26, 2004. Until then it too was run and closely held by the itSMF UK.

It has consistently been positioned as the primary means of marketing ITIL and remains biased towards this and no other service management framework, of which there are many. It my opinion it has always been operated as the 'ITIL User Group' for Service Management. The original 'inner circle' of individuals remain at the core of all things itSMF and ITIL.

The IoSM (Institute of IT Service Management - not to be confused with my company name - the IT Service Management Institute, formed in 1995) is run 'under the auspices' of the itSMF UK and officially launched at the itSMF UK Conference in November 2002. It has openly positioned itself as the organization an IT service management professional should join, and operates effectively a scale of membership based upon their 'accepted' level of experience and education in the industry. The Council is largely comprised of the same folks who created (run and influence) the itSMF UK.

As the skeptic rightfully explains - the itSMF membership monies are primarily used to market ITIL. Just a few more facts.

The APM Group who operate the ITIL Qualification (and exam) Scheme are a FOR-PROFIT organization with shareholders.

The Stationery Office (TSO) who print and sell the ITIL publications are a FOR-PROFIT organization having been purchased by Williams Rea publishing in November 2006.

Although the OGC is a Government Agency it is not a charity and has objectives to (finally) make a PROFIT from ITIL.

The authors of the ITIL V3 books generally represent training vendors and many of the original 'inner circle' who have been at the core of ITIL since the very beginnings.

There is NOTHING wrong with any of this. Its just good to know the underlying goals of the association you are joining. For 11 years I have worked to transform the ItSMF USA into an organization that puts the members before ITIL. The recent election scandal and general tone of the direction of itSMF leads me to believe I have failed....


It beggars belief that some

It beggars belief that some folks still can't see through the emperor's clothes.

itSMF represents its cozy inner circle. It demands money right left and center. It acts as a capitalist money making entity. It does NOT represent its members: as stated all over this blog, it doesn't even state it does in its own articles.

The sooner users see this, walk away from it, and create a proper 'user group' the better off we will all be.

The good news is that many users have already walked.

Will the last member leaving turn of the itSMF USA lights

Well said once again Skep. It seems to continue to go unnoticed that many of the 35+ Local Interest Groups (LIGs) operating here in the US rely totally upon the sheer generosity of grass roots members. Many of the (practitioner) Presidents have gone unchanged since forming their LIG, and work tirelessly to build agendas, manage local lists of contacts, and email locals to encourage them to turn up and share their experiences.

The whole organization is likely dependent upon less than 75 key members. They see no respite, no replacement waiting in the wings to take over the baton, just more of the same - mandates from the national Board for more effort and a greater bias towards an increasingly commercial and vendor centric product - ITIL.

The rest of my comments on this unnerving situation can be found on my own here (

How do I put in a URL Skep?

The fate of grassroots organizations

Volunteer organizations are indeed hard to sustain. The same could be said of others I have mentioned elsewhere on this blog. In fact, there are many who would consider an operational core of 75 truly engaged people a dream come true.

Charles T. Betz

Well said...

The itSMF USA is riddled with problems that they can’t seem to solve. Before you join or renew your membership, you should ask yourself what value do you really get for that payment. For an industry organization that touts strategy as one of its core values, the board has most certainly confused agenda for strategy.

Another sad realization, the crucial election debacle. To paraphrase the president, the bogus votes didn’t affect the outcome, so, no harm no foul. Excuse me, does anyone see a problem here? When the next great problem surfaces, will this be the strategy the board employees?


Ian - some additional coments to complete the picture.
"The itSMF" is not the same as "the UK chapter of itSMF" although many of its members still seem to think so.
In 1994 the Dutch installed a legal entity called the ITIMF, which changed its name to itSMF in 1996 or 1997. So if you are right, that makes them the first official/legal itSMF.... ;-)
This Dutch itSMF chapter has been focusing on all available interesting and useful frameworks from its conception, and they developed a huge set of publications on all kinds of frameworks and relevant topics in the field of ITSM. So at least ONE chapter definitely is NOT "an ITIL user group" but has a wider view. A recent enquiry showed again that ITIL has been totally absorbed as a commodity throughout the Dutch economy, but in a loose way - picking useful pieces and using these in their own context - and that many other frameworks are used.

The IoSM is an organization for individuals, aimed at personal development, and the same kind of organization has been available in the Netherlands since at least 1996 (even two competing and recently merged groups....). Nothing new there. But that kind of an organization can never replace a company-based entity like the current itSMF. There's simply not enough at stake in terms of company benefits and company exposure that makes it worth while for where the money comes from.

You are absolutely right if you call some itSMF chapters ITIL user groups. I even hear board members of itSMFI explicitly stating that opinion on itSMF International or itSMF in general. Which is a pity, since it can lead to selective blindness. But it definitely is not applicable to all chapters.
Best regards,

who does and who should represent the end users

So Jan, if there is an issue where the users of ITIL need representation, to be specific: where somebody within the establishment may need to be criticised such as the current certification situation, then who does and who should represent the end users against the vested interests of the commercial sector?

users should protect themselves

That's simple: the users should protect themselves. They now simply get what they deserve: if they all worship the holy books the way they do now, then they should live with the consequences. There is no law that forces them to take ITIL certifications.
If there is enough resistance and rejection of the currently emerging system, then it would be easy to find a solution: the examination equipment is there, the ideas are there, the sources are there, the only thing you need to do is to sit together and finance a simple solution. It would be easy, cheap and effective. But unless the pain is deep enough, this will not happen. So what do you worry about? It is NOT a problem unless enough people say so.

From the inside 8-)

I agree with most viewpoints here - I have been chairing/Cosharing itSMF in Belgium for the last 7 years, and we try to incorporate as many methods of Service Management as possible - but cannot leave out ITIL as well. During the past 7 years, we faced many challenges to bring ITSM to the Belgian world. Since ITIL v3, it is a bit easier, for there is a lot of confusion around and people are looking also to the itSMF chapters for assistance to bring order in the chaos.

But the remark that users or practitioners should protect themselves?

Maybe I miss something, but I fear user's opinions are scarce(and I mean no disrespect for there are many good and experienced folks out there). I once offered to speak on a conference (leave out the country) only to shout at the people to see 'What the h*ll do you THINK'. Because you hear viewpoints from all the big vendor names. When you speak to customers and potential customers to find out their needs, they only reflect what their big vendor is whispering into their ears. I do not find too many people who have an IT Management (or ITSM) opinion of their own - in line with their specific business goals. Needless to say I was not invited to do a presentation.

itSMF BE is not about ITIL, but about (IT Service) Management, offering a platform for all members to learn, discuss and find out whether somebody has an answer to their question(s). The international politics of the itSMF pass by from time to time, but unless they get their things sorted out, many a chapter will only do one thing => let it pass by and see what happens and continue to do the best for their members. We tried to 'change' international rules once, and even twice - but the result is always the same - the same people continue to rule the waves. It is the same old story over and over again = only now, there is a real commercial taste added to it.

People need guidance in any form (see the success of the WIKIpedia), and in the land of the blind, one-eye rules, not?


I see a need for a collective voice

"Lat the market speak"? I thought I was politically dry. I'm generally somewhere to the right of Maggie Thatcher, but on this one I see a need for a collective voice. I want to be part of an organisation that represents the views of the users of ITIL not the sellers of ITIL. And right now I'd like it to be kicking some butt on a number of issues:

  • certification: get it sorted
  • alignment, no unification, with ISO20000 and COBIT, for starters
  • governance of itSMF
  • vendor influence on APMG, TSO, itSMF...
  • public input to ITIL

If it's ISO, you are talking IEEE

If it's true ISO 200000 unification you want, it seems the IEEE would likely wind up involved at some point. I'm surprised that they haven't taken more of an interest in ITIL to date. This might be re-examined given Carnegie Mellon's activities in the field of service management. If service management education becomes more of a university concern (as referenced elsewhere on this blog), there is little doubt in my mind that IEEE and ACM will start looking very seriously at the whole matter.

See here for pointers to the IEEE and ACM subsections which might be the locii of ITSM interest.

These people know how to run a professional organization. But are they the best home for ITSM? Heavy, heavy academic bias - but perhaps that's what's needed. You'd certainly have hundreds of grad students all over the Skeptic's challenge.

A simple Google turned up this IEEE-published assessment of ITIL. Not sure I want to pay $35 for 6 pages. (And you thought ITIL was expensive!).

Charles T. Betz

Rocking the boat and shooting the messenger

Jan - well put and to a large extent - accepted. We had zero visibility of any Dutch efforts from here in the US. I resigned my post in 2003 in sheer frustration at the reaction I personally received from those who queried why I, and I alone felt there were problems with the itSMF and the quality of the ITIl materials and exams. The Skeptic's point is especially poignant given the fact the environment for questioning the status quo has been quashed - even her ein the itSMF USA. It is a stuffy setup that is akin to the Monty Python characterization of the old BBC! It nmeed new blood and energy - a transfusion and I feel it may already be too late.

I for one am done with investing any further sweat equity in an organization that refuses, yes refuses to properly hear and represent its members - as its articles require. My company ITSMI, did not sponsor this year's USA Annual conference and our involvement at the LIG level will slowly cease through end 2008. Its not the association we wish it to be.

Good luck Jan - keep the independent flag flying - it looks like your handing over of the ITSM Library to International will at least give ITIL something to compete I hope will the SMBOK.

a user group represents the voice of the users

Thankyou Ian for so clearly laying all that out. Just one point I'd add:

it may have started as a user group, but to me a user group represents the voice of the users, e.g. telling APMG to get their s**t together over certification.

itSMF UK, USA or International don't perform that function any more if they ever did.

The objectives and articles of association specifically DO NOT mention anything about representation of the members.

Another vision


The itSMFUSA membership is somewhat aggrandized, and is more realistically around 4,000. As the planet discovered with the voting issue, most of their membership comes as a result their conference and most of them don’t renew their memberships.

I take exception to your phrase, ‘The IT Service Management Forum (itSMF) exists to advance Service Management.” The IT Service Management Forum is an ITIL users group and is heavily tied to ITIL as we all witnessed with the V3 launch. The international has an established track record of being disingenuous, not to mention secretive, and therefore will hem and haw about their position.

The IOsM clone in the USA may be posturing itself to take over the itSMFUSA. If the voting scandal proves to be true, and it seems that’s the direction it’s going, wait for a maneuver by them. If you check their web site, the ICSM’s board sits current itSMFUSA board members and past presidents. There seems to be an apparent conflict of interest that should be looked into.

Is there room for another service management association, I would say yes. To quote from an earlier posting:

The probability of a great ITSM association is not farfetched. Here's the formula:
1. Have its member’s professional development at heart of its agenda.
2. Listen to the members
3. Have a strategic board of directors
4. Make sure your mission and services are aligned
5. The members are the reason....

An organization that truly focus on service management and aligns their services to professional development may give the itSMF a run for their money.

itSMF is an "ITIL promotion organisation".

Allow me to trump your exception taken with this one: "The IT Service Management Forum is an ITIL users group ". "user group" brings us back to an organisation existing to represent the members. it does not. itSMF is an "ITIL promotion organisation". there, can we agree on that definition? :-D

Almost right Skeptic. ITSMF

Almost right Skeptic. ITSMF is a Service Management Forum - a body that enables wide ranging discussion on all IT Service management issues, not just ITIL. That is, it's there to talk about all things Service Management wise including ITIL, MOF etc. etc. - you name it! It's just that ITIL is dominant in the market which in turn means that it gets a lot more cover. But it's not to the exclusion of other Service Management processes.

Who Gains

...and, who benefits from this promotion?

I like to think we all do

I like to think we all do

Obviously the vendors of software and training and consulting gain the most, in about that order I suspect.

But so too do the users. A point I bang on about a lot is select software or BOK or whatever with the userbase as a major selection criteria: if lots of people use it the future is brighter than if it is a fringe thing. it is more likely to be actively developed in the future, with upgrades. there are more third-party add-ons for it. there are more skilled people available. there are more support and consulting and taining available. there is more IP on the web. it looks good on the CV.

ITIL partly got where it is by accident or default, but there was also a lot of hard work went on by people in the itSMF to get it there.

To be clear: this is not a switch of opinion by me. I think the itSMF does a good job of what it exists for, to promote ITIL. I think that is an important job and I'm glad they do it because it keeps my family fed and funds quixotic ventures like this website. What concerns me are: (a) people think itSMF exists to represent them, to be a voice of the users and (b) nobody is the voice of the users (c) itSMF could be and probably should be the voice of the users.

Syndicate content