The first question that we need to ask if we wish to meet the needs of the customer is “exactly who is the customer”?

So when we consider the ITIL qualification scheme, this becomes quite complex, because it really depends where you are in the hierarchy. OGC, APMG, the Examination Institutes (EIs) and the Accredited Training Organisations would all claim that the end consumer, i.e. those taking the exams, is the customer – and to a degree that is true. But the model is actually more complex than this.

OGC have a prime remit of enabling UK government departments to make cost savings and improve efficiency, through the deployment of good practices and conformance to standards. The fact that they produce some of the guidance themselves and wish to see qualification schemes under which practitioners can be tested on their knowledge and understanding can be seen as part of this remit, but it is also causes some problems. OGC employs virtually no subject matter experts in the various areas, including ITIL, and hence depends on external individuals or organisations to both develop the material and deploy qualification schemes. Of course, they want to exercise control (or at least have a veto) over the scheme and they want to make some money from it. They have a contract with APMG under which APMG manage the scheme and deliver the revenue to OGC.

APMG acts as both Accreditor and EI, so in some cases its customers are the other EIs and in others those ATOs which it directly accredits. All ATOs are licenced to use the copyright and trademarks by APMG under devolved authority from OGC.

The ATOs’ customers are the consumer – those people who pay for attendance on an accredited training course (and possibly take an exam). Although APMG’s remit as accreditor is to provide the exams directly or via an EI, access to them – except for the foundation level – is only via attending an accredited course, so in a sense the consumer is still the ATO’s customer. In fact, with all training there is the “customer” (payer) and the “user” (trainee), and their needs and desires may also be divergent.

Where I believe the model breaks down is in the control that APMG exert throughout the supply chain. Each exam has a “syllabus”, a fairly detailed definition of the scope and depth of topics that should be taught on each course – and by implication that may be tested by the exam. For the foundation exam at least, there is a formula defining how many questions from each section of the syllabus will appear in each exam. Leaving aside the vexed question of whether the style of questioning actual tests the right things, the whole process is taken several steps further.

The syllabus for each event also defines “recommended study hours” for each topic area as well as the overall contact time. Although these are only recommended hours, in reality most EIs and ATOs tend to treat them as absolute minimums. ATOs religiously develop courses that follow the prescribed syllabus in content and time, each one containing facts distilled form the core books. And so we arrive at a situation where ATOs concentrate their efforts on teaching people the facts that they need to know in order to pass the exam.

At the intermediate level, there are 2 main paths to achieving “Expert” status – via the Lifecycle modules or the Capability modules - although some mixing is allowed. The former involves 5 events each focused on one core book which are meant to take a more managerial view of the topic, while the latter involves 4 events with a more practical focus. Of course, no one can say what order candidates might take these modules in, so each has some common introduction topics – which by the 3rd, 4th or even 5th time of covering must get pretty boring for the student!

To me, the whole structure is ITIL-centric and not focused on the end-customer at all.

1. Why can someone only be called an “expert” if they have a roughly common set of knowledge? Many people may spend a large proportion of their working lives specialising in one or more areas. They may be steeped in designing solutions, but temperamentally unsuited to managing an operational team; they may be ideas people - confident, persuasive, big-picture, comfortable working at C-level on strategy; they may be died-in-the-wool back-room people able to analyse problems and identify resolutions or meticulously maintain processes and documentation; etc.

2. How many people will actually work at a strategic level – at any point in their career? Isn’t this area one in which most people are always going to have only a passing interest, rather than needing to know the detail?

3. Why is the Foundation level course now so broad and shallow in depth that it doesn’t really equip most people with the capability to really do anything? I have encountered many organisations who no longer feel that this course is really relevant to them – they want people in whom they have invested money to be able to add value immediately. And what about markets where the costs of training are borne by the individual far more than the western countries - and where the cost of an exam is equivalent to the cost of training, rather than 1/6th or 1/7th? Where’s the value in holding a certificate that doesn’t really increase your marketability?

4. Why does the exam setting body feel that they must also dictate the structure and content of a course in order for it to be accredited? Shouldn’t they define the exam syllabus and leave the course definition to the ATOs? Maybe ATOs should look at developing courses that cover topics in different ways and combinations – but which might equip candidates to tackle more than one exam. After all, the new rules state that you can’t teach a course if you don’t hold the certificate – but accredited tutors don’t have to sit through a course in order to take the exam, so clearly it isn’t essential that all candidates go through the prescribed learning. Perhaps there needs to be a route for “exceptions” – an option for accessing exams without the learning programme.

I know that even at Foundation level (which is designed to be passed by the majority), exam pass rates are slightly better for those who attend a course, and that for many candidates the intermediate courses will be the best preparation – but I still feel that this structure isn’t optimum. The needs of the customer and the user don’t appear to have been fully considered. What do you think?