ITSM INDUSTRYAWARD WINNERS

Y2K: LESSONS FORSERVICEMANAGEMENT

END TO END SERVICE REPORTING

TWENTY YEARS OF ITILLOOKING BACK AND MOVING FORWARDS

www.itsmf.co.uk

14 SERVICETALK JANUARY 2010

FEATURE ITIL AT 20

FEW PEOPLE IN IT SERVICE MANAGEMENT WILL HAVE FAILED TO NOTICE THAT ITILREACHED ITS 20TH BIRTHDAY THIS YEAR. FROM ITS HUMBLE BEGINNINGS AS A UKGOVERNMENT PROJECT TO RATIONALISE IT SPENDING, THE FRAMEWORK HAS GROWNINTO ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL SOURCES OF GUIDANCE ON BEST PRACTICEAND IT/BUSINESS ALIGNMENT WORLDWIDE. AND IT KEEPS ON GROWING

ITIL at 20:looking back andmoving forwards

JANUARY 2010 SERVICETALK 15

ITIL AT 20 FEATURE

SERVICETALK: Twenty years of ITIL guidance isquite an achievement. How did it all start?

FRANCES SCARFF: Thats a very good question. Ifyou talk to John Stewart from OGC or to itSMFmembers Ivor Macfarlane, Brian Johnson andDave Wheeldon who were all there at thebeginning, they will have a slightly different viewof exactly how ITIL started, but they will agree onthe fundamentals. (I was working on SSADMVersion 4 at the time, so I wasnt directly involvedin the ITIL story until a little later.)

Basically, in the mid-1980s it was decided that UKgovernment departments were not managingtheir IT (mainly mainframe-based systems)consistently or efficiently. John Stewart and PeteSkinner at CCTA (Central Computer andTelecommunications Agency, a precursor to theOGC) were tasked with developing a commonapproach to operational guidance, and theycreated GITMM (the Government IT InfrastructureManagement Method). It was soon realised,though, that the problem was not specific togovernment and was equally applicable tosystems in the commercial sector. So the G wasdropped. Up to this time the guidance had mostlybeen in the form of research papers, but JohnStewarts team put together a plan for a series ofaround 25 books, grouped into five or six subjectareas which resembled the shelves of a library.So the IT Infrastructure Library was born.

When it came to sourcing the content for thesenew publications, some of the input came from

existing IBM architectures, but what was reallyneeded was some practical experience from theuser community. So CCTA drew together a teamof about a dozen people made up of systems andservice managers, capacity planners andparticularly operations management specialists.They developed some initial titles in areas thatwere relatively well understood, such as changeand configuration management and also helpdesk roles and functions; and they also started tothink in terms of processes and to put togethersome practical information around service levelmanagement. With these initial titles the teambuilt the first steps towards a common source ofpractical advice, and they set out a commonlanguage that helped government, technical IToperations, and suppliers of services andequipment to communicate more effectively.

ST: When did the qualifications come into the picture?

FS: It took about four years to complete the initiallibrary of books, but CCTA knew that shelfwareon its own would not change behaviour. Practicaltraining was also needed, so when thegovernment was approached by EXIN and ISEBwith a view to developing training andqualifications, the response was very positive. Aninitial project was put together to produce a coretraining package that could be re-used withinuser organisations (basically to get the messageout) and in 1991/92 ISEB and EXIN came out withtwo very different exams, the ISEB one for

service managers and the EXIN one forFoundation, which were appropriate to theirrespective markets.

At about the same time in 1991, the itIMF (laterrenamed itSMF) was created to support andencourage the take-up of the guidance. Initialevents focused on the activities of a very smallnumber of early adopters, such as Customs &Excise and the Ministry of Defence. The rest, asthey say, is history

ST: Then on to Version 2?

FS: Well, the original library continued to expandto more than forty books, but there was a big gapduring which nothing was produced for thebusiness, and commercial organisations werefeeling excluded from the ITIL world. So in 1994the BITE (Business in an IT Environment) serieswas published three books which describedhow technology was moving forward as abusiness enabler, and which argued that ITneeded to become a core part of the businessrather than remaining cocooned in the datacentre. These were really the last of the individualbooks in the original library, and took the total toaround 46 titles.

ST: Thats a phenomenal number of books. Howdid it all get condensed down for ITIL Version 2?

FS: A lot of consolidation took place. Forexample, the content that became ServiceDelivery in Version 2 started off as a whole shelf

THIS CELEBRATION COMES AT A VERY SIGNIFICANT STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ITIL, ASVERSION 2 BEGINS TO WIND DOWN AND THE OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT COMMERCE (OGC) TURNS ITS ATTENTION TO THE FIRST UPDATE OF VERSION 3 CORE GUIDANCE. OGCS HEAD OF BESTMANAGEMENT PRACTICE, FRANCES SCARFF, RECENTLY SPOKE TO SERVICETALK ABOUT THELESSONS OF THE PAST AND THE NEXT STEPS FOR ITIL.

16 SERVICETALK JANUARY 2010

FEATURE ITIL AT 20

of books in the original series, similarly withService Support. In shoehorning ten books intoone, we were aiming to make it more accessibleto readers. The content had become over-detailedand bureaucratic, and obscured the high-levelmeaning. So we set about consolidating what hadgone before but we also wanted to lift the contentup a level, so that readers wouldnt get boggeddown in technical detail but could concentrate of the latest best practices in support of business processes.

We didnt pull Version 1 from the market, though,and many users referred back to those books forthe underlying detail. On the other hand, thingshad moved on during the intervening ten yearsand some of the V1 content on topics such ascabling standards simply wasnt relevant any more.

At the same time, in the late 1990s, EXIN andISEB came to an agreement about their differingapproaches to ITIL training, and we were able toform one over-arching high-level syllabus thatboth were prepared to work to (with some smallvariations!). This helped us greatly to promoteand support ITIL on an international basis.

Service Support and Service Delivery werepublished in 2000, followed by thecomplementary titles (the last of which wasBusiness Perspective part 2 in 2006).

ST: Which brings us on to Version 3

FS: Yes, in 2004 we made a call for a ChiefArchitect to scope Version 3, and Sharon Taylorwas appointed later that year. Technology hadmoved on so far and in many ways Version 2 didnot reflect this and didnt support the businessintegration processes that would allow IT to actas a real business enabler. Hence the need forthe Lifecycle.

Once Sharon and her team were in place, westarted a huge consultation process the scale

really was massive. In some ways it could beargued that we didnt go far enough, but I thinkwe went as far as we could at the time. ITILreflects current and emerging thinking in servicemanagement best practice rather than settingthe agenda so there will inevitably be newdevelopments and technologies that are notexplicitly supported in the current version. Youhave to look to leading-edge players and findmultiple examples of adoption of a practicebefore you can say for sure that it works and thatit can be classified as best practice. And as withscience, you have to validate the approach and beaware of all the influencing factors, to ensure thata practice will be widely applicable.

One problem we often see is that ITIL users thinkthey have to do the whole lot, rather thenimplementing the practices and processes theyneed to achieve improvements in their particularsituation. Thats why CSI (Continual ServiceImprovement) is so important: thats aboutwhere are we now? where do we want to get to?and how do we find the quick wins?

Looking to the future, OGC will be applying CSIfor ourselves, and we will continue to ask wherewe are now and where we are headed.Maintaining ITIL is a service to the communityand needs to be viewed in that light. We have tobe clear where we are going and how toarticulate that message.

If we apply CSI we can spot where the currentweaknesses are. The new update of the corematerials, for example, is all about addressingthe weaknesses in the current books rather thanlooking to the future or changing the basic model.

ST: What kind of weaknesses are we talkingabout in the core books as they stand?

FS: There are inconsistencies across the five coretitles which we need to rectify first of all differences in the way things are described andexplained. Then there are new topics such as

Green IT, which are discussed in some places butnot in others, and the hooks are missing. So wehave to put the hooks in to make sure that thetopic is referenced consistently. Were notplanning to add new technical material, just tomake the content and meaning consistent.

We need to check that terms are used in thesame way in each book. We have some termsthat are defined in the glossary, but are used in adifferent way in one or more of the books.Similarly, there are subtle differences betweendiagrams used in multiple books. This isconfusing enough if you are cross-referencingbetween books, but its even worse if you aretaking an exam and come across a differentversion of an illustration from the one you havestudied. Its that kind of thing we need to check.

ST: Where have these requests for changeoriginated? Do they come from the officialChange Log?

FS: Yes, from the Change Log. There have alsobeen a lot of concerns about the language used inService Strategy, and we are going to look at this.Again, its not a case of changing the content butof defogging it so that the material is moreaccessible to a wide audience. The ServiceStrategy book did go through a full reviewprocess but didnt quite make it in terms ofaccessibility for the core ITIL community. It ispopular with the business world, and analystssuch as Gartner and Forrester have asked us notto change it as it works for them. But its notworking for the IT guys and we have to bear thatin mind and bridge the gap.

As I said, we certainly dont want to change thebasic content, just to make whats there moreaccessible and meaningful to service managers.Those are the main issues.

ST: How long will all this take?

FS: We recognise that any new edition will take at

NEW MENTORSFOR ITIL UPDATETSO has appointed four mentors David Wheeldon, Colin Rudd, ShirleyLacy and Ashley Hanna to coach,advise and review the work of theauthors updating the five core ITILpublications and the Introduction to theITIL Service Lifecycle. The mentors, allexperienced co-authors of ITILpublications, will have specific areas ofresponsibility. Wheeldon will focus onService Strategy and Continual ServiceImprovement, Rudd will concentrate onService Transition, Service Design, andService Operation, Lacy takes on therole of project mentor to ensureconsistency across the core andIntroduction, and Hanna will betechnical continuity editor, responsiblefor ensuring the correctness andconsistency of diagrams and definitionsthroughout ITIL.

ITIL MILESTONES1986: The UK Central Computer andTelecommunications Agency (CCTA)authorises a programme to develop acommon approach to operational guidancewith the objective of increasing efficiencies ingovernment IT.

1988: Government Infrastructure ManagementMethod (GITMM) is formalized and issued asguidelines for government IT operations in theUK. The team, led by John Stewart and PeteSkinner, is expanded to include IT operationsand service management professionals.

1989: GITMM is renamed ITIL.

1989-1994: More than forty ITIL V1 bookspublished.

1991: itIMF (later itSMF) formed.

1991/92: ISEB and EXIN produce first ITILqualifications.

1999: ITIL V2 announced.

2000: Service Support and Service Deliverypublished.

2001: CCTA became a part of the Office ofGovernment Commerce (OGC)

2002-06: ITIL V2 complementary titles anditSMF pocket guides published.

2004: Sharon Taylor appointed as ChiefArchitect for Version 3, and start of theconsultation process.

2006: ITIL Glossary V2 published.

2007: ITIL V3 Lifecycle Suite published andqualifications scheme agreed.

2008: ITIL V3 Key Element Guides andFoundation Handbook published.

2009: Mandate for Change: call for authorsand reviewers for new edition of ITIL V3.

30 June 2010: V2 Foundation to cease

31 August 2010: V2 Manager to cease

31 December 2010: V2 Practitioner andFoundation Bridge to cease

30 June 2011: Managers Bridge and SS/SDpublication to cease.

2011?: Publication of ITIL V3 Lifecycle Suite,second edition

JANUARY 2010 SERVICETALK 17

ITIL AT 20 FEATURE

least 12 months. This is because of the numberof reviews that we conduct, and the time it takesto make sure that the qualifications are updatedand aligned with the books. Until we haveappointed the authors and reviewers we wont bepublishing a formal timetable, but were lookingat some time in 2011.

ST: What should we expect to see in 2011?Significantly different versions of all the corebooks, or a heavily revised Service Strategy andmore superficial changes to the rest of the Suite?

FS: Its effectively an impression change acrossthe whole piece. Its more than justwordsmithing, as we need to protect thetechnical content, but its definitely Version 3.1rather than Version 4.0.

It will be a complex operation because we have to maintain the relationship between the Suiteand the qualifications scheme. The qualificationsscheme is not the driver, and if changes have tobe made to the books then qualifications willhave to catch up to reflect those changes. But the two sides have to remain in synch; everything will be carefully documented so thatwe can identify where changes to the syllabusare necessary.

ST: What happens now with V2 qualifications?

FS: All ITIL qualifications remain valid goingforward; its just that for those aspiring to thehigher levels of the ITIL scheme, Version 2qualifications dont give you as many credits asVersion 3, and you have to mix and match.

We have now issued a timetable for thewithdrawal of Version 2, of course, and that hascaused a lot of comment as you might expect.Some people think the withdrawal is too earlyand others that V2 should be supported forever. Ihave some sympathy with both views, but theofficial OGC stance is that there is only ever oneversion of our products in the market at one time.We made an exception with Version 2 for a while,mainly because the Version 2 syllabus covered avery restricted subset of the guidance and thissuited many users who felt that it met theirneeds. But Service Delivery and Service Supportwill not deliver the business benefits of going endto end on the Lifecycle, and we do have to movethe community forward.

This need for an end-to-end view of the businessis why we wanted the Version 3 Foundation examin particular to touch the whole Lifecycle. Its amuch lighter touch than Version 2 offers in someareas, but we felt that the training communitycould pick up on this and provide more detailedtraining where appropriate. And when you get tothe Intermediate level you can certainly do this.

It was very difficult to decide how to address thetransition from Version 2 to Version 3, and welooked at a wide number of options. But we arehappy that the current scheme is focused ongiving people a real career path: it helps tovalidate their capabilities and offers a betterreflection of their level of competency,particularly at the Intermediate level. Studentsget an end-to-end high-level view of the Lifecycleand can drill down as needed.

Like the ITIL book content, qualifications have toreflect current thinking. Using currentterminology is essential from a career point ofview, and validation against the various Blooms

levels is a good way of achieving this.Qualifications must be constantly reviewed, butnot changed so often that it becomes a burden tothe ITIL community.

ST: With the core materials and qualificationsbeing revised, how will translations be affected?

FS: This is a very difficult issue. Managingtranslations of both the books and examinationmaterials is very complex. This is a much biggerissue that in the past, when most of the contentwas translated into no more than six languages.Now the glossary and Foundation exams areavailable in over 20 languages, which involves anenormous amount of work from the itSMFchapters, qualification bodies etc.

ST: What advice is being given about futuretranslations? Are they being put on hold until thenew edition arrives?

FS: Well, it varies from case to case. In mostcases the local itSMF chapters are deciding onthe needs of their local market. Those that aretranslating, say, just the Introduction andglossary will not be heavily affected by the newedition. For languages where the whole Suite hasbeen translated there will be more work to do.

In the case of the problematic terminology inService Strategy, I know that a lot of work wentinto interpreting the text during translation thiswas certainly the case with Japanese, wherethere was no exact translation for many newterms. There might even be an argument fortranslating the text back into English for the newupdate! Certainly we would hope and expect toinvolve individuals from a wide range ofnationalities in the review process or potentiallywith the authoring if they choose to bid.

ST: With the benefit of hindsight, is there anythingthat you feel should have been included in ITILVersion 3 which was missed?

FS: I have a personal view that, when they werescoping Version 3, they might have looked moreclosely at other service industries, such asfacilities management and leisure. I think thatover the next year or so we should explore(maybe through white papers) what theseemerging service industries have to offer andwhat they can teach us in the ITIL world. They aregenerally technology-independent, whereas wehave a tendency to get bogged down in thetechnical details. They might even be able to helpus to strip the IT specifics out of ITIL, which canbe an advantage in some cases. We do tend to gothrough cycles in IT and to forget the lessons ofthe past. Best practice needs to help us to stoprepeating our mistakes, and allow us to seethrough the technical fog that often obscures our vision.

Of course, going forward we also need to makesure that we remain broadly aligned with otherframeworks and standards (such as CobiT andISO/IEC 20,000) where appropriate. These otherstandards are evolving and changing at the sametime for example, ISO/IEC 20,000 is currentlybeing extensively revised. So in most casesalignment is a moving target, but we can reflectdifferences and areas of consistency throughwhite papers. ITIL should never evolve inisolation as users want to mix and match varioussources of guidance to suit their specific needs.

ST: Frances Scarff, thank you.

WHATS YOUR VIEW ON THE MANDATEFOR CHANGE AND THE FUTURE OFITIL? EMAIL mark.lillycrop@itsmf.co.ukWITH YOUR THOUGHTS.

WE DONT WANT TOCHANGE THE BASICCONTENT, JUST TO MAKEWHATS THERE MOREACCESSIBLE ANDMEANINGFUL TO SERVICEMANAGERS.Frances Scarff

ITIL VERSION 3 MANDATEFOR CHANGE: AIMS OFTHE PROJECT(from the OGC Mandate for Change www.best-management-practice.com/gempdf/ITIL_Mandate_for_Change_0909.pdf)

To update the publications in line with a number of issues raised in the ChangeControl Log. Not everything will beaddressed some technical changes are seen as too much for thisevolutionary change

To remedy the inconsistencies that exist between the content and layout of the publications

To answer some of the criticisms thathave been levelled at the corepublications by the training community

To simplify the Service Strategypublication to ensure that the conceptsare readily understood and that thecontent is accessible to a greaternumber of users.

mailto:mark.lillycrop@itsmf.co.ukwww.best-managementpractice.com/gempdf/ITIL_Mandate_for_Change_0909.pdf