"We're implementing the ITIL project"...

NO! STOP! Stop right there!

Just hold on thar one cotton-pickin' moment.... For the uninitiated, ITIL is described as:

"a framework of best practises for the delivery of IT as a service"

and also has plenty of case studies to show benefits - both financial, cultural and emotional... but fundamentally ITIL is something much more simple that that:

It's a stack of 5 books. Nothing more... nothing less:

Which is why people talking about "implementing ITIL" clearly haven't understood it. You don't "implement library". You don't "do book". When was the last time you walked into a restaurant that proudly boasted they "do cookbook"? When did a builder ever tell you they "implement work" just because they'd read a DIY book?

So, you don't "do ITIL"? Afraid not, old chum. Let's make this a bit clearer:

• ITIL - like a recipe book or DIY guide - is just theory.
• ITSM - or simply "Service Management" - is the practise, i.e.: applying it.

So you read ITIL and do ITSM, bit like you read PRINCE2 but do Project Management. You read the recipe book then cook. You read the DIY book then decide to work. We read ITIL, but do ITSM. Got it!

Okay, word pedantry over. So... what's actually in these books, then? Well, they were born out from a study of several organisations that seem to be "doing it right", so the content tries to summarise what this "Picture Of Good" looks like.

Great, so we imple.... er... I mean, we read The Word Of The 5 Holy Books and do what they say... and then we'll be doing things right... yes?

Woah there, cowboy... there's another catch!

Right from the onset, ITIL recommends an "adopt and adapt" approach: read the ideas, understand the concepts, gain insight, get inspired, use that to influence your way forward:

The ITIL books don't say what you must do, they describe what others have done.

You're completely free to steal their ideas, with the intention you tweak them to your particular circumstances. Not everything in the books is suited to everyone: cherry-pick the useful stuff and discard the rest.

Spot The Charlatan...

So why is ITIL bandied around as this magical pixie dust that cures all known problems? Productive organisations are doing ITSM perfectly well without ever hearing the term "ITIL" - yet charlatans out there are attributing this success to ITIL, and are therefore convinced the reverse must be true: to be successful, you must "implement ITIL".

These people speak of "delivering projects" instead of "delivering products". They propose solutions without first discussing what the problem actually is. Their self-delusion is strong enough to convince the blissfully ignorant and woefully innocent... and that's where problems surface: process management is rammed down your throat without considering the reason why the process exists in the first place: to benefit the business through deliverables of value.

Soon, their well-intended steps to improve productivity begin to retard it, and eventually this charlatan will be ejected - at huge cost to the hiring body.

Once normality returns, ITIL is tarred with the same brush as the "expert" that proposed it: ITIL becomes a term that causes adults to shudder with fear, children to awaken screaming at night and dogs to walk backwards. Not implemented here, chum.

Nay, I say. A thousand times: nay.

So we shouldn't... erm.. "do ITIL"..? Well, frankly... no. Productive organisations, when describing their success, talk about concepts found in ITIL:

• They have documented processes in place (SOPs) to guide those performing operational duties.
• There are policies governing behaviour and culture, reducing vagueness about gray areas and steering individuals towards quick decisions.
• There is measurement and reporting, showing areas that are performing and identifying potential improvement opportunities.
• There is governance showing evidence of compliance and conformance - but a quick glance around the premises shows happy and productive employees, which ought to be enough.

.. and yet none of them actually mention the ITIL term - they don't need to.

Which is why "implementing ITIL" is completely the wrong approach. And I'm not alone in this viewpoint, either.