Which is why I find it so hard to understand why it has been met with such deafening silence in the UK.
- Is it because COBIT is already so well established?
- Is it because people are not aware that it exists?
- Is it because people are unsure how to respond to it?
A survey is now open to 6th March to assess the market for ISO 38500 If you can, please identify that you came across the survey from this blog.
Why do I like it so much?
I honestly believe that the standard has a lot to offer organisations, especially those that have not already been driven down the governance route in reaction to external requirements.
I believe that whilst we often talk about ITSM addressing the concerns of the corner office the truth is we rarely actively engage senior business management in delivering IT. Good IT Governance, with a focus on the interests of stakeholders can make a real difference to the relationship between IT and the business.
The benefits of good governance obviously extend beyond ITSM, it is also a sign of effective portfolio, programme and project management.
What is so great about ISO 38500 is that it can get people, and I include the business, not just IT, to realise just what their responsibilities are for ensuring IT is effective and efficient in supporting the organization. And the standard is, of course, very clear that the responsibility for IT rests at director level.
I'll end this post with a specific example of how I've seen an idea inspired by the standard make a difference even in an organisation that has yet to decide whether to adopt it wholesale.
They thought they had good project reviews, they had even adopted the concept of gateway reviews that were led by the business, but what they discovered when they compared their approach to the standard was they were only judging each project by its own internal criteria.
In effect they were only assessing if the project was on track and within budget. What looking at the standard made them realise was that they were not asking if the project was still aligned to corporate objectives, and that compromises being made within the projects were contrary to the Principles of the standard.
For instance short cuts were being taken over the acquisition of change related hardware and services that threatened to contravene the financial limits for needing to re-tender the entire project.