Donna Knapp is the curriculum development manager for ITSM Academy, where she is responsible for the development of ITIL course content. By her own admission, it’s a role that indulges her love of learning and passion for sharing her knowledge with others. Gaining the ITIL 4 Master designation is an unexpected outcome to the career path Donna Knapp first set out on. However, she now realizes it’s the culmination of her ITIL journey. “Early in my career, I was the IT liaison for my organization’s Lean initiatives. At the time, I wasn’t aware of ITIL . Instead, we used IBM’s IT service management framework.” Donna said. “The IBM philosophy was well respected in the IT industry at that time, and dovetailed much of what I was doing in terms of designing and improving our IT service delivery and support processes.” “IBM went on to contribute to the birth of ITIL and by 2005 I was using ITIL as a consultant and educator,” Donna explained. “As I look back, I appreciate that this was the st
By Felipe Villegas and Donna Knapp (Reposted with permission from Professional Designations) A frequent observation among certification candidates is the notion that sample exams are less daunting compared to real certification tests. Despite both types of exams being designed to mirror each other closely, this perception persists. In this blog post, we will explain how exams are built and will speculate about the underlying factors contributing to this perception. Certification exams, whether sample or live, are constructed based on a standardized blueprint that outlines the distribution of questions, desired difficulty levels, and other technical details. These exams are assembled using a comprehensive pool of questions, each of which is classified by learning objective, topic, and level of difficulty. Once multiple exams are built, one or more are selected at random to be distributed as sample exams. If all exams are constructed the same way, why are sample exams often perceived a