In the blog post, The itSMF USA IT Service Management Think Tank AKA "The Revolutionary Network" I said that:
I think that this might have been an understatement — something was fermenting.
As a quick recap: IT industry notables, pundits, prognosticators, and futurists convened on FUSION13 with a mission — to help imagine a new future for ITSM and maybe the IT industry as a whole. It was a think tank that couldn't be called a think tank due to ITSM event politics. Instead it was dubbed the Revolutionary Network — a name that no longer applies.
Importantly, and I should have mentioned this in the previous blog, it was funded by itSMF USA as part of its remit to push, or drag, the industry forward. So kudos and big thanks to itSMF USA for facilitating and enabling the event.
So what happened?
First it's worth outlining the context of the activity:
- There were 21 invitees who could make it to Nashville and FUSION13.
- There was no agenda — it was a case of putting a group of people in a room and seeing what happened.
- There were four two-hour sessions over the first two days with an hour-long feedback presentation on the third.
- The sessions were respectful of attendees' existing commitments, including FUSION13 presentation obligations, so people participated as much as they could over the first two days. As a result the mix of attendees changed across and within the sessions. IMO this wasn't a bad thing.
- People were asked to attend as individuals who are passionate about their industry, and helping its people, not as corporate representatives — and remarkably it worked.
So what really happened?
Day one
The first session was interesting. As you can imagine, with 15-or-so people in the initial session, it took a while to introduce everyone including why they were attending. It also started under the Revolutionary Network banner — thus there was talk of why a revolution is needed (many of the IT issues that have been discussed over the last five, ten, or even more years; and of course ITIL and the itSMF took a little bashing), who we are revolting against, how revolutions work in reality (that it isn't through a large group of people but rather multiple smaller groups of people), and what the output(s) of this group should be.
However things started to take shape in the second session. There was more talk of revolutions before The Agile Manifesto was offered up and agreed as the group's inspiration — it seemed just as applicable to IT service management (ITSM) as it did application development. The session continued with the group brainstorming words and phrases that mirrored the Agile Manifesto sentiments but from an ITSM and IT service delivery perspective.
At the end of day one we had some word-laden flip charts and a common vision but we were a long way from having something worthwhile to present back to FUSION13 attendees on the Wednesday. But it felt good. The room was filled with competitors, egos, and professional dissenters (these are not mutually exclusive) but people were all pulling in the same direction for the common good.
So what really happened?
Day two
First a quick admission — I dipped out of session three halfway through and didn't join session four at its start. Hopefully someone else can chip in some detail here — personally I can't help feel that session three must have bled through to session four given the amount of content that was created in what should have been less than 80 minutes of group activity.
So session three — it was similar to session two. We had words. We had lots of words. Words that could be crafted into our own Service Management Manifesto — a title that was eventually passed over. And then unfortunately I dipped out to deliver a presentation and to honor some meetings.
And then back to session four. When I returned to the group most of the magic had happened.
Three sub-groups had created three discrete outputs:
- The Service Management Call To Action (renamed from the more revolutionary Call to Arms)
- The Universal Declaration of Information Rights
- Core Values (evidencing the inspiration of The Agile Manifesto) — a snapshot is shown below.
Source: http://www.smcongress.org/core-values
All three may be found on SM Congress.
The Call to Action was complete and was also translated into Spanish — in some ways a poke at the fact that unfortunately many global ITSM professionals don't get enough information in their native language. The Universal Declaration of Information Rights was a done deal and needed a little editing. But the Core Values was still being worked on. If you think about it, it would be difficult enough to get two people let alone over a dozen to agree on a limited number of words that sum up how the industry needs to change for the better. We continued to debate the words but drew it to a close before we broke what had taken a larger group longer to create.
It's also worth pointing out two things about the Core Values:
- The elements on the right aren't bad, it's just that the elements or values on the left are better. You could say that "Trust over Control" could be read as "Trust trumps Control" for example.
- As with all three outputs the words are not set in stone. They are a start. A start that our industry sorely needs.
In fact the outputs are somewhat transitory IMO. Some or all will live or die. They will be used, changed, reused, or ignored. It doesn't matter at a document level. What matters is that the industry is talking about changing. Importantly, whether and how it changes is not up to the FUSION group, the itSMF chapters and other industry groups, or even the providers of industry frameworks, standards, or methodologies. It's up to you.
Sorry if this sounds a little Dr. Phil but I truly believe it.
So what next?
It's a tough one — people want real deliverables. And I can't help feel that, post-event, more time has been spent talking about what was wrong with the event and its outputs than what is right. I'm a professional moaner, albeit a pessimistic optimist, so I understand the comments people have made post-event — I'd have probably made some too had I not been there. But IMO people need to look through their initial concerns or upset over things like:
- "Oh, it's the usual suspects."
- "Why wasn't I invited?"
- "That's all you achieved in three days?"
- "That's not what I would have done."
- "This hasn't moved us forward one iota."
To see the horizon. After all it has got us talking about the future of our industry, our profession, and our people. Even if we are talking at odds with each other, it is evidence that we have a community that cares about its constituents and their future.
But unlike initiatives of old, we need to do more than the talking or rely on the activities of a single group. This, or something that rises from its ashes, needs to get us doing. And by "us" I mean all of us. As with the previous comment on the mechanics of a revolution, this needs to be taken forward not by a large group, potentially stifled by bureaucracy, but by smaller groups of individuals working together for the common good. So in some ways there is still an element of revolution involved but hopefully without hostages and bloodshed.
So take a look at www.smcongress.org and try to work through the easy-to-have black or white, love or hate, response. Like bits of it even if you can't like the whole. As I said before, it is a start not the end.
What could you and your peers do to help push, or pull, the industry forward?
For me personally it's talking (or writing) about the Core Values whenever and wherever possible. For me they stand up as a solid platform for change.
And of course if you really don't like it (and by this I mean all of it) then that is fine, it's your right. But what I do ask is that you stop for a moment to consider whether the energy consumed in breaking something created by others could be better used in collectively creating something better.
*Slowly slides soapbox back under the desk*
