The PeopleCert ITIL-Accredited Tool Vendors (ATV) Programme wants to increase the value IT service management (ITSM) tool accreditation schemes provide – to both the organizations seeking a new ITSM tool and ITSM tool vendors. But what could and should be done to enhance ITSM tool accreditation schemes such as the ATV Programme?
This article shares a few ideas before requesting your help in creating an ITSM tool accreditation scheme that is better aligned with the needs of service consumers rather than service providers.
The @PeopleCert ITIL-Accredited Tool Vendors Programme wants to increase the value #ITSM tool accreditation schemes provide. But what could and should be done to enhance ITSM tool accreditation schemes such as the ATV Programme? Share on XThe ITSM tool accreditation status quo
There have long been regional and global ITSM tool accreditation schemes – delivered and consumed as lists of the participating ITSM tools and the ITSM processes or ITIL practices they support. Their intention is good and they help enterprise organizations better understand which ITSM tools are best suited to their needs, speeding up the ITSM tool selection process by offering a quick-and-dirty match of capability availability to the procuring organization’s needs.
However, having gone through ITSM tool selection exercises, I know that a simple list of tools and the processes they have been proven to support isn’t enough anymore. It’s definitely part of the ITSM tool selection jigsaw, but could it be a bigger piece (or multiple pieces)? In a world where customers and consumers increasingly drive product development, I think the answer must be “yes.”
Knitting together the key information needed for ITSM tool selection
You’ve probably been there, scouting around the internet to find as much information as possible about a spectrum of ITSM tools to make an informed decision on which ITSM tool vendors to send a request for proposal (RFP) or request for information (RFI) document to.
Industry research plays a part. Perhaps the Gartner Magic Quadrant and Critical Capabilities report (as was) or the insight from one or more ITSM tool accreditation schemes, such as the PeopleCert ATV Programme.
All this currently disparate information and more is often needed to make a fully informed short-list decision, even if the procuring organization is happy to “make do” in some ITSM tool need areas. It’s better than starting with the proverbial “blank piece of paper,” but can we make it easier for people to access what’s needed?
Can you share your opinions on creating an #ITSM tool accreditation scheme that is better aligned with the needs of service consumers rather than service providers? Share on XAccessing and assessing other ITSM tool information
This includes basic need-to-know stuff, such as the delivery and pricing models, plus where the accredited ITSM capabilities go above and beyond what’s asked. And what if an ITSM tool offers capabilities that it’s not accredited for?
One could argue that the ITSM tool vendor should have participated in more processes/practices. However, it could also be that the current capabilities aren’t sufficient for accreditation (yet), or budgetary limitations mean that only the most commonly requested capabilities have been accredited. In the worst-case scenario, this could mean that by not sourcing information from elsewhere, the procuring organization, unfortunately, discounts the ITSM tool that’s actually the best fit for their needs.
Let’s share more information with those who need it
From my experience working as an IT industry analyst and later participating in the research process in an advisory role for several ITSM tool vendors, I know that much information is collated that isn’t presented in the final output. The same is true with ITSM tool accreditation.
Unless it’s considered confidential information (by the ITSM tool vendor), providing more of what’s captured (to those who want it) would be helpful. For example, the supported languages and the extent to which this support is provided (across capabilities). Or how a particular ITSM need is met by the ITSM tool, including whether it’s an “out-of-the-box” capability or requires significant configuration or customization.
Or links to pertinent customer case studies for each accredited process/practice. Especially with generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) radically altering how certain ITSM processes/practices work and the outcomes they deliver.
This extra level of detail isn’t a replacement for seeking expert advice in the ITSM tool selection process, but it would help prevent unfortunate and potentially costly missteps in the early stages of ITS tool selection. It also helps build the foundations for better ITSM tool selection and success.
How do we make ITSM tool accreditations more valuable to procuring organizations? Have your say here. #ITSM #servicedesk Share on XMoving from provider-led to requester-led information provision
The ITSM industry has already seen this with analyst-created comparison research, with the generic online Magic Quadrant, for example, open to reader “manipulation” to factor in variables, such as organizational size and ITSM needs, to produce a more personalized perspective of the collected data. It’s not only what consumers now expect, it’s also what the market needs.
To play Devil’s Advocate with the status quo, i.e. how ITSM tool accreditation information is usually presented, it might need some problem-solving work on the procuring organization’s behalf to understand which ITSM tools provide the capabilities they need (at least in terms of the accreditation criteria). Only for them to later find that one or more of the chosen ITSM tool vendors usually sells to smaller organizations, in specific regions, and without an on-premises option.
If this information was made available and assessed in the procuring organization’s first accreditation-list engagement, it would make the accreditation data far more valuable and beneficial to readers (and also make the ITSM tool vendor inputs more worthwhile).
What do you think?
Many more factors can probably be included in this proposed information-delivery change. However, no matter what these variables are, the key for me is to make the ITSM tool information more aligned with what procuring organizations might want to know rather than what the tool accreditor wants to share (and does so in a relatively static way).
This will make it much easier for procuring organizations to benefit from ITSM tool accreditation schemes (and the hard work ITSM tool vendors put into becoming accredited). After all, isn’t the aim of the accreditation schemes to help procuring organizations select the best ITSM tool for their needs?
There are likely other ways to make ITSM tool accreditation more valuable to procuring organizations. However, as someone not currently in the market for a new ITSM tool, I’m not in the best position to keep adding to the ideas. So, how would you change ITSM tool accreditation schemes for the better? Please take the poll below to feedback.
To learn more about the PeopleCert ATV Programme, here’s the ATV programme’s landing page for customer organizations and the ATV Programme accreditation process landing page for ITSM tool vendors.
Transparency statement – While PeopleCert is a client of Quick Content Limited, this article’s content is the opinion of the author.
Further Reading
Please use the website search capability to find other helpful ITSM articles on topics such as service management systems, enabling business processes, managing high-level incidents/problems, continually improving services, service portals, ITSM software, user experience, AI-powered ITSM, How automation saves time, continuously monitoring services, how teams work better, service catalogs, ITSM solutions, digital transformation, ITSM goals and objectives, managing software licenses, and long-term improvements.
Stephen Mann
Principal Analyst and Content Director at the ITSM-focused industry analyst firm ITSM.tools. Also an independent IT and IT service management marketing content creator, and a frequent blogger, writer, and presenter on the challenges and opportunities for IT service management professionals.
Previously held positions in IT research and analysis (at IT industry analyst firms Ovum and Forrester and the UK Post Office), IT service management consultancy, enterprise IT service desk and IT service management, IT asset management, innovation and creativity facilitation, project management, finance consultancy, internal audit, and product marketing for a SaaS IT service management technology vendor.