The curse of knowledge in ITSM

One of the great benefits of ITIL in versions past was its ability to convey complex concepts to a wide audience, regardless of their existing knowledge and experience. But something has changed, argues Ian MacDonald.

Since its inception, one of the understated strengths of ITIL has been its ability to create a common language and provide a practical understanding of how to apply IT Service Management. Acronyms, definitions and concepts were generally easy to convey and, for those new to ITIL, gave an accessible understanding. Best practice only delivers value when practitioners feel confident they can apply it in the workplace.

As an ITIL author, I always worked to a simple principle: write for the people who need to understand it, not for those who already do.

But something changed when ITIL went “digital”.

ITIL 4 and 5 introduced a raft of overly complex words, definitions, theoretical models and directives, often wrapped in prose few people naturally understand. Unconsciously, it gave the impression of being intellectually superior to the people trying to learn from it. Suddenly, practitioners were faced with terminology that required a Google search or thesaurus just to understand the language being used.

As a trainer, I have little doubt, and students regularly echo this, that modern ITIL has made the simple seem difficult.

ITIL is a broad church, and the challenge is to write ITIL guidance in ways all practitioners can not only understand but relate to. Don’t assume every reader is a strategist or management consultant.  On reflection, perhaps in its desire to become enterprise-wide, in doing so has lost some connection with its traditional audience?

The issue is not the inclusion of ideas such as Antifragility, VUCA, Cynefin or Wardley Mapping. The issue is that they are often not explained in ways operational IT practitioners can easily understand or apply.

What frustrates me most is when simple ideas are explained using words that themselves need translating into plain English. Whether it’s SLM referring to “a balanced bundle of metrics”, explaining Lean Culture as “a fresh, fun way of viewing ideas while simultaneously maintaining serious focus and whimsical silliness”, or advising people to “move to the adjacent possible” when dealing with complexity.

It reminds me of the “curse of knowledge”: when experts use jargon or overly complex explanations it’s because they forget what it’s like not to know the subject.

Take the definition of a Practice Success Factor (PSF). Success factors have existed for decades as a simple way to define “what good looks like” and the KPIs needed to evidence success. A PSF is essentially the same idea but is now described as “a complex functional component of a practice”.

In reality, PSFs are not inherently complex, yet the language used creates the perception that they are.

To be clear, there is a huge amount of value in modern ITIL. The broader thinking, enterprise focus and inclusion of concepts from other disciplines all help keep the framework relevant in a changing world. The challenge is not the ideas themselves, but how we communicate them to the people expected to apply them.

So beware the curse of knowledge! Perhaps the real lesson for all of us is this: when introducing new concepts, frameworks or ways of working, we should never assume understanding simply because the words make sense to us. Good communication makes complex ideas relatable, practical and memorable.

ITIL was once at its best when it translated new concepts into something practitioners could quickly understand and apply. As leaders, trainers and practitioners, maybe that is the standard we should continue striving for in how we communicate with our own teams and organisations.