Friday, January 27, 2006

I Am Certifiable

Yesterday afternoon I took the Information Technology Infrastructure Library Foundations Certification exam and passed it. Part of me is irritated with myself that I only got a 75%. Part of me is relieved that I even passed it at all. I completed the program back in mid-November, and since then the course has been unavailable for whatever reason. I've been largely unable to review, so I should be happy to have done so well after two months.

Of course I was scoring in the mid-80's on the practice exam, and for some reason 85% seems so much more solid than 75%. On the other hand, these questions seemed harder. This was not a simple test.

At any rate I passed, and that not only gets me certified but allows me to charge it to the company. I'm also hoping it will mean something within the company, as I may be looking to shift my career focus in response to the recent acquisitions.

Of course it's still way too soon to tell what is going to happen, but assuming I'm not laid off there will still be two potential paths. One is to go with the main part of the company. The primary purchaser has bought all the successful segments of the company, and therefore stands a pretty good chance at staying successful.

On the other hand, the underperforming segment of the company has been picked up by a private investing group with a solid track record of turning around faltering companies. They also tend to reward those who help make it happen. It could also be very, very interesting and informative to get a glimpse into how they turn things around.

So, assuming I can even position myself to go one way or another, I need to decide which way to position myself. For starters, the section of our IT group that stands the best chance of being retained by either companies is not the section I am in. The certification I just obtained could make me more attractive to that group, however.

In any case, if our IT group is to survive the transition, our best bet is to embrace the IT Services approach championed by ITIL. Our IT Operations group--the one I think I want to join--is already well along in doing so. Our IT Development group pays lip-service to the services model, but in reality it's little more than a more highly-formalized version of the matrix structure the organization has had for awhile now. For the most part we provide services internal to the IT organization, and even then it's primarily on development projects.

What we really should be doing, if you ask me--and you didn't, is adopting the ITIL model across the organization to better position ourselves to become invaluable to whichever company we end up in. The "Successful" segment has a number of subsidiaries to which we could offer our services. The "Underperforming" segment has an immediate need for IT services, but plans to uncouple itself over time. If we provide them with excellent IT services, they'll either opt to stay with us or take us with them.

In short, for our IT group to survive, we need to prove ourselves essential to both companies, and we won't do that by being a revenue drain. We need to provide good service, and then carefully track of all the services we provide in order to help both companies recognize our worth and value--all the while preparing to be successful on both fronts to the point where we will need to split the IT group in two.

Of course this is all mindless speculation. I don't even have a clue as to what IT capabilities either organization already brings to the table. Perhaps all they will need from us is to show them how everything works and where the (lack of) documentation is. But frankly I'd be surprised if either company has the infrastructure in place to accommodate the scale of operations they've just purchased.

And while the mental exercise is fun, in the end I've got a family to feed. It may be that I won't be around long enough to care which way the companies go. In the end they will do what is best for them, and I need to do what is best for me, even if it that means doing it somewhere else.

No comments: