So Now What?

We've got a turf war going on in the ITIL certification space. At least, lacking any more specific information, that's what it appears to be. EXIN, ISEB and the itSMF look like they're about to be left out in the cold.

The OGC has signed an ITIL contract with the APMG. That indicates that the APMG will be "the" certification authority for ITIL. Up to this point EXIN and the ISEB have, shall I say, "competitively shared" certification for the Foundations and Master's/Manager's levels. Their certified courses were mostly comparable and the final certifications were considered interchangeable.

Lately, however, EXIN was beginning to adopt a slightly different approach to its "Practitioner" certifications. This approach is, in my opinion, more strategic and reasonable. EXIN has been working toward a strategic grouping of related disciplines such as Service Desk, Incident and Problem as one module or Change, Release and Configuration as another. Such a strategy is makes sense because, for example, Change and Configuration cannot exist without one another and Release is a major element in the execution of change and in the maintenance of the CMDB. This is certainly more reasonable from a financial perspective. Under the traditional ISEB plan, the student would have to sign on for three individual classes to get the same level of knowledge offered by just one EXIN class.

I’ve spent some time on this to point out one possible reason for the OGC’s decision to sign with APMG. Now don't get me wrong. I sincerely believe the EXIN strategy is good for the industry. But with two different certification authorities in the mix trying to differentiate themselves in the marketplace, the student can easily become confused. Managers approving training need to evaluate one certification body over another. When push comes to shove in the course of business, the manager may elect to avoid the purchase decision altogether if he or she cannot distinguish between the two bodies. So, the agreement may lead to more consistency in training and certification, although again, except for the Practitioner training, there was really no significant difference between EXIN and ISEB.

As of this writing there is little clarity on what the OGC decision means for either certification organization. They have published a joint statement in response to the OGC’s decision. But it really only adds to my suspicion that EXIN and ISEB really don’t know what this decision means.

While the confusion is rampant for EXIN and ISEB, the itSMF is on the outside looking in right now trying to figure out what it means to them. To this point they’ve been the recognized advocate and promoter of the ITIL framework for the user. They were the authoritative resource for information. Their future is uncertain because we really don’t know what the APMG agreement really means.

The national itSMF site recently published an article which is getting a lot of readership that provides a better perspective on the decision than that offered by either the EXIN/ISEB joint statement or the OGC. The article, "OGC signs ITIL contract with APMG" presents some thoughts of interest. Two lines stand out in this article:
1. itSMF is still trying to find its position and there's little chance they'll be in charge of ITIL any more. This may degrade the role of itSMF to that of a supporter.
2. APMG usually makes the accredited organizations pay for the right to perform their business. So this will probably clash. Which leaves APMG with just one option: create a new certification mechanism - without EXIN and ISEB.

OK, so now what? What does all this mean? Well, I don’t even pretend to know because I’m not sure anyone who has published a statement on the matter really knows what it means. No one is particularly forthcoming in making the announcement public. I’m on a direct mail list for both EXIN and ISEB and have yet to hear anything from them. The itSMF hasn’t been real forthcoming on information either.