Attributes of IT certifications aligned to organizations’ needs

Abstract

Purpose An area of information technology (IT) in organizations is required to manage resources efficiently. For this, IT certifications are adopted by companies and sought by professionals. However, these have many requirements and to identify which are paramount to the performance of their activities and/or are much more important to IT managers is not a trivial task. The purpose of this study is to identify how the processes of the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) v3 and Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology (CobiT) 5 certifications are analyzed by IT managers. Regarding the knowledge of professionals about the processes, which are more important, less important or indifferent in the manager’s view. Design/methodology/approach A survey is carried out with IT managers using questions elaborated according to the Kano model in which the processes of the analyzed certifications are related to classify according to the proposed model. Findings Of the 64 analyzed processes, 20 CobiT processes and 13 ITIL processes were classified as must-be requirements. Another 17 CobiT processes and 9 ITIL processes were classified as one-dimensional and 5 ITIL processes are present in more than one relationship with CobiT processes and, depending on the relationship, they were classified as must-be or one-dimensional requirements. Originality/value It is concluded that this study contributes in the discussion of the importance of the ITIL and CobiT implementations and analyzes the relevance of ITIL and CobiT certification processes in the view of IT managers, providing useful information for the professionals in terms of prioritization of the processes expected by the managers.

Matrix approach to digitalization of management objects

“…When managing the components of organization and/or supply chain, there is the problem of prioritization of one or another object variant (Table 1) both from point of view of homogeneity and from point of view of its heterogeneity (Mussa et al , 2021). The priority of component variant is possible to set using following qualitative characteristics and dichotomies: “relation of object to value of end consumer”: creation, code “0,” and maintenance, code “1”; “type of link managing object”: absorbing flows (consumer), code “0,” generating flows (supplier), code “1”; as well as “influence of object on quality of value”: basic, code “0,” and secondary, code “1.” The joint use of these characteristics and dichotomy makes it possible to establish 8 = 2³ priority types of particular variant of management component (Table 3).…”