OGC rolled out new version of ITIL, ITIL V3, in June 2007. I would prefer to term this as an excellent initiative. With ITIL V3 OGC has encapsulated every function and process area of an IT organization.
In ITIL V2, the focus was on 'aligning IT with business'. Today, IT is at core for success of any business. Thus, it can be said that IT is integral to business. This has resulted in the shift of focus in ITIL V3 to 'integrating IT with business'.
Although the initiative is excellent, motive and objective is great, but way the things have come out is far from any thing that can be termed as good. I feel that as far as publication of core volumes of ITIL V3 is concerned, it definitely lacks the 'depth' when compared to ITIL V2. Besides it has ambiguities at couple of places. For example in change management in one of the process flows, an activity box 'update plan' is mentioned. No where in the book its description has been given. Reader are left to make a guess based on ones experience.
I have observed that a person certified at ITIL V3 Foundation level lacks ITIL knowledge when compared to the person with ITIL V2 Foundation certification. An ITIL V2 certified person had a significant understanding of the processes whereas ITIL V3 foundation certified individual lacks that. He just has an overview or basic understanding of the ITIL V3 processes.
Referring to the certification scheme, ITIL V2 was designed to test both the practical as well as theoritical knowledge of the individual. ITIL V2 Manager certified individual had an indepth understanding of the processes and its practical application. The certification scheme was so designed that based on a persons capability, one can directly appear for Manager certification after clearing the Foundation. This was the route that I had taken. It was a very cost effective option.
On the other hand, ITIL V3 certification scheme looks to be more 'business' oriented. You need to accumulate required credits to reach the next level by clearing multiple exams. I would like to mention that to take each of these exams, with foundation being an exception, attending training from an Accredited Training Provider is mandatory. Thus, clearing each of these trainings/certification is pretty expensive.
While ITIL V2 certification scheme (to Manager level) tests your knowledge of ITIL at the first place, I feel that ITIL V3 certification scheme (to Master level) tests your financial capability at the first place. Testing ones knowledge becomes secondary as you need to arrange for the finances needed to clear a number of trainings and certification exams.
As far as overall knowledge is concerned, I feel it would be the same at ITIL V3 Expert level for both the set of individuals who have taken the ITIL V2 Managers route or the ITIL V3 route to ITIL V3 Expert certification. But definitely the people who are V2 Managers certified will be better placed for ITIL V3 Master certification, when the same is rolled out as it will be testing the practical knowledge and experience towards ITIL implementation.
Nice and practical comparison between v2 & v3. I believe with the growing commercialisation, it was just a matter of time for ITIL to be left untouched. And that's exactly what OGC did, the moment the opportunity came their way. ITIL v3, definately is better fit with the changing and evolved IT.
ReplyDeleteBut on similar lines, look around and you will find TOGAF, Zachman, PMP and so on, all have a tinge of class room training/lecture which demands money. Why shouldn't OGC do it as well? Also expensive is better, notion also helps.
But I believe rather than taking the most obvious and viable route (aka expensive), they should have gone the Six Sigma type route, which for practical aspects ensures the candidates deliver some projects. That way the quality of the certification would have been maintained as well as it would have been cost effective.
Really good one, simple and easy to digest.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Definitely V3, from an ITIL professional's perspective, looks to be more of a commercial venture.
ReplyDelete