the dropping of ITIL Version 2 certification, training, and publications

If the criticism of ITIL version 3 certification that you see on this blog and others concerns you, consider this. If you are a consultant, it should worry you because you need to get on and start building experience and credibility in the new space. But if you are an ITIL practitioner working in IT, relax; the time for ITIL Version 3 is not now, as I discussed in a recent ITSMWatch article.

What should be of more concern is the dropping of ITIL Version 2 certification and training, and dropping publication of ITIL2 books. Neither has happened yet: both are threatened. And it does seem to be getting hard to find ITIL2 Foundations training...

This is just vendor silliness, trying to drive the customer base forward. Software companies have found they must support one or two releases back. It is even harder to "upgrade" process and culture than it is to upgrade software, so TSO and APMG need to back off and let the community decide when it is time for ITIL2 to fade away.

I'm picking about 2009...


Who gets to drop v2

-in the interest of full disclosure, something that seems to be very important to some people here, I hereby plead guilty: I sell ITIL Training and Consultancy for a living-

I believe that we should not worry too much about v2 getting "dropped". I know of a certain publisher that would be more than happy to (continue to) publish v2 guidance. Furthermore there are the cd-based licences. I am no copyright lawyer but I would imagine that there is a legal provision for the copying of material that the principal copyright owner no longer chooses to reprint / republish.

Training is not a problem. The materials are there and we the training community are more than happy to continue the courses as long as you the students keep coming to them.

Certification may become a problem if APMG discontinues the v2 examinations. However, as with the training: if there is demand there will be supply. I know APMG as a very shrewd commercial outfit that is not as stupid as to discontinue a profitable product line. And if I'm wrong there are others. I'd do it myself if need be.....

The IT in IT Service Management is silent


Sorry I did not respond to your copyright observation. Copyrights do not lapse because someone wants to put them in deep freeze and I would suggest you check with a copyright lawyer before imply otherwise. Its OGC's materials - they can do what they want with it and the new IPR Guidelines are a good indicator they are going to protect whats (commercially) theirs - and I for one understand and support them. We have rigorously defended as best we can our own copyrights only to see our training manuals and a very similar organizational name be used by prominent folks in your neck of the woods.

In my opinion Europe is the Wild West not the USA - you do that here you get sued - period. We must respect each others work. And - there is nothing to stop anyone creating NEW MATERIALS! Its a big service management world out there - look around you - be bold - ITIL is but a miniscule contribution. Truly - its a fraction. Look at what folks do outside of IT.

Remember the IT in Service Management stands for "Invisible Technology" - you heard it here first.... or you could have read that first in the ITSMBOK actually...

Give the market what it wants... ITIL V2.5


We know each other - ITIL V2 was dated and jaundiced - it was planned to be replaced (as far back as 2002!) because it was becoming irrelevant - especially to management and gaining support for project dollars. The whole issue about V2/V3 is because the transition path we have been given is complicated and does not make sense, or offer value to most, especially in the US - where the new dollars are.

Training companies must be raking in V2 dollars in the US and see the tit run dry as V3 strikes. Lets be honest here - is this a customer driven plea - or a training organization plea - I think the latter despite your opening claim of innocence. We need to move onto V3 - its actually just a step towards catching up with what is needed. We need to do a much better job of helping folks transitioning. We need to ASK the market what they need as I feel a V4 coming on.

Like any product the biggest challenges are deciding what functionality stays in, and creating marketing programs that entice the customers forward. Again I say ITIL V3 could not have happened at a worst time for vendors in the US.

In saying all this I do sympathise as we have repeatedly gone back to the original ITIL scoping document and compared its general boast with the actual books - its not exactly a good example of expectation setting, perhaps this and the fact the true customers did not ASK for what V3 provided are the true reasons why V3 grates on some of us so much...? Where is all the "how to", 1-2-3 steps and examples???

V3 does not provide what was

V3 does not provide what was promised. I agree with Ian. V2 was in dire need of review, and I, like many others, was eagerly looking forward to V3. I told my students that it would rectify the omissions in V2, and bring it up-to-date. I am still of the opinion that there is a lot of good content in it. My criticism has been that
a) The books, in attempting to take a lifecycle approach, have become confusing to read, as topics span severaal books, yet are not described clearly across the books so that they are recognisable. A lot of this is down to sub-editing, which appears to have been done in a hurry, or not at all. (See the chapter on Service Management as a service, which is supposedly identically introduced in each book, but with the same diagram drawn differently in different books , and the same example laid out as part of the text, a separate box, and a footnote in different books. Although this does not affect what is says that much, it shows that no-one compared the chapters.
b) the diagrams should be there to explain, or illustrate the points made - yet the the surrounding text has often no reference to the hundreds of diagrams and there is no explanation given. It is a frequent comment in the UK between trainers, saying "Do you understand that diagram? What is it supposed to be saying - without knowing, I can't teach it!" Often the different trainers have completely different ideas of what it means. Again, a good sub-editor would have ensured that this did not happen.
c) The QA of the drafts was rushed. Like others, I volunteered, and set aside a week to do it. First the file arrived late, there were problems with openning it, we were told that we would get a new copy, and when we did, I had ran out out of time. Others probably did too.
d) there was no proper rigorous review o the material before it was finalised (the last-minute review above could never have fulfilled this). There needed to be drafts early on, that could have been commented on for omissions etc. It seems that the only people involved were those too close to the project.
e) Finally, the training/examinations! TO introduce them within days of the release of the books, with no trial-runing of whether the syllabus was practical, and/or was what students required. The change to APMG has just compounded this. Again, this was due to unseemly haste. Why not have the exams introduced 4-6 months after the books, and piloted first?

There have been a lot of comments here about training companies after big bucks - well, I am part of a 2-person operation, so give only limited numbers of courses a year - our worry is that the new V3 certification will kill the market, and lose the value of internationally recognised qualifications.

And, yes I do remember V2 coming out, and no, there was not the same outcry.

Liz Gallacher
Freelance Trainer and Consultant


I think that all that Liz says is true. There were some positive aspects in the move to V3, for instance the move to a more strategic view and the inclusion of service transition, but on balance the big failing of V3 is that it simply isn't driven by a customer centric view of the world. There is no point having brilliant ideas if the customer world cannot easily adopt and implement them.

Well said - but what is going to happen as a result?

Hear, Hear to Liz's comments. I couldn't agree more!

But in this and other blogs on the site we have been saying this for months - although this is a clear summation of the issues, it still leaves me asking the question - and what is going to happen as a result? The books are out there, and 'the powers that be' are probably not planning an 'editing revision'.

The moderation of Foundation exams continues in their new iteration, the Managers Bridge syllabus moves and shifts and the exam ebbs and flows, the remaining qualification structure is hazy at best.

I am left with the elephant in the room - at least as far as the qualifications are concerned - this has been a poor start - shouldn't someone(s) somewhere put their hand up and say "we've made a mistake" and "in the interests of good practice, all V3 qualifications will be suspended until a suitable date when sufficient release activity can be completed and ensure a comprehensive, accurate and meaningful qualification structure is delivered. In the meantime, all ATOs will be happy to provide overview courses either as a brief one day session to explain basic differences, or a more in depth review of the 5 excellent books we now have on Service Management Good Practice"

And now my dream has ended and I'm waking up..... please note my dream doesn't stretch so far as to recommend a revision of the texts in question to "correct" consistency errors etc.

Back to reality and how to get around the shifting sands of V3 qualifications - anyone got any bright ideas on how to maintain credibility with clients in the face of so much uncertainty? My solution so far has been to recommend continuing with V2 until the confusion has settled and there is a qualification structure in place to follow.


Helen Morris ITIL Trainer / Consultant

hoovering through the market like a whale sucking up krill

The V3 training machine is unstoppable now: it is hoovering its way through the market like a whale sucking up krill. Millions have been sunk in marketing, the punters are booked, sales projections have been made, quotas set. No going back now!

I disagree - the largest

I disagree - the largest training companies are pushing V3training, so as to look as though they are at the forefront of Service Management - however they are finding it difficult too, as they advertised Manager's bridge courses, expecting to be able to run them, then found out the trainers had to have sat and got the results from the course themselves first, then found out that the exams had been withdrawn and the launch postponed by APMG (because , apparently, the APMG guinea pigs failed the exam they were trialling). So they had yo change their advertised schedules.
Most/all training companies are still offering V2, and V3 training is limited to Foundation, Foundation bridge and overviews.
There are few training companies in the UK with such big advertising budgets - most have websites, and adverts in the itSMF newsletter. Those with big sales departments (the minority) are struggling to answer the question from "punters" - should I go V2 or V3, as there is nothing to offer beyond V3 Foundation, and repeat business is what they want.
Sadly, many "punters" ask for V3 without having a clue what it is - they just always ask for the latest version of training, as they would for a technical course. They are then horrified when they get on the course, as it is not what they were expecting.
Even for the large companies, , there is a real danger that the new exams will not be released and courses developed quickly enough. There is nowhere else to go at the moment from V3 Foundation, and that could be true for many months.
Liz Gallacher
Freelance Trainer and Consultant

Bring on the whalers!

I know, I know...
But it was such a nice dream - forgive me, just returned from holiday and still thinking the skies are blue!

Helen Morris ITIL Trainer/Consultant

Tail wagging the dog

*Disclosure: I have no affiliations in training firms of any sort.*

Does anyone remember when v2 replaced v1 and the subsequent lamentations? Trainers making the same dire predictions?

Perhaps I miss the point. But I would think people want training because the material is *worth learning* and cannot be properly absorbed without 3rd-party instruction - not because of a high-pass rate or spoon fed content. This strikes me as the surest path to training irrelevancy. Sure, there are those that just want ITIL certs for its own sake. But how long would the certs be relevant?

It is no coincidence that the most valued certifications in the industry are also the most difficult. They have the lowest pass rates and are the most expensive. They also command the highest salaries. Anyone have the pleasure of taking - and passing - the CCIE labs? There are many more of the former than the latter. And so CCIE certs continue to command 6-figure salaries.

This very web site was born of the idea that ITILv2 suffered shortcomings; shortcomings which were difficult to voice because of industry zealotry. Hence the initial anonymity. I am therefore astonished to see that, now that livelihoods are affected, v2 training has become haloed.

Let's be honest: v2 foundations were hardly pragmatic. Students were not prepared to do much more than proselytize ITIL. They were not qualified to perform process engineering, lead improvement efforts or speak authoritatively on service management.

When I hear "give the market what it wants", I can't help but think of self-serving agendas. What is it *exactly* that the market wants?

Untrodden ITIL...

There are many customers in the US who have either just started down the ITSM path, and more who have yet to begin. Those of us who have trodden down that path understand full well the cultural shift that lies ahead for many.

As a trainer, I would like to 'move on' to ITIL V3. However, my hope is that the 'complimentary guidance' we are longing for will include more V2-type process nuts and bolts; that would be a nice compliment to V3, ...perhaps then customers could move on to V3.

I must agree however, that it is end-users (not consultants or trainers) who should drive any decision to move to V3. The message this sends customers is not helpful:

"Enter at your own risk. Carry water. Avoid the noonday sun. Try to ignore the vultures and pray frequently." [Ralph Steadman, Untrodden Grapes, quoting Edward abbey, author of Desert Solitaire]

There are still many (potential) customers who have not yet trodden down the ITIL path, and some who are already on a journey using the V2 guidance. Don't drive them off the road by giving them new directions; let them use the new guidance at a pace that fits their own culture and objectives.

Some of the best (and longest lasting) change happens over time. You can't rush quality.


John M. Worthington
MyServiceMonitor, LLC

complementary guidance by ITSMF

there is and will be plenty of additional guidance in the near future, but you should look wider than ITIL. Most of these books will be published in the ITSM Library. The Annual Report of the international chair ( explicitly states that itSMF International is planning to invest in developing its own IP, based on the ITSM Library. On the ITIL front, the publishing of 5 Key Element Guides, one on each ITIL V3 book, is announced: published by TSO. The rest of the news is on ITSM Library books.

If you look at, you'll see a list of all titles that were already published by itSMF chapters. And if you look at, you'll see an even longer list of publications that are in progress, officially announced in IPESC, the international publications committee.
The majority of these publications are very practical, and aim at explaining how (elements of) complex frameworks can be applied in practice. The first books of this list that will be published include:
- the ITIL V3 pocket guide
- Implementing Metrics ("Implementing the ITSM Data Warehouse"), including a dashboard application
- Implementing ISO 20000 (with extensive case descriptions)
- ISO 20000, An Introduction
- Capacity Management
- IT Service Management, A Management Guide
- The Service Catalog
- IPSR, Support and Restore quadrant for Practitioners
- IT Service Management, Global Best Practices

Especially the last one will be full of innovative and very practical guidance on how to apply IT Service Management in practice, including a lot of information about IT Governance and Information Management.
Books on each of the processes and functions described in ITIL V2 and V2 are in different stages of development.
If there are other topics that you'd like to see developed, please let me know; itSMF International is setting up a management structure for the handling of all requests.
Best regards,
Jan van Bon
Managing editor ITSM Library

What is Sharon wins the International presidency?

Will Sharon have a conflict of interest given her APMG/ITIL role if she wins the itSMF International Presidency - especially on this compliemntary guidance topic - or have I missed something?

itSMF are so deeply in commercial relationships

Oh I don't think so. itSMF are so deeply in commercial relationships with both TSO and APMG I don't see how this would result in any further conflict of interest.

In fact, since itSMF exists to promote the ITSM industry not to represent consumer interests, her election would only advance that aim by giving the ITIL industry stronger representation on the itSMF Board.

Conflicts of interest

I am a strong supporter of scepticism. Long may the IT Skeptic continue to fill the role of a burr in the side of (or, I hope, more positively, a spur to improvement and growth) the itSMF and the Service Management community as a whole.

I'm concerned, though, about your posting above. As we know, the itSMF is supposed to promote Service Management and, as part of that, ITIL, as a non-profit concern. If it were purely the voice of commercial interests, then it would not be acting in member's interests. I say 'purely' because I think that it is proper for the itSMF to enter into commercial relationships, joint marketing deals and so forth insofar as these promote member's interests.

It doesn't really matter if your perception is right or wrong. It is nevertheless a damaging perception. You have every right to hold it as long as you have evidence to support that view.

I would hope that you will change that view. Not because of any undue influence, of course, but because you come to agree that it is not correct.

So, I would like to know, what will it take for you to change your view? What would the itSMFI have to do to demonstrate that it is, in fact, acting in member's interests? I don't mean what 'spin' it ought to put on things, I mean what would it genuinely have to do to make it clear to you, and other members, that it is working in their interests?

It is important to know this. Negative comment is fine, but it must include suggestions of how to remedy the situation and/or the perception. Otherwise, as I'm sure you would agree, it would become simply carping.

What would the itSMFI have to do

itSMF - as i understand/perceive it - current does none of the following:

1) constitutionally commit to member's interests and write that into goals/objectives/vision
2) get ratification of members for rules, policy, strategy and major decisions
3) report to members in a meaningful fashion: WHAT is policy and strategy, WHY decisions are taken, HOW money is spent. Since itSMF is a not-for-profit and since members are a diverse and scattered group, i believe the simplest way to report to members is to do so publicly. I see no reason for secrecy.
4) adopt a community approach: forums, feedback, councils and consultation
5) support and create member development and certification initiatives instead of spinning them off (IoSM) or allowing them to be run by vendors unrestrained (APMG)
6) implement effective governance to restrain commercial influence on itSMF
7) speak up publicly on behalf of - as the voice of - members, even where that conflicts with itSMF's commercial interests
8) encourage members to participate e.g. publish calls for nomination publicly and far in advance instead of one month ahead to chapter heads, make the rules public, advertise

All of these have beeen covered in this blog in the past.

i don't believe itSMF will do these things simply because that is not the purpose of itSMF any more than representing the interests of shareholders is the purpose of Shell Oil, or representing the interests of subscribers is the purpose of National geographic. itSMF does not exist to represent members; it exists to represent ITSM. So long as we are all clear on that we won't be disappointed.

Ideals of governance

Yes, you have mentioned these in your blog, but it is very useful to see them in one place and understand that the list is complete.

I think that all of them are related to good governance. I agree that they all fit within the scope of what the itSMF should be.

You don't distinguish between the itSMF chapters and the itSMF international. I think that you're right not to. The issues implied by your disderata have been seen in the itSMF in various countries at various times.

I don't share you pessimism, though. I do believe that things can change for the better and, in principle, I don't see a reason why the itSMF world wide should not move towards embodying all the points you make. I personally think that there is more that can be done to improve things, and I think that more is possible.

It is useful to have a baseline or benchmark here. It would be interesting to see if other people agree that these are indeed desiderata or if there are good reasons why any should not be part of the itSMF mission and direction - or, indeed, if there are other vital requirements. It might also be interesting to revisit the list in a few years time to see if things have got better or worse.

The itSMF has the unique position in the industry of being independent. This is of great value to individual members, company members and vendors. It is, in my view, therefore important to make sure that it operates under the best governance possible. Not least because Service Management has good governance as an essential desideratum.

itSMF Independence Sold Out


As a prospective new member of the itSMF International Board you need to do your homework because the itSMF International Board sold out its position of independence by the signing of contracts with the APMG and TSO without any consultation with National Chapters.

In fact when it announced it was planning to do this prior to last years AGM representations were made to itSMF International by itSMF Australia advised that:

1.) It would object to the signing of the MOU with the APM Group and TSO because they are commercially owned and operated British company, which compromises itSMF's independence which should be absolutely sacrosanct.

2.) Furthermore, given the strategic impact and importance of such a decision on itSMF, our position is most likely to be that itSMF international should not sign any such agreement with any commercial owned and operated company.

3.) A decision such as this should be included as an Agenda Item for the AGM and voted on by all National Chapters and that from discussions with other National Chapters they are of like mind.

In response to these representations the following is an extract that gave assurances that itSMF International gave that it would not sign any such agreements:

As mentioned in my quarterly Chairman's Reports, the International Board has been considering invitations from both TSO and the APM Group to enter into agreements/contracts with them that formalise the support activities that itSMF has been providing over past years and which would also cover itSMF's costs for doing so - which has not been the case in the past. As discussions proceeded we saw opportunities to also gain significant revenues from the commercial activities of those organisations, namely from Foundations exams and ITIL core publications. Both would have been in compensation for the brand support and endorsements which itSMF provides. However we have realised that that would, as Peter points out, severely compromise our independence. The Board therefore recently decided not to enter into any agreements/contracts with TSO or APMG.

Commercial considerations aside, we do intend to continue supporting their activities and we are looking to make those more formal, to protect our position and the avenues of continuing to have influence on ITIL publications and qualifications. This will most likely be by way of a Memorandum of Understanding, which will document the expectations of both parties and which may make provisions for our costs but will not involve commercial gain (profit sharing) and will not be legally binding. We are also pursuing other revenue opportunities, which are needed to support both International and Chapter activities and the growth of the global organisation (now 40 chapters) but it is too early to go into details now.

I hope that that has allayed any fears that International might be considering a direction that would compromise itSMF's independence. I will be happy to discuss the issues in more detail.

Despite these assurances the itSMF International Board has reported in it's Chair's Report - October 2007 that it has taken upon itself to enter into agreement s with APMG and TSO without any consultation with the National Chapters.

The following is an extract of that report:
An agreement has been signed with TSO for the translation of the core ITIL V3 publications into 12 languages and this work is progressing well. We have also reached agreement with the APMG to provide services in support of their qualifications scheme. The net result from these activities will be a substantial new revenue stream that will be used primarily to support new chapters and to provide improved and expanded services for the benefit of existing chapters and all members

As you can see for yourself that by its own admission that this is nothing more than a revenue raising exercise and it has sold out on the indepedence of itSMF on the pretext that the funds will be used for the benefit of the Chapters, just like they do with the distribution of revenue from Global Memberships.

Please excuse the scepticsm, but, the itSMF International Board speaks with a fork tongue and will use these funds to continue to swan around the world at its members expense as it has done for the last 2 years.

This is will be a subject of an EGM that the itSMF International Board has been advised will be requisitioned by National Chapters along with other matters relating to the fact that the itSMF International Board has not conducted nomination and election process for the new itSMF International Board in accordance with the Articles of Association which contain and prescribe the rules for internal regulation and management of the company, and more specifically the rules for how the directors are legally required to run the company on behalf of its members.


I think you will find that the Board have not signed contracts with APMG (this has been confirmed by APMG) and the contract that has been signed with TSO (for translations) and other contracts with other commercial organisations including the Netherlands Chapter for the purchase of the ITSM Library, have been signed without full discussion being had at the Board nor approveal given by the Board.


Dear Visitor,

It is a pity that you don't sign your name, but I do understand that these are contentious issues. Please feel free to contact me directly if you wish to go into more detail that you feel you can't make public. I'm happy go guarantee to be discrete if you, or anybody else, chooses to write to me. My e-mail address is on the itSMF-SA web-site.

I would like to assure you that I am doing my very best to do my homework! There is a lot to learn when getting to grips with a new job. As you know the chair has only very recently been announced so we, as a future board have not had an opportunity to meet the existing board or, indeed to meet together as a board, so I can only speak for myself in anything.

In my experience, as I've hinted before, mostly when you see what looks like a black and white case of whickedness, it becomes much greyer when you hear the other side. I'm not of course denying that there is wickedness in the world or that all problems are simply communication problems, but it is a mistake to leap to conclusions, even if the evidence prima facie appears pretty damning.

I, as an individual, am certainly keen to get an understanding of what problems there are and to work with the rest of the team to resolve them in the best interests of the members and chapters. I can't imagine that this resolution will be possible without a fair bit of consultation, so it is unlikely to be as swift as I, or anybody else would wish.

I don't see why, in principle, the itSMFI should not enter into contracts, even contracts with commercial companies. I do, however, agree with you, that if it does, these must not interfere with its actual or perceived independence.

You will have noticed that the new board will have no members in common with the existing board. This maybe an issue for continuity as some have observed, but it should mean that things can be approached afresh. We, as a board, can only be held responsible for our mistakes once we start making them - and we can't do that until January next year!

Good Governance Starts at Home

I ask you, how can itSMF maintain its independence and be an effective and impartial industry body and represent the best interests of the Forum if it is being paid by the privately owned and operated companies like APMG and the TSO to whom it should be representing the the best interests of the Forum and its members.

The fact of the matter is it cannot when it is in the pocket of these companies.

You seem to have ignored the itSMFI's acknowledgement that signing of such agreements would compromise its ability to be independent. As was pointed out if itSMF is going to sign any commercial agreements they be for the purpose of promoting ITSM and not for promoting the position, products or services of anyone company.

Therefore, itSMF International has sold out on the independence of itSMF without any consultation whatsoever, despite its assurances that it would not do so and that the independence of the Forum is sacrosanct and should not be compromised.

Again as I your homework like others who are not on the itSMFI Board have done and you will find out the truth for yourself.

Good starts at home and it is ironic that the itSMF International Board should talk about improving the governance over National Chapters on its 2005 - 2006 Business Plan and it does not practice what it preaches.

Good governance does indeed start at home

I agree, good governance does start at home.

As I've said, I agree too that I have to do my homework to understand these matters properly. I'm not disagreeing with you, or ignoring you, I take what you have said very seriously. I believe that independence is probably the greatest asset that the itSMF has and that it must be protected or, if in danger or lost, restored.

You know that I haven't seen all the facts. I haven't even seen all the documents that you've posted sections from, I certainly haven't seen any of the contracts in question. It would be as wrong for me to leap to conclusions and agree that the itSMF is irretrievably in the pocket of commercial organisations as it would be for me to ignore the serious charges and evidence you present.

I certainly will be serving on a board that takes governance seriously enough to make sure that it is itself properly governed. I believe, already, from what I've seen and heard, that I am not alone, by any means, in seeing this as a fundamental point of principle. As I've said before, I'm an optimist, but I do think it realistic for you to expect us to be making this a priority. There is, in my view, no point in taking part in something like this unless you are committed to being as ethical as it is possible to be at all times. For one thing, to look at it negatively, if you are not, as a Director, then you are personally liable for the consequences. On the more positive side, I am already happy to be bound by the ethical code of the ISM and will be happy to be bound by the code of the itSMFI - once, of course, I've seen, read, understood and agreed to what it says. You will notice I am not the only member of the board already bound by the ISM code of ethics. If we act against that code you, or anybody else, are at liberty to report us to the ISM, and, if we do, I hope that, after trying to get us to mend our ways directly, you do report the infringement.

much itSMFI behaviour makes more sense if ...

As I recently discussed, much itSMFI behaviour makes more sense if one comes to terms with the fact that itSMF exists not for the members but for the ITIL industry. Good contractual relations between itSMF, TSO and APMG make perfect sense in that light. People who want an organisation chartered to represent their professional interests may want to look elsewhere as I am doing. I for one will also continue to work for itSMF just because I think promoting the industry is a good idea.

How ethically or legally those relations were established within the framework of the incorporated organisation is another question altogether, one that looks set to be thrashed out at the AGM and possibly an EGM. The result of that process will influence how long I continue to do my tiny bit for itSMF.

Who owns 'Complimentary'?


Is this the same complimentary guidance propmised by Sharon Taylor in support of v3?
Have you seen the latest OGC issued IPR guidance - it looks like it will expand any book 'based upon ITIL' by a significant % as you need to quote source when using any ITIL content!!!

The IP screw is tightening..... we have the same IP protection for the SMBOK.

book of the month club

Thank you! That was very helpful. If there's a mailing list for new pubs I'd be interested. Also, if the decision is made to withdraw V2 I hope there will be plenty of notice. Some of us are still leaning pretty heavily on it.

How 'bout, "Fools with Tools, and Fools Without: Avoiding Disaster on the Road to ITSM Nirvana - Leveraging Supplier Relationships for Success" (or something like that)

John M. Worthington
MyServiceMonitor, LLC

Offer a choice based upon need...


Thanks again for pricking the concious. We have been offering a choice of V2 or V3 Foundation class even though it means those attending V2 may have to cross a 'bridge' sooner or later. We try to explain our view of the radical difference between the classes.

As some of you may by now realized, the V2 class is closer to the day-to-day activities and issues faced by the traditional IT blue-collar worker. Here in the US the V2 wave is happening and V3 could not have come at a worse time from the perspective of almost everyone concerned.

We at ITSMi are fortunate in that we have been incorporating service (provision ) lifecycle concepts for many years. Even so, teh expanse of V3 and shift towards the strategic, and limited time for 25+ 'processes', targets a different audience entirely.

The V3 class just does not give anyone involved enough time to address the key/core practice areas (ITIL 'processes/functions') the attendee desires. It is a case of 'we told you so'. A number of us have blogged on this and expressed our disatisfaction at the V3 Foundation syllabus and bridging companions. To no avail. This is definitely a 'field of dreams' strategy - build it and they will come....

It also sets the key channel to market, the accredited training organizations, as much of a challenge as it does the student. As I have said multiple times before, those who have EXPERIENCE of outsourcing, running a, or already operate/consult as a service provider will have a distinct advantage.

Does anyone remember that V2 risked becoming irrelevant because it was perceived as lacking the modicum of 'how to' to embed it in most organizations as a business relevant. We all know that was a sign the customer wanted more..... V3 is more but it risks missing the mark here - again. The need remains the same. I'm not sure the executives have the patience to wait for it to 'catch on', they fund projects that deliver, not promise results.

When will it end indeed....

Thank you Skeptic - as a trainer and consultant I can only hope you are right - I share the concerns of the other trainers on the site (Liz & Alison) and hope that the 'powers that be' will be intelligent about this.

V2 still has life left in it - especially since consultants, IT professionals and trainers do not yet have the requisite experience to provide a fully competent service based on V3.

Sadly I fear that on current precedent we will still be getting mixed messages and no clear guidance, leaving the training providers to sort it all out! I find it sad that thanks to the confusion around this and other aspects of V3 examination and training, TSO and APMG are running the risk of driving it into the ground.

As for my advice to anyone about to undertake ITIL training - go with V2 - a tried, tested, mature and fully understood examination route, and now hopefully it will have a suitable shelf life until the V3 training structure is complete, and the whole library, including the Complementary guidance has been published.

Let us hope that the higher powers are reading and watching this site and taking note of the comments from concerned trainers, consultants and professionals.

Helen Morris ITIL Trainer and Consultant

Syndicate content