| Author | Post |
|---|
SabinaG
Registered GP3
| Joined: | Thu Dec 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Kadima, Israel |
| Posts: | 7 |
| itSMF Chapter: | Israel |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 8th, 2008 11:16 |
|
I would like to ask the forum few questions about the ISO20K CERTIFICATION recommended by itSMF.- Is there a difference if the auditing organization is a RCB one or not ,IS both certification will be considered equal in the market.
- In case there is a difference between those 2 types of certifications (by RCB and NONE RCB) - I will be glad to receive some materials regarding what r the real and actual values and benefits for an organization to go via an audit process with a RCB organization in compare to a none RCB one.
|
anca_popa
Approved Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
| itSMF Chapter: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 8th, 2008 11:31 |
|
| a non RCB organization can't certify you. so if you do it with a non RCB you can't consider your company compliant with iso 20K
|
SabinaG
Registered GP3
| Joined: | Thu Dec 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Kadima, Israel |
| Posts: | 7 |
| itSMF Chapter: | Israel |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 8th, 2008 12:28 |
|
I am sorry to let u know that none RCB organization are providing ISO20K certifications to organizations, see attached document with Israel Institute Standard their ISO20K symbol (ignore the Hebrew part)
I will be more than happy if u can refer me to any legal declaration that organization which is not RCB is not allowed to certify for ISO20K
 Attachment: IIS.doc (Downloaded 8 times)
|
Robert Falkowitz
Registered GP21
| Joined: | Sat Nov 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | Switzerland |
| Posts: | 131 |
| itSMF Chapter: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 8th, 2008 13:08 |
|
Sabina,
To clarify the issues you raise, we might first look at the various entities and how they are related.
There is an IT Service Management standard, ISO/IEC 20000 (with all its parts).
IT Service Providers may choose to manage their IT Services according to that standard.
Whether or not a given Service Provider is certifiably managing its services according to ISO 20000 can be determined by using a certification scheme.
One certification scheme is managed by itSMF, but there are apparently other certification schemes.
The itSMF certification scheme defines Registered Certification Bodies (RCBs) that may perform the audit that determines if the Service Provide is certifiable.
Other certification schemes may have other ways of determining how to certify the Service Providers.
So what are the advantages of one scheme as opposed to another? In general, I suppose the key word is credibility, especially when a Service Provider expects to use its certification to gain a commercial advantage. Its rather like comparing diplomas from different universities. They are not all equivalent. The credibility of a diploma, like the credibility of a certification scheme, depends on a system designed to ensure a certain level of quality.
Let's take a concrete example. Suppose an IT Service Provider is in a market where being part of a supply chain where the consistent delivery of results of a certain quality is extremely important. In order to position themselves commercially, they decide to become "ISO20000 certified". If their customers know about ISO 20000 and know about itSMF's certification scheme, then they might insist that their IT service provider be certified according to the itSMF scheme. On the other hand, if the customers have no idea of the different schemes (and this is probably the case, today!), then the particular certification scheme used will probably make no difference.
Of course, there are many other reasons to become certified, so the question each time is whether the certification scheme is aligned with and supports your management objectives.
The bottom line is that a certification scheme that does not require any audits, or uses an audit that is superficial, or uses unqualified auditors, or does not insist on a well tested audit process, or does not have its own, internal quality system, probably lacks credibility.
By the way, you previously posted a link to a local file system file. You may wish to upload that file as an attachment so we can see it.
Regards,
Robert
|
SabinaG
Registered GP3
| Joined: | Thu Dec 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Kadima, Israel |
| Posts: | 7 |
| itSMF Chapter: | Israel |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 8th, 2008 17:23 |
|
Dear Robert,
Many thanks for your reply and the document was uploaded if u still like to see it let me know and I might sent it to u directly.
|
Robert Falkowitz
Registered GP21
| Joined: | Sat Nov 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | Switzerland |
| Posts: | 131 |
| itSMF Chapter: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 09:39 |
|
I think it important to mention that in many countries, the certification scheme is under the responsibility of a governmental entity which takes the responsibility of accrediting the certification bodies. This same governmental organization, and many of the certification bodies, are doing certification work for a very wide array of standards, not just ISO 20000. Consequently, the credibility of the itSMF managed scheme is pitted directly against the credibility of the various national governments.
Unlike ISO 27000, and its ISO 27006 standard for auditing and certification of ISO 27000, there is currently no internationally recognized standard for how to audit and certify for ISO 20000 - other than the itSMF managed scheme. In consequence, there is great disparity in how organizations are being audited. Legitimate questions are being raised as to whether the accreditation of one service provider, done by a given certification body in a given country, is at all equivalent to certification of a different service provider done by a different certification body in a different country.
-Robert
|
anca_popa
Approved Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
| itSMF Chapter: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 07:33 |
|
| it might not be the same but at least the provider has a level of quality
|
Current time is 17:15 | |
|