Open letter to ITIL Qualifications Board

Today we have a guest post from Peter Gerritsen who has written a letter to the ITIL Qualifications Board proposing some changes to the ITIL V3 qualifications scheme. I told him he has a snowflake's chance in Hell given what they went through to get the scheme to this point (I have plenty of experience of hammering on the doors of Castle ITIL). We are interested in your views:

From : Peter Gerritsen
To : members of ITIL Qualification Board

Observations and suggestions regarding ITIL V3 certification

As a freelance consultant and ITIL trainer I am in contact with many people working in the field who give me feedback on the ITIL certifications. During my activities as auditor of course institutes and courseware for EXIN I have many contacts with training institutes who ask questions and exchange experiences. The previous inputs and my own insights bring me to the following observations and suggestions.

General

Any ITIL training contains much theory, so much that there is hardly time for exercises. In order to keep training interesting and to keep the participants from falling asleep, even a very good trainer needs to have exercises built into the training. In none of the syllabi for V3 courses is found a mandatory percentage of exercise which results in training organisations inserting just an absolute minimum of exercises. In my opinion a good amount of exercises is very important for the participants in order to be able to connect the theory to practical situations, which by the way is a key element in competence based learning. The exchange and discussion of the results of the exercises gives a lot of added value to training. [Skep: it is evident that the number of professional adult educators involved in the design was close to zero, or they were over-ruled by the commercial imperatives]

Secondly, more and more people are looking for training that is geared towards their current and/or future job. The current certification scheme is not aligned with this need. Many people are still choosing for V2 training as it is less complex (scope!) and more practical!

Suggestions:
-Mention a mandatory amount of exercise in the syllabi: 20% of the time for foundation and 50% for intermediates and MALC.
- Create (see also sections below) a certification scheme that makes sense in career support and career development.

Foundation level

The scope (in terms of processes and activities mentioned) of the actual V3 foundation exams, even though they have been made more “light” is still to large, that is: there are too many subjects to discuss in a 3 day training. Furthermore the groups are of a very different composition. Often we train groups of “techies’ who do not (want to?) understand the more strategic subjects (like strategy and CSI). Companies that are at the start of an ITIL implementation often send all their staff to foundation training. Their goals typically are:
- Make sure they (that is: their staff) understand the basic mechanisms of ITIL
- Make sure they all use the same vocabulary
- Get their employees enthusiast about ITIL
Limiting the scope of the foundation exam and instead going at a more detailed level of the processes might work. The current scope of the foundation exam fails to get techies enthusiastic.

On the other hand, there are IT and customer managers who attend such training who would like to have some more insight in strategy and CSI and do not care so much about the more operational processes. Just a few basic operational concepts would do for them.

Suggestion: create two different foundation level trainings, both with a limited scope and more tailored to their target groups (“techies” and managers). The more limited scope for ‘techies” would cover the scope of (and thus make obsolete) ITIL Foundation V2.
[Skep: here I strongly disagree with Peter. In the past I created and delivered training for IT folk specifically to break them out of their tech shells and realise they need to understand business in order for their own career to thrive. We must not allow them to stay insular: that is the whole point of ITSM]

Intermediate level

The concept of the capability training is good. They are about as practical as the V2 practitioners (see remark on level of practical work/exercises above). The exams are original but in my opinion test not all bloom levels they are supposed to test. At this level of practical training just using MPC questions is not enough. An evaluation of the practical work should be added. Furthermore: one can have a fair number of questions right with just a global understanding of ITIL V3 and a lot of “answering techniques” comparing, deducing and eliminating.

For the life cycle modules I see no added value apart from Strategy and CSI as they are not covered by the capability modules. I did all intermediate exams (in a very short timeframe) and was not able to clearly distinguish between a life cycle and a capability exam.

Suggestion: create a capability module that combines Strategy and CSI and discontinue the lifecycle modules SD, ST and SO and work on better (more complete and more practical) testing of these modules. Involve trainers in this testing. This could make the V2 practitioners obsolete

Managing Across the Life cycle

Whilst doing the MALC exam I was very disappointed. Three out of the eight questions had absolutely nothing to do with ITIL and tested just common management knowledge. The idea behind MALC is good, but it should be more aimed at IT managers and consultants. People just do not want to do al 5 life cycle or all 4 capability followed by MALC. It’s too long and too expensive. [Skep: I think that is the point: it was far too cheap to get a V2 Manager's cert - the industry wants to milk more from each customer]

Suggestion: I would suggest a revival of the service manager training, but then based on V3 with partially MPC testing, partially written answers and an in-course assessment. This could make the V2 Service Manager obsolete.

Expert level and above

In my opinion these levels have no added value in the market. Certainly not in view of what I mentioned above.

Suggestion: Discontinue these levels and instead team up with one or more MBA institutes to create an MBA in IT Service Management based on ITIL and COBIT.

Localisation and translation

I live and work in France. The French generally have many problems with understanding English. If they manage to understand English it’s of a very basic level. The level of English, even in the foundation exam is to elaborate for them. Passing ITIL exams in English is in most cases a guarantee for failure even if they have clearly understood the matter in the training. Translation and localisation (utilisation of French examples in case descriptions) is imperative.

When exams are written in French beware that French is a very precise language and that
ambiguity in the phrasing of the questions is often interpreted as a sign of bad translation..

Suggestion: speed up the translation and localisation of exams (especially intermediates). Work on improvement of existing translations of foundation exams. Use specialised translators with experience in exam questions. The local itSMF chapters can indicate ITIL specialists who can validate the correct level of French.

Written from a sincere interest in ITIL, ITIL training and ITIL certification.

Yours truly,
Peter Gerritsen