I know that one is supposed to return refreshed from a holiday, but I must confess I don’t feel it.

Perhaps it’s because the holiday was fairly energetic – much climbing around Italian hill-top towns, not to mention the Leaning Tower and Florence Duomo. Or perhaps it’s the debilitating effect of our current weather. Or maybe just that I’ve returned to the same old, same old. Politicians still desperately trying to justify the indefensible or taking actions that have little to do with the well-being of the country and everything to do with their own self-interest; more public snouts in the trough being exposed (the BBC salaries & expenses); bankers talking about bonuses again – along with those awarded to the regulators -who between them failed the country so badly.

I’m generally an optimistic sort of person, trying to find positives in situations, but I do worry about the way in which people with vested interests increasingly seem to find a ready platform for their propaganda. For example, estate agents talking up the housing market and reviling the financial institutions for not turning on the tap of cheap and easy money (the cause of the whole problem in the first place).

In our own field of service management, I see a similar unhealthy attitude creeping in.

The software assessment service springs to mind as a prime example. Purported to be launched in the interest of the procurer, it seems to be much more in the interests of the small group (OGC, APMG and SMCG) involved in its secretive development.

Visit the SMCG website and look at the FAQs that attempt to justify its evolution and operation. Leaving aside the development, let’s consider what it involves.

A vendor’s product, which may provide functionality covering one or more ITIL processes, can be submitted for assessment. Each assessment lasts up to 8 hours – though it is unclear whether this is per process or per product – and checks that the product is compliant. Quite what it is compliant with is unclear, since the wording used is so loose that it isn’t always clear what is actually being checked and against what. Here some words from the FAQs:

How can we be ITIL compliant if ITIL is just a set of guidelines?

As ITIL documents the set of guidelines the assessment takes what is written in black and white and asks the Vendor how they achieve this, and if they do not provide their alternative and rationale. If the ITIL processes and documentation cater for this, then the pass mark would be granted. The Vendors User Documentation, Processes and Applications must all agree with each other, one cannot say one thing and the other element do another. All three areas must pass the assessment based on the ITIL books.

Who set the standard?

The APMG own the standard against which all Licensed Assessors must adhere to. APMG audited the assessor’s questions to ensure they are compliant with ITIL and the process, mechanism and assessors meet the criteria. All the Assessors used by the Licensed Assessor are audited and approved by APMG. The results of the assessment are passed the APMG for final auditing and approval before the Trademark can be released.

Do I get to see the questions beforehand?

No. The questions will remain with the Licensed Assessor and only be asked at the time of the assessment. The Vendor should treat the tool assessment element as if they were demonstrating to a prospective client how they adhere to ITIL. This is to ensure a level playing field where some vendors have more time or resources to prepare a demonstration to pre-released questions. Therefore the demonstrator needs to be very fluent in ITIL, the application and their documentation.

From the first answer, it appears that although the assessment is against what the book says (though it’s only guidance); a vendor could argue that their method of handling something which varies from what the book says is equally acceptable. So what does the endorsement actually mean? Very little on this basis.

The second one confuses me even more. Is the “standard” applicable to the assessors or the assessment?  It can’t be the latter, since ISO/IEC20000 is the standard for assessment of processes and can’t be applied to products. If it’s the former, it’s not a standard – though it may be a set of criteria. Anyway, a definition of these criteria seems to be secret.

The third is even more secretive. You can’t know the criteria against which your product is being assessed! This is contrary to the whole concept of compliance – where the rules are defined and published so that everyone seeking certification knows what they have to achieve and those looking to it for an assurance know exactly what it means.

As I suspected when I first heard of this, I don’t believe that this really helps the procurer at all. The assessment is unlikely to tell you whether the product is the right one for you, since it focuses on just one aspect that needs considering – and that is one which is highly dubious in its value.  The assessment doesn’t address scalability, integration, corporate fit, vendor viability, etc. Nor does it address the most important question – will it support the way that YOU want to work, rather than what is written in some books that are self-admitted “guidance to be adopted and adapted”.

When will we get proper understanding that ITIL isn’t the word of God or even a prescriptive standard and stop trying to treat it as such. This doesn’t help anyone – and indeed may well be ITIL's death, as expectations whipped up by false hype are dashed.

I’m tempted to return to the Italian village, population about 150, with 3 bars, a general store, a Post Office and a restaurant, where one of the bars will fill your own bottle with local plonk (very drinkable too!) for €1.50. Even my depleted pension might cope with prices at that rate!