I have written some time back about becoming a ‘master’ after you are an ‘expert’ in ITIL.

So far the ‘Master’ level qualification in ITIL was a black box (should I say dark Triangle?) with clarity only till ‘Expert’ level in the ITIL qualification scheme.

Be warned: For those who are not yet familiar with the ITIL V3 qualification scheme, the term can be very much confusing – with the ITIL Service manger (V1 and V2) which were popularly called ‘ITIL Master’ earlier. The differences are quite a bit – if not on entire level!

This week, APMG has published the initial structure/guidance for the ITIL Master level – to be initiated in pilot phase.

While you can read the entire details on the official publication, here are some of the excerpts:

  • Targeted at senior practitioners and professionals in the area – at least 5 years relevant experience required (hopefully, we could expect some guidelines on the relevance subsequently).
  • ITIL Expert qualification – a pre-requisite.
  • NO FIXED SYLLABUS.  Yes, you read it right!  -Candidates can choose their field of study on ITIL. This is a big surprise, at least to some of us. But on a different perspective, is logical step, once you are an ‘ITIL expert’ on the theoretical aspect of the same.
  • A requirements and scope document will guide students on choice of their field for Master.
    • The field of choice will have to be a ‘real life situation’ where some of the ITIL practices are to be applied.
    • The student has to submit a proposal for the field of choice. Presumably, this proposal need to be approved first (though not explicitly mentioned in the current communication.
    • Then, the student has to submit a ‘work package’ on the chosen (and approved?) field.
    • The Work package will be assessed as well as the student will be interviewed on the same (based on which -assuming again- the certificate will be given).

Here are some of the thoughts that come up, looking up the evolution of the V3 qualification scheme:

  • It is not clear weather (or can be assumed that) an individual could opt for multiple Master certifications? That will definitely increase the credibility of him/her in the space, rather than a single master certification in one field of choice. Demonstrating credible application in multiple scenarios will definitely give a better credibility isn’t it?
  • After Foundation, students go through intermediate levels (which focuses on specific areas – field of choice?)
  • After intermediate, the students has to go through ‘Managing through lifecycle’ – before they go for demonstrating application and practice capabilities of  specific fields of choice at Master level.
  • If a practitioner is focusing on a specific ‘field of choice’ in ITSM, then a more logical sequence seems to be:

Foundation –> Field of choice knowledge (Intermediate) –> Field of choice Application (Master) and then Managing through life cycle (Expert)

This way, if the profile of a practitioner requires or he want to focus on a specific field of choice, he could choose for knowledge and application in the field of choice, without bothering about ‘managing across lifecycle’

However, there are further issues if you go with that approach – from the qualification scheme bridging perspective :

  •   Where do you bridge a (V2 or V1) practitioner and/or Service manager certified person to? If we still bridge them to expert level (in the suggested, revised model above), then they miss the level of application.

Hence in the current bridging structure, the current published model fits in. That could be one of the driving factor for the finalization of this model too.

However, post the bridging era, people might find this discomfort in the certification scheme.

It is interesting to see the development and to wait and watch what this evolves into.