Based upon a recent exchange with Stuart Rance, Jason Druebert asked me:
Twitter Conversation with Stuart Rance and Jason Druebert
I think that this was a great and timely question to ask. As one might expect, I do have my own preliminary thoughts on the Joint Venture (JV) with Capita. Rather than composing a response and cluttering up the timeline, I thought it would be best to use this as an opportunity to post a short blog!
Let’s have a look at my thoughts, shall we?
So, Jason, here is why I think that we should give things a little time:
Point #1 – Timing
The award announcement was done on 26 April and today is 09 May. We are just around two weeks since the announcement (… the actual time depends upon timezone and when you consider the “time of birth”). There have been initial press releases by the organizations involved, but considering that a Joint Venture (read as “new entity”) is being created, I would assert that we need to give it time for it to be formed and become operational.
If it were up and running already, the only reasonable thing to infer is that all the work was done and queued prior to the actual announcement. In my mind, this would bring into question the openness, fairness and transparency of the tender process itself. I would hope that we (as an industry) would have more issue with that, than not being up and running already!
Point #2 – Transparency
I fully expect that the JV will provide the marketplace with details on the governance and future of the “brands” that are part of the JV. Given my background in Product Management, I can tell you that this is not something that you just throw together. I would rather they take their time, consider the interests of all the stakeholders and then come to market with a consistent, coherent product and communications plan for everyone to consider. Once that’s done, I expect that everyone will rest a bit easier, knowing that there is both the intention and plan to listen to the community who’s impacted by these changes.
Point #3 – Rumor as Intelligence
I’d also like to point out that it’s healthy for us (as a community) to be talking about what it means to us. Social media is a powerful force in the marketplace. If I were involved with the JV, I’d be tuning my “social media antennae” to capture all of the discussion about this — good, bad or indifferent! Why? This is Product Management “gold dust”!! All of the Product Managers that I know would go to great lengths to get this kind of market input. If you don’t believe that this is going to shape the messaging and plans that are being made, I’d encourage you to think again, because I think it will. Once the JV is operational, I think they’ll be much more proactive about this.
Point #4 – The Future == The Past
It seems as though it’s trendy to think that we’re going to get “more of the same” from the JV. I don’t think that’s true. I think that the award sends a clear message to the marketplace — a willingness to try a new approach. I think that Claire Agutter hit this on the mark in her tweets:
I don’t think we’re going to see “more of the same,” otherwise the outcome would have resembled that. I think that we (as industry stakeholders):
- Have a responsibility to give the JV a little room to get their act together and get going;
- Should encourage everyone to discuss the good, bad and ugly about ITIL’s past in a public manner, until such time as a means of offering direct feedback on our concerns and criticisms to the JV is announced;
- Need to think for ourselves and follow Claire’s lead. In other words, I’d advise us all to avoid getting overly invested in those whose main skills are fostering FUD and “throwing darts” to serve their own agendas. It seldom turns out well for those of us who are interested in getting real work done. Just sayin’…
|Posted In:||Service Management|
|Tags Used:||Capita, Communication, Expectation Management, Expectations, Futures, Governance, Intelligence, ITIL, ITSM, Joint Venture, Product Management, Rumor Control, Social Media|