removed: copyright violation from www.enterprisemanagement.com/online-store/ scstore/02182002%20Article.pdf
I can't find the first So I'm working to improve things. I'm hardly an expert on ITIL--maybe after I've revised the wording, I'll be closer. :-) If there are experts out there who think I'm getting it wrong, please help me get it right.
Here's my plan of action: What I have done, and what I'll be doing in the short term.
When all of that is finished, I'll probably make the next pass at a plan of action.
Just to re-enforce, I'm not at all an expert on the subject, so if you have the knowledge, I need the help. If I'm going down the wrong path, please help me to get back on. [ But, be gentle. :-) ]
DanielVonEhren 20:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
DanielVonEhren 15:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looking at OGC's web site and various other sources, I'm not seeing IT Service Management as a separate layer, with Service Delivery and Service Support as sub-specialties, so I'm going to take it out. However, I'm happy to put it back if it turns out that I'm missing something.
It's looking like it will be most clear to organize the article around the the eight physical books. That provides a natural hierarchy for structuring the presentation as well as a reader's thoughts.
DanielVonEhren 14:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the flow of the existing document is good-- I like the focus on presenting the information similar to the base ITIL books.
I do think that the choice of JPEG compression for the line drawings was poor-- JPEG blurs the text badly since it was designed for photographs instead of drawings. A better choice would be PNG since this uses a lossless compression which squeezes large areas of the same color down nicely. The image size would be comparable and a whole lot sharper.
Sbonds 20:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
In one of the images, "deplanning" should be "deplaning" x2
~anonymous 16 May 2005
I agree re "In one of the images, "deplanning" should be "deplaning" x2 " Mind you, wonderful image of people being rushed off a plan (yes, we've all had daft managers telling us to forget about the plan...)
Hi Daniel,
I am an ITIL consultant and a qualified and accredited trainer, but new to the Wikipedia.
If you Wikify this article I will happily keep an eye on the content for you.
Lynn Jackson 5 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some references to ISO20000, BS15000 etc.?
I think that this should most likely be reorganised. I have some experience in ITIL (though I'm by no means an expert!). I migth give it a shot some time later. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I would be inclined to hang on. ISO 20000 is due to be published: but we all know ISO and dates. It should be in a week or so, but I guess longer. Creating something now which will need re-working so soon is probably not a good investment of time. BinaryGal
In BPM terms, ITIL's use of process is loose. A process is a repeatable series of events resulting in a value-add outcome for an identifiable stakeholder. This applies to Incident, Problem, Change, and Release. Configuration Management is in a gray area, and the "tactical" Service Delivery areas of Capacity, Availability, Finance, and Continuity are clearly closer to functional areas as defined by classical BPM - they are made up of many processes, some of which may cross boundaries.
The ITIL author's insistence that Service Desk is a function not a process is further indication of their lack of clarity in this matter. A Service Request is also a crisp, event-driven repeatable process.
For further information see Hammer or (especially) Rummler & Brache.
65.25.216.35 04:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Charlie Betz (charb@visi.com), www.erp4it.com.
The handling of this subject is excellent, better than I've seen almost anywhere else. I note (regret) the absence of two things, firstly some context and reference to equivalent standards or attempts at standards, and secondly some observations on the issues around successfully implementing. This is not to distract focus from ITIL, or belittle it, but to avoid the impression that one might othervise get that it is purely theoretical and idealistic. I appreciate that the authors KNOW that it is not, it is just an observation about how well the article conveys that. I'll pull together some studies and post in the next week or so. Tban 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Could someone knowledgeable please provide pronunciation guide- "Long I or Short I", Eye-til or it-il??? I have been hearing both ways.
As I understand it 'eye-til' is the US pronunciation whereas 'it-il' is the UK.
Found an excellent summary on the Service Management disciplines but very little on the Infrastructure or Application Management elements. I've added some initial thoughts under Infrastructure Management and hope that people will be happy with the tone and structure.
Mark G 23:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The Incident Management definition includes the phrase : "... .The definition means that an incident is a problem but without a root or cause. If the incident has a root cause, the incident becomes a problem or a known error...."
I'm not so sure that this is helpful to those new to the ITIL framework and even less sure that it is accurate. As ITIL is quite clear that Problems are distinct from incidents it would seem unhelpful to say that and 'incident becomes a problem or a known error'. Neither that an 'incident is a problem but without a root or cause', the ITIL books seem to suggest that a known error has a root cause, but a problem need not have a root cause this would suggest that this also needs updating.
Does anyone else have any views? -- Mark G 01:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
---01 April 2006---
Incident is a service call which demands immediate attention for closure or a workaround. If a number of incidents are logged by various users with a similar fault description, then the incident becomes a problem. In that case, as per incident management, closure of the incident through workaround is done as quickly as possible. Problem is handled as per problem management. Every problem has a root cause. Till the time, root cause is unknown, the problem remains and is called an unkown error. When the root cause is found out through root cause analysis, the problem becomes a known error.
--- Contributed by Ganaraj Pawaskar---01 April 2006
---02 April 2006---
I've updated the relationship to problem management section in Incident Management, I'd appreciate any feedback. I hope it's a little clearer.
Mark G 22:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just seen an edit on this page: someone has changed every spelling of 'organisation' to 'organization'. It raises the issue: which spelling should be used, US or UK? Most of the Wiki seems to be in US (should it?), but ITIL was born in the UK (does that make a difference?).
Is there any formal policy on this? -- Binarygal 1 March 2006
I would think that since ITIL is a UK developed library then 'organisation' is more appropriate - but then I would i'm in the UK!
-- Mark G 01:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have redefined the conversation that appeared to be going on between ITServiceGuy and 80.47.x.x so that it doesn't consume high level headings and discourage others from reading or contributing to the other discussions on this page. Discussion is below.
Mark G 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I am writing this to kindly request that editor 80.47.XX.XX stops deleting the external link to the ITIL V3 Overview article and slide deck that I believe should be in here.
I wish to objectively provide my case.
To provide the core facts:-
- Yes, it links to a Blog page - Yes, I own the Blog - Yes, the Blog has Adsense on it
However:-
- The Blog exists to provide free information about ITIL - not for self promotion. - The Blog does not sell anything - nor is it commercial. - The Blog provides valuable infomation and places it in the public domain. - No copyright is broken - everything is my own work.
In terms of the actual article:-
- The article is informative and accurate. - The article is an introduction about ITIL V3. - The article contains a FREE download of a valuable pack I personaly put together for the benefit of ITIL V3 interested parties. - There is no-where else on the internet that you can read the FAQ's that Sharon Taylor (Chief Artictect for Version 3) answered. - Sharon Taylor herself left a positive post on the site - expressing how pleased she was that were postively covering ITIL V3.
The precident:-
Two of the other external links contain a lot of advertising and sponsor links. One contains 6 sponsor links and 10 advetisements, along with links selling a toolkit. I do not object to these links. Therefore the 'made for Adsense' comment is a non-issue.
The quality of the article and slide deck within it are superior. I have received a lot of feedback telling me so from ITIL practitioners around the world.
That's my case stated - openly, honestly and fairly.
I look forward to reading your reply.
(missing a signature)
In your desperation to add a link to your 'Made for Adsense' site and thus grab a few pennies, you miss the key points entirely.
The page you point to is almost worthless. It is lightweight, with the content covered in MUCH more depth on the official OGC site, and many others. It simply does not justify being linked to in any sense.
The wiki is NOT a link list. Simple. Repeatedly Visiting here explicitely to add your OWN site, with minimal useful content, and Adsense all over it, is unnacceptable and unethical.
Ask yourself: if that page was elsewhere and NOT owned by you, would you repeatedly spam the link to it here? Of course you wouldn't. Case proven. Your motivation is clicks on the Adsense box, not the good of this wiki. Please refrain from doing it.
(missing a signature)
Thank You for leaving your comments. I wish to respond as follows:-
I am certainly not desperate to add a link and 'grab a few pennies'. The Adsense on my site offers ITIL Practitioners the chance to access free reports and other information from a variety of vendors - without having to spend valuable time looking elsewhere around the web. It's just a service I provide, along with the other quality information on the site.
For your information - the small amount of 'pennies' I do receive from Adsense each month goes straight back into buying reports and other items (such as the $200 ISO 20000 standard that I'm currently writing articles about - most of which I forked out for myself) to help educate visitors to my site.
You seem to have me down as a ruthless entrepreneur who is trying to turn a fast book out of a single Wiki link. Not exactly the master business plan is it?
If I was trying make some money - then I would be trying to post affiliate links to actually sell a product (such as a 'toolkit' - which funnily enough - IS featured on some of the other external links that you do not seem to have a problem with).
Double standards?
No, I actually think there's more to this...
Overall - I do not believe that Adsense is your major concern here. Just a way of cleverly painting a dark picture - which is totally innaccurate.
My track record and reputation is being questioned here - and I intend to professionally continue to present my case.
Here's the thing...
I honestly believe (having absorbed the content and context of your objections) that you have some 'other' reason for not wanting the information to appear.
I thought that purposely preventing information for others to learn from is actually NOT what the Wiki is about?
Let's resolve this 'censorship' issue once and for all.
You mention (above) that the article is 'lightweight' - then please do all the visitors to Wiki a BIG favour and add some external links to where the information CAN be found on an alternative site.
For example the answers to the important questions about ITIL V3, as provided by Sharon Taylor, are - to my knowledge - available NO WHERE ELSE on the web. Not even the OGC site.
I challenge you to find this same information (answers to the FAQ's) and provide an external link to it on the ITIL wiki page.
Now, if you can do that, then I will see no alterantive but to not post the external link - since you have found a suitable alternative for eveyone to benefit from.
If you cannot I will seek further guidance from Wiki on ensuring that the Link is posted and remains posted.
I am only interested in ensuring that all interested ITIL parties have access to all the relevant facts and information to help them in their advance planning and preparation for ITIL V3.
There should be no censorship on Wiki.
Do you accept the challenge?
(missing a signature)
It is staggering that you still persist with this vandalism. You just don't get it do you?
The real challenge was the question of whether you would post the link again and again and again if the site didn't belong to you. In other words, if it didn't make you money. Funny that you didn't answer that isn't it?
We have been here before on topic after topic all over the wiki. People persisting in posting their own site blindly because they cannot grasp what everyone else can.
Desperately slagging off other links in defense is also common. FWIW the other links are justified because they offer genuinely unique or original content. That is why they have been left in place for years. The issue isn't the odd link to commercial areas on the sites the wiki links to, it is the content on them and the whole value of the site (or lack of it).
In your case it is crystal clear that the so-called 'blog' is a 'Made for Adsense' entity, known as an MFA site, You have lightweight content here and there to try to provide hooks. Your growing desperation to link to it here simply re-enforces that fact, and exposes your mission.
In terms of the flimsy article you are pressing, the same information is available all over the place, including on the OGC site which is already linked to. Furthermore, there is a wiki page on v3 specifically. Even IF your MFA site jsutified a link, which it DOESN'T, that is where it should be.
If you carry on like this, the next step will be to block you from posting at all. Why don't you step back, look at what you are doing, and instead of link spamming try to add CONTENT too the wiki? But no, I guess that isn't what you are really here for is it?
(missing a signature)
Gentlepeople, it does rather appear as if emotions are running high here, and while I would like to distance myself from the more personal debate that is occurring (above) I felt it might be useful to provide a view from outside the discussion.
As the initiator of the wikipedia page on ITIL v3 (early last month) I too saw a general need for more and better information on ITILv3 and the ITIL refresh project. Personally it concerns me that our unknown editor 80.47.x.x feels unable to make at least some identity visible, it is therefore not possible to identify if he/she may have an agenda – however it is a (largely) free world and so his/her prerogative.
I am however concerned that the ITIL wikipedia pages could very easily become overburdened with links to umpteen blog pages across the web. With a blog, it is often difficult to discern the agenda of the author and as such lending credibility through an ‘encyclopaedia’ entry would appear to be ill advised.
Wikipedia ‘best practice’ and ‘policy’ appear to err on the side of caution when linking away from Wikipedia:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/When_should_I_link_externally
“…Not very often. If the site you are linking to is an article, history or timeline, then wikipedia should have its own article on that subject, not just an external link. The web is already full past capacity of sites composed of links to other sites.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links
specifically adds:
“Links to normally avoid: A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.”
I am sure that everyone would appreciate any Wiki-ethos compliant content being added to the ITIL v3 page by anyone who has a contribution to make, but on balance I would be in favour of tight control over links made from these pages. If the demand is there for ‘advocacy’ style pages then perhaps an ‘ITIL Advocacy’ page would be an option as I am sure that others who have equally valid and useful ITIL commentary would like to provide access to their blogs as well.
Mark G 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
To mystery editor 80.43.XX.XX,
Thanks for providing two sets of feeback: (i) your direct comments and (ii) the comments made above to ITILuser.
Please can I kindly request that you maintain your professionalism in this discussion forum and try to avoid unkind or untrue phrases (like 'spammer' and 'lightweight'). This is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it - however - I have never questioned your anonymity, agenda or writing style once. I am trying to focus on what I see as the key issue here which is the availability of information on ITIL Version Three.
You failed to declare whether you accepted my challenge which was to add external link(s) that present the Wikipedia readers with the FAQ answers that are contained within the free download slide pack attached to the article that I am trying to post a link on Wikipedia too.
[Notice also, that whilst we are debating whether the link should be on Wikipedia, I have not tried to replace it or do anything underhand, I have been openly and honestly laying out my side of the story.]
As you know, my present concern is one of 'censorship' and freedom of information around ITIL V3.
One indivudal should not be allowed to prevent others from accessing important information.
I cannot see any links that you have provided to allow people to read the answers to the FAQs. The reason they are so important is that they provide ITIL practitioners with an advance view of what's going to happen later this year with respect to education and possible changes in the syllabus for ITIL Foundation and the Managers exam.
I have been unable to find this information on any other ITIL site, including the OGC. Therefore I suspect you are also unable to offer the ITIL community alterative links with this information on it.
To avoid us all going around in circles I believe that there are several options on how we can move forward here - but I want to do so with concensus and approval from the ITIL wikipedia guardians and other editors, as well as yourself.
Option [1] - Add the link again. (Obviously it will be removed straight away - so not a viable option)
Option [2] - I can extract the content and add it to the ITIL V3 pages. (subject to concensus and approval from others)
Options [3] - Ask the OGC to put the information on it's site somewhere and then you can provide an external link to the relevant OGC page.
Option [4] - Not put the information back on - and we all stay in the dark (not really a fair option - especially given that I know how important the information is].
At this stage - can I please ask other editors to 'come in' and provide their opinions - perhaps there are more options that I've not considered.
I hope by presenting these options, that I am showing a genuine interest in the information being available regardless of where it is located.
Finally, for the (still) myserious editor 80.44.XX.XX - I wish to respond to your main point in your last response, "The real challenge was the question of whether you would post the link again and again and again if the site didn't belong to you. In other words, if it didn't make you money. Funny that you didn't answer that isn't it?"
I want to let you know that I was the one who placed the OGC site links on the ITIL V3 pages initially and also, in my online work particularly at the IT Service Blog, I always link out to sites that do not belong to me, to present important ITIL information. It's in the very nature of Blogging - sharing information for the good of everyone who's interested. I answered the money part in my previous response to you. (ISO 20000).
So, in summary, please can we have some additional consensus views, rather than let one anonymous individual decide.
I will honour the consensus view - as is the Wikipedia way.
Thank You.
(missing a signature)
The consensus is already evident. And as Mark G already points out, the Wikipedia itself clearly states: "“Links to normally avoid: A website that you own or maintain".
What part of that is it that you don't understand?
As for my anonymity, all that means is that I haven't created an account. I am no more anonymous than the people who have but not completed their details. I have no agenda, other than stopping link spammers and helping to protect the wiki. Why should I make myself a target for them, and paint a bulls eye on my head for them, by identifying myself? People who spam are usually capable of other despicable acts too.
Regarding your 'options', IF you have any unique content obviously you can add it to the v3 page. So obvious in fact that you could have done that originally. But you didn't want to did you? You just wanted the link to your Made for Adsense site, which is what this is all about, rather than some mythical unique content which is actually lightweight.
Finally: JUST FOLLOW THE RULES! The wiki is NOT here for self promotion of YOUR OWN sites or for link spamming.
(missing a signature)
Gentlemen, I believe that the wikipedia approach is clear. "Wikipedia is not a blog and is not a directory of links" and having looked around the 'pedia for other similar issues it is not deemed appropriate to maintain links to content.
Robin, I believe that everyone would welcome your contributions to the ITIL v3 page, your challenge to our friend at 80.42.xx.xx indicates a concern on your part that ITIL v3 information that is in the public domain, and appropriate to a 'pedia style publication is missing from the v3 pages. Perhaps this section of the discussion should continue on the talk page a ITIL v3. I have reviewed your slides and believe that all of the relevant information is now included on the page, i have made a few minor updates to try to ensure this. My preferences would then be for you to follow options 2 and 3 of your selection and to persuade OGC and the Refresh project to continue the excellent project communication that I have already observed, and which I believe that Sharon was partaking in in the webcast that you initially reported.
Let's try to make these pages ITIL and ITIL v3 as comprehensive, independent, and succinct as we can so that this reference source can continue to be referred to in that light. If there is a belief that there is a deficiency in v3 information on the v3 pages, lets take the discussion to Talk on ITIL v3 and lets stick to the Wikipedia guidelines to avoid links to external sites unless the information cannot be legally duplicated in Wikipedia and unless that same information is indispensable to the aims of the encyclopedia.
Mark G 22:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Mark for providing this much needed mediation.
I will continue this discussion over on the ITIL V3 Discussion Page - as suggested.
At this stage - I'm not bothering to respond to our mysterious editor. I'm only interested in ensuring that the content is available to those that would benefit from it.
I'm keen to get back to writing about IT Service Management and ITIL - afterall I have over 1,300 global ITIL practitioners to keep happy - which is a far more meaningful experience.
Here I list eight key points - plus some other considerations for possible inclusion - subject to concensus being reached:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ITIL_v3
Thanks,
Robin.
User:ITServiceGuy 08:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I have not been able to find the WIKI page link you reference in your statements below. NOR is there a specific link on the OGC site for V3.
Any help would be appreciated.
The wiki page for v3 is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITIL_v3
Our link spammer friend had been at that too but I cleaned it up.
For the OGC, you will find official info here: http://www.itil.co.uk/refresh.htm and a lot more if you look at news releases here: http://www.itil.co.uk/news.htm#ext
However, there is also tons of stuff on many ITIL sites out there, a lot better that the lightweight link posted by our friend above.
I hope this helps.
I am a little confused by the banner (that has appeared on this page). While the University seems to be active and is adding valuable content to the Wikipedia, including on ITIL - much of which I hope the community will be able to peer review over the coming weeks/months I do not believe that the banner is either accurate in saying 'is a part of', nor can I find significant contributions from members of the project. I am not sure what the general consensus is with regard to this?
Mark G 22:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The other items, specifically listed above are useful elucidations on the basic outline in this main article, I imagine that in the longer term this larger item will need to be broken down into the constituent processes and remain only as a summary and waymarker; this will be particularly important with the introduction of ITILv3 which will share many/most of the processes and will need to co-exist with v2 for some considerable time. I think that for now certainly these articles do not constitute original research and are fully in keeping with Wikipedia ethos (if not style etc). There are minor copyright concerns but I haven't had time to thorougly review them against the defining texts as yet to see how close they are. Mark G 00:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any serious violations of the NPOV criteria on the main page. Would whoever has added it please explain their additions? ITIL is an internationally recognised best practice, embodied in the ISO/IEC 20000 standard and produced by an international co-operation of authors from vendors, government and industry. I would suggest that if there are no specifics provided that we remove the tag in a week or so. Mark G 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
(thanks for adding the merge-tag and not opening a discussion section here)
IMHO the Articles should not be merged. Yes, ITIL and ISO 20000 are covering the same field of information service management and ITIL was one source when ISO 20000 was developed, but they are developing into different directions. I.e. it is not possible to certify an organisation after ITIL, ISO 20000 is a certification standard. The ISO 20000 article is rather short and needs to be expanded, but also the standard is rather young. There is no need to put apples and tomatoes into one article just because some of them are red. -- ghw 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No. I would definitely disagree with this. They are NOT the same thing at all. ISO 20000 operates at a much higher level and is designed to work along side different frameworks, not just ITIL. To treat them as part of the same would be a serious error. BinaryGal
What about Service Level Management and Change Management (ITIL). They seem pretty stubby and look like they're completely covered here. I think they could replaced by redirects to here with no great loss of information? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC) PS. the usual way to sign your post is with ~~~~. Wikipedia automagically expands 4 tildas to your name and a date.
I think folks need to understand the difference between all these things before commenting. The idea of merging them can only have come from someone who is clueless on the topics themselves. - unknown/anon
Currently some articles about ITIL are a little 'stubby' but this doesn't mean that they don't have value in and of themselves, nor that they should be merged back into the main ITIL page. In many ways, I would advocate splitting the ITIL page down into its constituent processes/functions and leaving the main ITIL page as more of an index. There has much been written about each process individually and increasingly there is overlap between CoBIT, ITIL, ISO/IEC20000 and other standards and methodologies such as PrinceII where harmonisation of techniques and approaches are concerned. I have to admit to being bias in these matters as an ITIL qualified practitioner in a number of areas. On merging, the reduction ad-absurdum is to suggest that all processes or methodologies in ICT should be merged because they are all processes/frameworks or methodologies. In some cases the differences will only ever be understood by the professionals (as an analogy we might have one page for anti-biotics in medicine but I would expect each family of antibiotics to have its own discreet description - their function, composition and application are different). ISO 20000 (or in-fact correctly ISO/IEC 20000 is a proscriptive standard and most importantly only covers ITIL Service Management and not the other ITIL disciplines, ITIL is not a proscriptive standard but a framework of processes for adoption and adaptation the two are related but quite separate IMHO. Wikipedia is unique in offering no limit as to scale (number of pages) and so unlike a print encyclopedia the need to edit is not driven by the need to reduce detail, but to improve quality. I don't see how quality is served by the reduction in overall accuracy or detail that would result from content being eliminated. Mark G 00:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
That is a very good summary Mark. BinaryGal
Along the same lines, the proposed Service Level Management merge is also inadvisable. ITIL did not define this. I agree with Mark's direction I think - we should call out the individual practice areas, and reference the frameworks that attempt to define them. That would 1) reduce the length of the ITIL article and 2) recognize the non-ITIL contributions (and perhaps divergences) on key concepts such as Change and Configuration Management. The main question I have is how to identify these concepts as IT domain concepts. I wouldn't want to see a Wikipedia article on "Change Management," it should probably be on "IT change management." This won't be easy or quick. Charles T. Betz 18:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
There have been concerns raised by myself and others about the level of overlap between the blue book and the Change Management process (ITIL) page, there is also a proposal to merge the separate Change Management (ITIL) page into this page, which I believe is a mistake (see below). Anyone wishing to assist with remediation of these two issues is welcome to contribute to the Change Management (ITIL) page where I hope it will be possible to generate a replacent (actually the Change Management (ITIL) page appears to pre-date the Change Management process (ITIL) page that was developed by the Utrecht Method Engineering guys.
Okay so why not merge in here?
Mark G 16:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I have come to this link via Service Level Management where it has been commented that that article could be moved into an Information Technology Infrastructure Library. My perspective is business management. I believe Service Level Management relates to all kinds of 'Business Process Outsourcing' Service Level Agreements such as legal services, billing, customer services, etc not just IT.
The information is undoubtably more advanced in the IT sector because BPO is further along the outsourcing evolutionary chain than IT outsourcing. However, it is now growing more quickly than ITO because the savings that BPO can provide were identified some years after ITO became popular. The outsourcing industry is currently split approximately 75:25 IT to BPO and worth approximately $75bn (source: The Economist Magazine).
Therefore the common principles should be identified distilled and recorded under a general top line heading 'Service Level Management'. The IT actions required will be different to the BPO actions but the management rationale will be the same.
Translation is time consuming but also a learning process. To mitigate this, the IT stuff could be held in detail in the ITIL and for the meantime be referenced from the Service Level Management section which can then develop organically as a top line heading.
PS I too am not sufficiently expert to edit this entry.
MS
I also come to the ITIL page via the redirection from Service Level Management, which I referenced while editing Rich Internet Applications. Because I am a specialist in the field of information technology, with a focus on software and application performance management, I am also familiar with ITIL. Even so -- and without even considering the concerns expressed above by contributor "MS" -- I agree that it is not ideal for the only material about the subject to be buried under ITIL. Even within the domain of software and information technology, the term Service Level Management has a wider meaning than the way it is defined in the ITIL standard.
The ITIL standard, because of its focus on IT, tends to emphasize those aspects of SLM that have traditionally been the responsibilities of IT organizations. It pays less attention to the design, creation, and testing of software applications, because traditionally most IT organizations are responsible only for deploying already developed applications. However, to be really effective, SLM concerns have to be considered more holistically, because it is much easier to deliver acceptable levels of service if they have been designed and built in from the start.
Merging SLM into ITIL removes the opportunity to discuss wider SLM concerns like this, and reinforces existing misconceptions about who is really responsible for delivering acceptable service levels.
Chris Loosley 00:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we do so? How? Charles T. Betz 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
We could move everything before the 'University of Utrecht' section to Talk:Information_Technology_Infrastructure_Library/Archive-Pre-April-06 ?
I vote yes, but not sure how to create a new talk page. Charles T. Betz 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this section. Process principles are referenced briefly elsewhere, and this section is not germane to ITIL per se, especially given the article's considerable length challenges - more cross references can be added if desired.
I also disagree that ITIL is an especially good example of an application of process theory. It's more a set of best practices. Many of what it calls "processes" are actually just functions.
Next up: figuring out what to do with each of the detailed sections that (in the eyes of some) are simply regurgitating the standard in a manner incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. Charles T. Betz 19:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What does "embodied" mean? Inspired by? Quoted verbatim in its entirety? Excerpted? --- Beland 01:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It was requested that given the recent work done on the article, that I review the need for the NPOV tag. The introduction has indeed improved quite a bit, though there is still one problematic statement, which I have marked. The addition of a criticism section has also helped round out the overall perspective of the article. The "Details of the ITIL Framework" section still has POV problems because it contains normative ("should") "how-to" suggestions. It is an official policy that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. This is mostly to enforce the vision of writing an encyclopedia, rather than simply a collection of all the useful information in the universe. The value of information which is too detailed for an encyclopedia is recognized, and Wikibooks is provided to host such useful works, including how-to manuals. -- Beland 02:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I continue to think that the best solution for the details section will be based on splitting each practice area into its own article, and noting that ITIL basically was neither the first nor the last word on any of them. I have a 1980 IBM publication in hand for example that details Change Control, Capacity Management, Problem Control, Recovery Planning, and Service Level Planning.
I am still concerned about the namespace issue, and would recommend that (instead of tagging the practice areas with ITIL) we tag them with ITSM. For example,
We can then go into origins and pros and cons of each one systematically. But I think the ITSM page should be the master, not the ITIL page.
Thoughts?
-Charlie
Charles T. Betz 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Can one of you guys better qualified than me also take a look at Service management please? In my view the existing entry needs work Pukerua 04:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added the confusion tag to the overview section because it uses lots of jargony acronyms, does not define the technical terms that it uses in plain language, merely lists the names of subsections instead of explaining what they say, and may be duplicative as an outline. Both the "Details" section and the automatically generated table of contents already provide outlines of the rest of the article. I think what lay readers may need from an overview is less of a table of contents, and more of a prose explanation summarizing the recommendations of the framework.
There are several lists of things which sound to lay ears like synonyms, which the article seems to think are technical terms with distinct meanings:
If these distinctions are important, they should be explained, preferably with concrete examples.
The mysterious acronyms ICT, CSF and KPI, are used without explanation.
-- Beland 02:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Charles T. Betz 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Added this, and it's a rich field for plowing. The yellow books aren't everything! In particular would like to get some of the Brit/Dutch history I hear about from time to time.
I have no financial stake in IBM but their role here is clearly of historic interest; I hope no-one feels this is overly commercial. Charles T. Betz 04:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's start a new thread. In response to Mark - if we "make the modules more independent" that means (to my mind) including non-ITIL background in the process areas; we may run into objections there as well... it's kind of a Catch-22.
Do we need a dedicated project page to coordinate this?
How many of the process areas already have their own articles? Charles T. Betz 12:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
They are a commercial operation (with whom i have no connection) but I do think we should include a reference to the Visible Ops group as an alternate approach to ITIL based on some solid research. Thoughts? Pukerua 10:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree. We cannot ignore the commercial contributions here; if it weren't for IBM, HP, and the rest, ITIL and IT Service Management as we know them today would not exist. Just need to be extremely NPOV when referencing a vendor's material. Charles T. Betz 11:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I put all citations in strict Chicago style. The Office of Government Commerce is the only name that appears on the title page, so that is the ITIL author for the formal cite - the Chicago Manual of Style is very clear on this. The only exception is the security book; I have the hard copy and the authors of that book do appear on its title page. Charles T. Betz 11:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I also put the Service Support section before the Service Delivery section. I am not aware that Service Delivery comes "before" Service Support in any meaningful way (as was stated) - please provide evidence if I am wrong. Most organizations start with Service Support. Charles T. Betz 11:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose that the first paragraph needs to state how many organizations say they have adopted these practices, or perhaps how many organizations claim to require them of vendors. Without a statement like this, it's impossible to definitively state this topic is even notable. Tempshill 07:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed this tag because I do not believe there is any basis for it any more. ITIL is a significant topic in and of itself, not owned by the Utrecht group. The article does need to continue to be pared down and split out into constituent ITSM process areas as discussed. Charles T. Betz 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As discussed earlier, I have started moving the detailed ITIL material into standalone sections, such as Change Management (ITSM). Speak now or hold your peace... Assistance please... Charles T. Betz 01:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have made some very large deletions and condensations. The material was good, just too much of it. We need to drive towards more terse, link-rich material. Apologies for oxes gored, but there are well-justified challenges from the Wikipedia community on this article's length. Charles T. Betz 03:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Split this out tonight. Little bit at a time. At this rate I'll be done breaking up the article in a week or so. Help would be appreciated. Haven't had ANY comments pro or con since I started this - a little surprised. Considered making Incident and Problem just one article, but figured that would cause too much angst. ITIL article no longer shows up with a length warning on edit, that is progress I think. Charles T. Betz 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason you have not had any comments is probably because you have rushed into your next change. People do not visit here every day. I think that you should wait weeks between significant changes like this, rather than just a couple of days. The page has been like this for a long time, and merits collective evolution, not revolution.
Binarygal
The precursors section in this new page talks about service management exclusively. This innaccurately represents ITIL. Mark G 10:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The Enterprise Computing Institute publishes a set of coordinated books covering general issues of large scale IT management. This may be a fact but what has it to do with ITIL ?
This seems a bit extreeme? I think that this critisism needs to be removed, or re-described from an NPOV and without the loaded metaphor. I have been working in environments where ITIL is heavily used for many years and have yet to encounter anyone who believes it is a religion. Plenty of people who become obsessed with process over purpose maybe but never anyone who has formed a formal belief system around it. Mark G 10:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a reference to 'uneven quality' in the main article. Does this refer to format (lack of consistency often critisised), rigour (some areas clearly less rigourously defined than others) or validity/accuracy (not sure?). Quality here needs defining in order for it to avoid being an 'empty' statement. Mark G 10:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This was, i believe useful to non initiates. Not sure how it's removal adds value. Comment in article says for 'brevity', however see : [ [4]] for a description of why brevity need not be an aim in itself. I believe that many valuable contributions by other editors to these pages have been lost in an unneccesary quest for brevity. Clarity, yes please. Division/Separation of pages for re-use elsewhere - yes please. Removal of valid content - no thank-you. Mark G 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
IMHO this is not acceptable, these sections have been removed while others have been relocated out of this main page. Relocation - sure no problem. Deletion without re-provision amounts to the willfull removal of valuable information. A reader of this article could now quickly and very wrongly form a view that ITIL simply covered Service Management. These sections should be restored or reprovided in their own page-space. I am concerned that there needs to be a solid committment (consensus) from the WP community before proliferating pages as I have previously suggested and was waiting for, without such a consensus there will be insufficient voices to defend the content from deletion by those wikipedians who (incorrectly IHMO) believe that this content is not relevant. I really don't think that meeting an arbitrary 34k page size limit is really a good reason to jetison valuable information, especially when the net result is to weaken the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the article such that it risks rendering it misleading.
Sad that we are back to almost a April 2005 view of ITIL from a WP perspective and have lost many of the contributions of the 30+ individuals who have added their voice over that period of time. We must progress, but with consent and consensus and without being bound by unneccesary and arbitrary guidelines that serve more as information than regulation. Mark G 10:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
As sections move out and gain their own independent life e.g. 'Service Desk' etc. I am wondering if we should be keeping a short 2-3 sentence introduction here. I am concerned that for the first time visitor seeking information on ITIL we will be directing them out to maybe up to 20 sub pages that ultimately will make it impossible for them to get a good overview without much reading. Mark G 09:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed the wording in the intro re "claim to." It seemed too much a concession to some of the criticism leveled re: not NPOV enough. I think it is more accurate and sufficient to say that ITIL is "intended to" do X. Whether it succeeds in these objectives are where we strive for balance. Picky I know but that wording has been bugging me every time I read it. Charles T. Betz 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the last change because it wasn't working right - while we've agreed that we can retain brief introductions for individual sections, the change that was made deleted the link to the Service Desk standalone article and had some complications I didn't quite understand. Charles T. Betz 16:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
OK? Charles T. Betz 18:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think so too, assuming you mean the talk page! Binarygal
The Service Catalog entry is flagged as having few or no incoming links. I would think the ITIL page would be a good place to add a link to service catalog, but being relatively new to ITIL, it's not clear to me where in the ITIL article such a link would go. Any suggestions? Are there other articles which could link to service catalog? West81 18:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I addded the reference to the Microsoft Operations Framework at the top of the page. I think it is necessary since the page seems to be masquarading an a Goverment lead inititive, but is actually a Microsoft led scheme. I thought it necessary since there is no mention of open standards and this will explain why.
In the section 'Details of the ITIL Framework/Service Support/Release Management' the explanation of the Delta Release uses as an example: "Security patches to plug bugs in a software". I don't believe that this text is correct, but I don't know how to fix it. Someone, please, correct this problem. -- Marcelo Pinto 19:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in trademarks, but it seems to me strange that this article has a registered trademark symbol after the first use of the initials ITIL. Two questions:
Rugops 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw this added as an ITIL alternative, and reverted an attempted deletion. The TMF/eTOM work is highly regarded and is in fact a viable ITIL alternative, especially for telecomm providers. (I did not add the reference originally). Charles T. Betz 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This external link appears to be covered by the WP:EL guidelines as one of those specifically to be avoided (Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors). I removed it but it was re-added. This site doesn't seem to me to have much useful content that is not either covered in this article or in the other external linked sites. I am not suggesting that this site is not a worthwhile venture (although expanding the ITIL content within Wikipedia seems a more worthwhile activity in my view), but unless it is an authoritative source of information on the subject beyond what is covered in this article and the other sites, the guidelines suggest it shouldn't be linked. Why should it stay? Thanks.-- Michig 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested over there that indeed a further split is what's warranted. Particularly: All the ITIL#Details_of_the_ITIL_v2_framework should be separated from this article into another. 198.49.180.254 18:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I created a first draft for a SVG version of the ITIL green pin at
. Maybe we could use at this article? --
Pinnecco (
talk)
10:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
There used to be a large segment explaining the v2 certification scheme (Foundation/Practitioner/Manager). This is an important aspect of ITIL, yet it is now missing. Does anyone know why? Perhaps it has been moved somewhere? 86.130.173.212 ( talk) 08:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Due to the volume of discussion, some of which should be kept as it provides a historical understanding of how these pages have developed old talk content has been moved to an archive: Talk Page Archive to April 2006
Image:ITIL framework.PNG does not seem to be adding anything to the article. Perhaps it is simply missing an explanation. What is the significance of the arrangement of the various boxes? What relationships are being diagrammed?
Is it essentially copied from the handbook it mentions as its source, or is it a re-creation of a similar diagram based on the underlying ideas? I ask for copyright reasons. It is currently marked as "fair use", which for a diagram which could be easily re-created, is not an adequate license. -- Beland
Just a quick comment. The opening sentence of this article begins, "The ITIL is a framwork of ..." One of the criticisms state, "The OGC also doesn’t claim that ITIL is a framework." I would think the OGC is an authorative source for the description of ITIL. So I guess what I'm saying is if the OGC doesn't think ITIL to be a framework, the article should describe it as one.
Reverting out ridiculous unproductive row about self-linking. The Wikipedia guidelines are extremely clear: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked".
Please adhere to this.
Some of the general v3 stuff needs to be cut from this page, with a subset of the v3 page added. Not an easy task, granted.
I wont modify the page but I think it should be done. Is it good practice to quote IBM as an authority on IBM's contribution to ITIL? (Refs 5 and 6). How about this from Brian Johnston, author of 5 of the ITIL version 1 books: "I wrote five of the original books under the supervision of Dr John Stewart the person who DID create ITIL. In that time I did not consult anyone from IBM, I did not refer to any of the IBM 'body of knowledge' nor did my colleagues to my knowledge... John in his research period did talk to people at IBM but he did not base ITIL (in fact GITIMM as the acronym was at that time) on the IBM materials it was only one of a ton of influences that were distilled. John did his research and NOTHING fitted the scope of what he wanted to build, so the IBM claim is like many others, a stretch." http://www.itskeptic.org/node/29#comment-66 From Alan Nance, also an original author: "What is undoubtedly true is that the thinking from IBM’s ISMA heavily influenced the first ITIL books (Helpdesk, Problem and Change Management). Traditionally there was particular criticism of the helpdesk book for this reason and also the fact that it did not jive with the other later books. In fact had the CCTA not changed course quickly, I doubt that ITIL would have been anything more than an echo of IBM speak. ...the growth of ITIL to international best practice was really forged in the later books. Brian in particular reached out to experts and thought-leaders from across the sea and in different walks of life like Hans Dithmar, Martin van Kesteren and myself and of course many others whom I know less well. These efforts lead to real assimilation of best practice and the strength of the books today." http://forums.datamation.com/service-management/32-history-itsm-itil.html To read this Wikipedia entry as it stands is to think IBM wrote ITIL, which is a great distortion of fact. Pukerua ( talk) 08:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Quick check on external links, removed the following in accordance with WP:EL:
— Ashleyvh ( talk) 10:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
To avoid any potential confusion for later reviewers, please note that in the following discussion User:Binarygal was initially editing under the anonymous IP User:86.167.136.66 as they later clarified here diff.— Ashleyvh ( talk) 23:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Rather than engaging with someone writing from an anonymous IP address in what seems to be a personal attack, I'll slow this down and take each link in turn.— Ashleyvh ( talk) 09:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a link to a magazine article (dated 2005) which is not referenced in the main page. Such links would conventionally be a footnote reference to substantiate something on the main page.— Ashleyvh ( talk) 09:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an website with brief descriptions of some commercial ITIL related toolkits and books that can be purchased through TSO affiliate links (affiliate number A10112). The website registrant is Mr Stephen Addison. The website is not referenced anywhere in the body of the page and appears to add no value that a direct link to the TSO publisher's site or the APM Group's ITIL-officialsite would not provide in a more detailed or up to date manner. Following the guidance of WP:SPAM this link should be removed.— Ashleyvh ( talk) 10:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Addressing your points one at a time:
WP:EL makes it clear that links should serve a particular purpose within an article (i.e. to enhance it in ways that adding content to the article cannot, or to link an article on a notable organization or public figure to their official website if one exists). The links added here violate that policy as they are only indirectly related to the subject and serve no real purpose other than to be promotional - and since the editor who originally added them has an admitted conflict of interest, this also violates the Wikipedia policy on WP:SPAM. If ILL toolkit becomes notable someday, someone who has no conflict of interest will come around and write an unbiased, neutral article about it. I'm going to leave the 3O notice open but I think its clear the links don't belong. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I also came from 3O and also agree the links do not belong here per our WP:EL rules. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The advice I'd get at this point is to follow WP:DENY. Until User:Binarygal is prepared to take some of the advice given to them at WP:WQA by other editors, any attempt at discussion seems pointless. My edits to Information_Technology_Infrastructure_Library from this point on will take that approach.— Ashleyvh ( talk) 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It might be helpful if I were more specific with referring to WP:EL in reference to the original four links I removed. For the discussion forum sites itlibrary.org and itilcommunity.com the relevant section to consider is WP:ELNO point 10 which states that unless these sites are official pages of the article's subject that discussion forums or groups should be avoided (I am summarizing for convenience, please review the original). The remaining two links I removed are more straightforward and have been discussed above as part of the WP:3O process. If an editor considers the discussion forums are fundamental to the article they could show these sites have official recognition by referring to published sources supporting their view in the article in order to cater for the guidance of WP:ELNO. Please note that I removed what I thought at the time were the least controversial external links. The remaining external links might also be candidates for removal using the same WP guidance.— Ashleyvh ( talk) 12:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't followed the detail of the above discussion, but this is my view of these links with respect to the accepted guidelines. Make of it what you will.-- Michig ( talk) 13:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
There is overwhelming consensus of opinion that this particular website adds no value to the article with third party opinions contributed earlier on this talk page supporting that view. It was originally removed over seven weeks ago and I am removing it again on the basis of the extensive (and possibly pedantic) discussion since then.— Teahot ( talk) 09:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
removed: copyright violation from www.enterprisemanagement.com/online-store/ scstore/02182002%20Article.pdf
I can't find the first So I'm working to improve things. I'm hardly an expert on ITIL--maybe after I've revised the wording, I'll be closer. :-) If there are experts out there who think I'm getting it wrong, please help me get it right.
Here's my plan of action: What I have done, and what I'll be doing in the short term.
When all of that is finished, I'll probably make the next pass at a plan of action.
Just to re-enforce, I'm not at all an expert on the subject, so if you have the knowledge, I need the help. If I'm going down the wrong path, please help me to get back on. [ But, be gentle. :-) ]
DanielVonEhren 20:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
DanielVonEhren 15:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looking at OGC's web site and various other sources, I'm not seeing IT Service Management as a separate layer, with Service Delivery and Service Support as sub-specialties, so I'm going to take it out. However, I'm happy to put it back if it turns out that I'm missing something.
It's looking like it will be most clear to organize the article around the the eight physical books. That provides a natural hierarchy for structuring the presentation as well as a reader's thoughts.
DanielVonEhren 14:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the flow of the existing document is good-- I like the focus on presenting the information similar to the base ITIL books.
I do think that the choice of JPEG compression for the line drawings was poor-- JPEG blurs the text badly since it was designed for photographs instead of drawings. A better choice would be PNG since this uses a lossless compression which squeezes large areas of the same color down nicely. The image size would be comparable and a whole lot sharper.
Sbonds 20:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
In one of the images, "deplanning" should be "deplaning" x2
~anonymous 16 May 2005
I agree re "In one of the images, "deplanning" should be "deplaning" x2 " Mind you, wonderful image of people being rushed off a plan (yes, we've all had daft managers telling us to forget about the plan...)
Hi Daniel,
I am an ITIL consultant and a qualified and accredited trainer, but new to the Wikipedia.
If you Wikify this article I will happily keep an eye on the content for you.
Lynn Jackson 5 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some references to ISO20000, BS15000 etc.?
I think that this should most likely be reorganised. I have some experience in ITIL (though I'm by no means an expert!). I migth give it a shot some time later. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I would be inclined to hang on. ISO 20000 is due to be published: but we all know ISO and dates. It should be in a week or so, but I guess longer. Creating something now which will need re-working so soon is probably not a good investment of time. BinaryGal
In BPM terms, ITIL's use of process is loose. A process is a repeatable series of events resulting in a value-add outcome for an identifiable stakeholder. This applies to Incident, Problem, Change, and Release. Configuration Management is in a gray area, and the "tactical" Service Delivery areas of Capacity, Availability, Finance, and Continuity are clearly closer to functional areas as defined by classical BPM - they are made up of many processes, some of which may cross boundaries.
The ITIL author's insistence that Service Desk is a function not a process is further indication of their lack of clarity in this matter. A Service Request is also a crisp, event-driven repeatable process.
For further information see Hammer or (especially) Rummler & Brache.
65.25.216.35 04:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Charlie Betz (charb@visi.com), www.erp4it.com.
The handling of this subject is excellent, better than I've seen almost anywhere else. I note (regret) the absence of two things, firstly some context and reference to equivalent standards or attempts at standards, and secondly some observations on the issues around successfully implementing. This is not to distract focus from ITIL, or belittle it, but to avoid the impression that one might othervise get that it is purely theoretical and idealistic. I appreciate that the authors KNOW that it is not, it is just an observation about how well the article conveys that. I'll pull together some studies and post in the next week or so. Tban 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Could someone knowledgeable please provide pronunciation guide- "Long I or Short I", Eye-til or it-il??? I have been hearing both ways.
As I understand it 'eye-til' is the US pronunciation whereas 'it-il' is the UK.
Found an excellent summary on the Service Management disciplines but very little on the Infrastructure or Application Management elements. I've added some initial thoughts under Infrastructure Management and hope that people will be happy with the tone and structure.
Mark G 23:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The Incident Management definition includes the phrase : "... .The definition means that an incident is a problem but without a root or cause. If the incident has a root cause, the incident becomes a problem or a known error...."
I'm not so sure that this is helpful to those new to the ITIL framework and even less sure that it is accurate. As ITIL is quite clear that Problems are distinct from incidents it would seem unhelpful to say that and 'incident becomes a problem or a known error'. Neither that an 'incident is a problem but without a root or cause', the ITIL books seem to suggest that a known error has a root cause, but a problem need not have a root cause this would suggest that this also needs updating.
Does anyone else have any views? -- Mark G 01:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
---01 April 2006---
Incident is a service call which demands immediate attention for closure or a workaround. If a number of incidents are logged by various users with a similar fault description, then the incident becomes a problem. In that case, as per incident management, closure of the incident through workaround is done as quickly as possible. Problem is handled as per problem management. Every problem has a root cause. Till the time, root cause is unknown, the problem remains and is called an unkown error. When the root cause is found out through root cause analysis, the problem becomes a known error.
--- Contributed by Ganaraj Pawaskar---01 April 2006
---02 April 2006---
I've updated the relationship to problem management section in Incident Management, I'd appreciate any feedback. I hope it's a little clearer.
Mark G 22:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just seen an edit on this page: someone has changed every spelling of 'organisation' to 'organization'. It raises the issue: which spelling should be used, US or UK? Most of the Wiki seems to be in US (should it?), but ITIL was born in the UK (does that make a difference?).
Is there any formal policy on this? -- Binarygal 1 March 2006
I would think that since ITIL is a UK developed library then 'organisation' is more appropriate - but then I would i'm in the UK!
-- Mark G 01:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have redefined the conversation that appeared to be going on between ITServiceGuy and 80.47.x.x so that it doesn't consume high level headings and discourage others from reading or contributing to the other discussions on this page. Discussion is below.
Mark G 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I am writing this to kindly request that editor 80.47.XX.XX stops deleting the external link to the ITIL V3 Overview article and slide deck that I believe should be in here.
I wish to objectively provide my case.
To provide the core facts:-
- Yes, it links to a Blog page - Yes, I own the Blog - Yes, the Blog has Adsense on it
However:-
- The Blog exists to provide free information about ITIL - not for self promotion. - The Blog does not sell anything - nor is it commercial. - The Blog provides valuable infomation and places it in the public domain. - No copyright is broken - everything is my own work.
In terms of the actual article:-
- The article is informative and accurate. - The article is an introduction about ITIL V3. - The article contains a FREE download of a valuable pack I personaly put together for the benefit of ITIL V3 interested parties. - There is no-where else on the internet that you can read the FAQ's that Sharon Taylor (Chief Artictect for Version 3) answered. - Sharon Taylor herself left a positive post on the site - expressing how pleased she was that were postively covering ITIL V3.
The precident:-
Two of the other external links contain a lot of advertising and sponsor links. One contains 6 sponsor links and 10 advetisements, along with links selling a toolkit. I do not object to these links. Therefore the 'made for Adsense' comment is a non-issue.
The quality of the article and slide deck within it are superior. I have received a lot of feedback telling me so from ITIL practitioners around the world.
That's my case stated - openly, honestly and fairly.
I look forward to reading your reply.
(missing a signature)
In your desperation to add a link to your 'Made for Adsense' site and thus grab a few pennies, you miss the key points entirely.
The page you point to is almost worthless. It is lightweight, with the content covered in MUCH more depth on the official OGC site, and many others. It simply does not justify being linked to in any sense.
The wiki is NOT a link list. Simple. Repeatedly Visiting here explicitely to add your OWN site, with minimal useful content, and Adsense all over it, is unnacceptable and unethical.
Ask yourself: if that page was elsewhere and NOT owned by you, would you repeatedly spam the link to it here? Of course you wouldn't. Case proven. Your motivation is clicks on the Adsense box, not the good of this wiki. Please refrain from doing it.
(missing a signature)
Thank You for leaving your comments. I wish to respond as follows:-
I am certainly not desperate to add a link and 'grab a few pennies'. The Adsense on my site offers ITIL Practitioners the chance to access free reports and other information from a variety of vendors - without having to spend valuable time looking elsewhere around the web. It's just a service I provide, along with the other quality information on the site.
For your information - the small amount of 'pennies' I do receive from Adsense each month goes straight back into buying reports and other items (such as the $200 ISO 20000 standard that I'm currently writing articles about - most of which I forked out for myself) to help educate visitors to my site.
You seem to have me down as a ruthless entrepreneur who is trying to turn a fast book out of a single Wiki link. Not exactly the master business plan is it?
If I was trying make some money - then I would be trying to post affiliate links to actually sell a product (such as a 'toolkit' - which funnily enough - IS featured on some of the other external links that you do not seem to have a problem with).
Double standards?
No, I actually think there's more to this...
Overall - I do not believe that Adsense is your major concern here. Just a way of cleverly painting a dark picture - which is totally innaccurate.
My track record and reputation is being questioned here - and I intend to professionally continue to present my case.
Here's the thing...
I honestly believe (having absorbed the content and context of your objections) that you have some 'other' reason for not wanting the information to appear.
I thought that purposely preventing information for others to learn from is actually NOT what the Wiki is about?
Let's resolve this 'censorship' issue once and for all.
You mention (above) that the article is 'lightweight' - then please do all the visitors to Wiki a BIG favour and add some external links to where the information CAN be found on an alternative site.
For example the answers to the important questions about ITIL V3, as provided by Sharon Taylor, are - to my knowledge - available NO WHERE ELSE on the web. Not even the OGC site.
I challenge you to find this same information (answers to the FAQ's) and provide an external link to it on the ITIL wiki page.
Now, if you can do that, then I will see no alterantive but to not post the external link - since you have found a suitable alternative for eveyone to benefit from.
If you cannot I will seek further guidance from Wiki on ensuring that the Link is posted and remains posted.
I am only interested in ensuring that all interested ITIL parties have access to all the relevant facts and information to help them in their advance planning and preparation for ITIL V3.
There should be no censorship on Wiki.
Do you accept the challenge?
(missing a signature)
It is staggering that you still persist with this vandalism. You just don't get it do you?
The real challenge was the question of whether you would post the link again and again and again if the site didn't belong to you. In other words, if it didn't make you money. Funny that you didn't answer that isn't it?
We have been here before on topic after topic all over the wiki. People persisting in posting their own site blindly because they cannot grasp what everyone else can.
Desperately slagging off other links in defense is also common. FWIW the other links are justified because they offer genuinely unique or original content. That is why they have been left in place for years. The issue isn't the odd link to commercial areas on the sites the wiki links to, it is the content on them and the whole value of the site (or lack of it).
In your case it is crystal clear that the so-called 'blog' is a 'Made for Adsense' entity, known as an MFA site, You have lightweight content here and there to try to provide hooks. Your growing desperation to link to it here simply re-enforces that fact, and exposes your mission.
In terms of the flimsy article you are pressing, the same information is available all over the place, including on the OGC site which is already linked to. Furthermore, there is a wiki page on v3 specifically. Even IF your MFA site jsutified a link, which it DOESN'T, that is where it should be.
If you carry on like this, the next step will be to block you from posting at all. Why don't you step back, look at what you are doing, and instead of link spamming try to add CONTENT too the wiki? But no, I guess that isn't what you are really here for is it?
(missing a signature)
Gentlepeople, it does rather appear as if emotions are running high here, and while I would like to distance myself from the more personal debate that is occurring (above) I felt it might be useful to provide a view from outside the discussion.
As the initiator of the wikipedia page on ITIL v3 (early last month) I too saw a general need for more and better information on ITILv3 and the ITIL refresh project. Personally it concerns me that our unknown editor 80.47.x.x feels unable to make at least some identity visible, it is therefore not possible to identify if he/she may have an agenda – however it is a (largely) free world and so his/her prerogative.
I am however concerned that the ITIL wikipedia pages could very easily become overburdened with links to umpteen blog pages across the web. With a blog, it is often difficult to discern the agenda of the author and as such lending credibility through an ‘encyclopaedia’ entry would appear to be ill advised.
Wikipedia ‘best practice’ and ‘policy’ appear to err on the side of caution when linking away from Wikipedia:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/When_should_I_link_externally
“…Not very often. If the site you are linking to is an article, history or timeline, then wikipedia should have its own article on that subject, not just an external link. The web is already full past capacity of sites composed of links to other sites.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links
specifically adds:
“Links to normally avoid: A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.”
I am sure that everyone would appreciate any Wiki-ethos compliant content being added to the ITIL v3 page by anyone who has a contribution to make, but on balance I would be in favour of tight control over links made from these pages. If the demand is there for ‘advocacy’ style pages then perhaps an ‘ITIL Advocacy’ page would be an option as I am sure that others who have equally valid and useful ITIL commentary would like to provide access to their blogs as well.
Mark G 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
To mystery editor 80.43.XX.XX,
Thanks for providing two sets of feeback: (i) your direct comments and (ii) the comments made above to ITILuser.
Please can I kindly request that you maintain your professionalism in this discussion forum and try to avoid unkind or untrue phrases (like 'spammer' and 'lightweight'). This is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it - however - I have never questioned your anonymity, agenda or writing style once. I am trying to focus on what I see as the key issue here which is the availability of information on ITIL Version Three.
You failed to declare whether you accepted my challenge which was to add external link(s) that present the Wikipedia readers with the FAQ answers that are contained within the free download slide pack attached to the article that I am trying to post a link on Wikipedia too.
[Notice also, that whilst we are debating whether the link should be on Wikipedia, I have not tried to replace it or do anything underhand, I have been openly and honestly laying out my side of the story.]
As you know, my present concern is one of 'censorship' and freedom of information around ITIL V3.
One indivudal should not be allowed to prevent others from accessing important information.
I cannot see any links that you have provided to allow people to read the answers to the FAQs. The reason they are so important is that they provide ITIL practitioners with an advance view of what's going to happen later this year with respect to education and possible changes in the syllabus for ITIL Foundation and the Managers exam.
I have been unable to find this information on any other ITIL site, including the OGC. Therefore I suspect you are also unable to offer the ITIL community alterative links with this information on it.
To avoid us all going around in circles I believe that there are several options on how we can move forward here - but I want to do so with concensus and approval from the ITIL wikipedia guardians and other editors, as well as yourself.
Option [1] - Add the link again. (Obviously it will be removed straight away - so not a viable option)
Option [2] - I can extract the content and add it to the ITIL V3 pages. (subject to concensus and approval from others)
Options [3] - Ask the OGC to put the information on it's site somewhere and then you can provide an external link to the relevant OGC page.
Option [4] - Not put the information back on - and we all stay in the dark (not really a fair option - especially given that I know how important the information is].
At this stage - can I please ask other editors to 'come in' and provide their opinions - perhaps there are more options that I've not considered.
I hope by presenting these options, that I am showing a genuine interest in the information being available regardless of where it is located.
Finally, for the (still) myserious editor 80.44.XX.XX - I wish to respond to your main point in your last response, "The real challenge was the question of whether you would post the link again and again and again if the site didn't belong to you. In other words, if it didn't make you money. Funny that you didn't answer that isn't it?"
I want to let you know that I was the one who placed the OGC site links on the ITIL V3 pages initially and also, in my online work particularly at the IT Service Blog, I always link out to sites that do not belong to me, to present important ITIL information. It's in the very nature of Blogging - sharing information for the good of everyone who's interested. I answered the money part in my previous response to you. (ISO 20000).
So, in summary, please can we have some additional consensus views, rather than let one anonymous individual decide.
I will honour the consensus view - as is the Wikipedia way.
Thank You.
(missing a signature)
The consensus is already evident. And as Mark G already points out, the Wikipedia itself clearly states: "“Links to normally avoid: A website that you own or maintain".
What part of that is it that you don't understand?
As for my anonymity, all that means is that I haven't created an account. I am no more anonymous than the people who have but not completed their details. I have no agenda, other than stopping link spammers and helping to protect the wiki. Why should I make myself a target for them, and paint a bulls eye on my head for them, by identifying myself? People who spam are usually capable of other despicable acts too.
Regarding your 'options', IF you have any unique content obviously you can add it to the v3 page. So obvious in fact that you could have done that originally. But you didn't want to did you? You just wanted the link to your Made for Adsense site, which is what this is all about, rather than some mythical unique content which is actually lightweight.
Finally: JUST FOLLOW THE RULES! The wiki is NOT here for self promotion of YOUR OWN sites or for link spamming.
(missing a signature)
Gentlemen, I believe that the wikipedia approach is clear. "Wikipedia is not a blog and is not a directory of links" and having looked around the 'pedia for other similar issues it is not deemed appropriate to maintain links to content.
Robin, I believe that everyone would welcome your contributions to the ITIL v3 page, your challenge to our friend at 80.42.xx.xx indicates a concern on your part that ITIL v3 information that is in the public domain, and appropriate to a 'pedia style publication is missing from the v3 pages. Perhaps this section of the discussion should continue on the talk page a ITIL v3. I have reviewed your slides and believe that all of the relevant information is now included on the page, i have made a few minor updates to try to ensure this. My preferences would then be for you to follow options 2 and 3 of your selection and to persuade OGC and the Refresh project to continue the excellent project communication that I have already observed, and which I believe that Sharon was partaking in in the webcast that you initially reported.
Let's try to make these pages ITIL and ITIL v3 as comprehensive, independent, and succinct as we can so that this reference source can continue to be referred to in that light. If there is a belief that there is a deficiency in v3 information on the v3 pages, lets take the discussion to Talk on ITIL v3 and lets stick to the Wikipedia guidelines to avoid links to external sites unless the information cannot be legally duplicated in Wikipedia and unless that same information is indispensable to the aims of the encyclopedia.
Mark G 22:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Mark for providing this much needed mediation.
I will continue this discussion over on the ITIL V3 Discussion Page - as suggested.
At this stage - I'm not bothering to respond to our mysterious editor. I'm only interested in ensuring that the content is available to those that would benefit from it.
I'm keen to get back to writing about IT Service Management and ITIL - afterall I have over 1,300 global ITIL practitioners to keep happy - which is a far more meaningful experience.
Here I list eight key points - plus some other considerations for possible inclusion - subject to concensus being reached:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ITIL_v3
Thanks,
Robin.
User:ITServiceGuy 08:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I have not been able to find the WIKI page link you reference in your statements below. NOR is there a specific link on the OGC site for V3.
Any help would be appreciated.
The wiki page for v3 is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITIL_v3
Our link spammer friend had been at that too but I cleaned it up.
For the OGC, you will find official info here: http://www.itil.co.uk/refresh.htm and a lot more if you look at news releases here: http://www.itil.co.uk/news.htm#ext
However, there is also tons of stuff on many ITIL sites out there, a lot better that the lightweight link posted by our friend above.
I hope this helps.
I am a little confused by the banner (that has appeared on this page). While the University seems to be active and is adding valuable content to the Wikipedia, including on ITIL - much of which I hope the community will be able to peer review over the coming weeks/months I do not believe that the banner is either accurate in saying 'is a part of', nor can I find significant contributions from members of the project. I am not sure what the general consensus is with regard to this?
Mark G 22:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The other items, specifically listed above are useful elucidations on the basic outline in this main article, I imagine that in the longer term this larger item will need to be broken down into the constituent processes and remain only as a summary and waymarker; this will be particularly important with the introduction of ITILv3 which will share many/most of the processes and will need to co-exist with v2 for some considerable time. I think that for now certainly these articles do not constitute original research and are fully in keeping with Wikipedia ethos (if not style etc). There are minor copyright concerns but I haven't had time to thorougly review them against the defining texts as yet to see how close they are. Mark G 00:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any serious violations of the NPOV criteria on the main page. Would whoever has added it please explain their additions? ITIL is an internationally recognised best practice, embodied in the ISO/IEC 20000 standard and produced by an international co-operation of authors from vendors, government and industry. I would suggest that if there are no specifics provided that we remove the tag in a week or so. Mark G 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
(thanks for adding the merge-tag and not opening a discussion section here)
IMHO the Articles should not be merged. Yes, ITIL and ISO 20000 are covering the same field of information service management and ITIL was one source when ISO 20000 was developed, but they are developing into different directions. I.e. it is not possible to certify an organisation after ITIL, ISO 20000 is a certification standard. The ISO 20000 article is rather short and needs to be expanded, but also the standard is rather young. There is no need to put apples and tomatoes into one article just because some of them are red. -- ghw 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No. I would definitely disagree with this. They are NOT the same thing at all. ISO 20000 operates at a much higher level and is designed to work along side different frameworks, not just ITIL. To treat them as part of the same would be a serious error. BinaryGal
What about Service Level Management and Change Management (ITIL). They seem pretty stubby and look like they're completely covered here. I think they could replaced by redirects to here with no great loss of information? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC) PS. the usual way to sign your post is with ~~~~. Wikipedia automagically expands 4 tildas to your name and a date.
I think folks need to understand the difference between all these things before commenting. The idea of merging them can only have come from someone who is clueless on the topics themselves. - unknown/anon
Currently some articles about ITIL are a little 'stubby' but this doesn't mean that they don't have value in and of themselves, nor that they should be merged back into the main ITIL page. In many ways, I would advocate splitting the ITIL page down into its constituent processes/functions and leaving the main ITIL page as more of an index. There has much been written about each process individually and increasingly there is overlap between CoBIT, ITIL, ISO/IEC20000 and other standards and methodologies such as PrinceII where harmonisation of techniques and approaches are concerned. I have to admit to being bias in these matters as an ITIL qualified practitioner in a number of areas. On merging, the reduction ad-absurdum is to suggest that all processes or methodologies in ICT should be merged because they are all processes/frameworks or methodologies. In some cases the differences will only ever be understood by the professionals (as an analogy we might have one page for anti-biotics in medicine but I would expect each family of antibiotics to have its own discreet description - their function, composition and application are different). ISO 20000 (or in-fact correctly ISO/IEC 20000 is a proscriptive standard and most importantly only covers ITIL Service Management and not the other ITIL disciplines, ITIL is not a proscriptive standard but a framework of processes for adoption and adaptation the two are related but quite separate IMHO. Wikipedia is unique in offering no limit as to scale (number of pages) and so unlike a print encyclopedia the need to edit is not driven by the need to reduce detail, but to improve quality. I don't see how quality is served by the reduction in overall accuracy or detail that would result from content being eliminated. Mark G 00:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
That is a very good summary Mark. BinaryGal
Along the same lines, the proposed Service Level Management merge is also inadvisable. ITIL did not define this. I agree with Mark's direction I think - we should call out the individual practice areas, and reference the frameworks that attempt to define them. That would 1) reduce the length of the ITIL article and 2) recognize the non-ITIL contributions (and perhaps divergences) on key concepts such as Change and Configuration Management. The main question I have is how to identify these concepts as IT domain concepts. I wouldn't want to see a Wikipedia article on "Change Management," it should probably be on "IT change management." This won't be easy or quick. Charles T. Betz 18:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
There have been concerns raised by myself and others about the level of overlap between the blue book and the Change Management process (ITIL) page, there is also a proposal to merge the separate Change Management (ITIL) page into this page, which I believe is a mistake (see below). Anyone wishing to assist with remediation of these two issues is welcome to contribute to the Change Management (ITIL) page where I hope it will be possible to generate a replacent (actually the Change Management (ITIL) page appears to pre-date the Change Management process (ITIL) page that was developed by the Utrecht Method Engineering guys.
Okay so why not merge in here?
Mark G 16:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I have come to this link via Service Level Management where it has been commented that that article could be moved into an Information Technology Infrastructure Library. My perspective is business management. I believe Service Level Management relates to all kinds of 'Business Process Outsourcing' Service Level Agreements such as legal services, billing, customer services, etc not just IT.
The information is undoubtably more advanced in the IT sector because BPO is further along the outsourcing evolutionary chain than IT outsourcing. However, it is now growing more quickly than ITO because the savings that BPO can provide were identified some years after ITO became popular. The outsourcing industry is currently split approximately 75:25 IT to BPO and worth approximately $75bn (source: The Economist Magazine).
Therefore the common principles should be identified distilled and recorded under a general top line heading 'Service Level Management'. The IT actions required will be different to the BPO actions but the management rationale will be the same.
Translation is time consuming but also a learning process. To mitigate this, the IT stuff could be held in detail in the ITIL and for the meantime be referenced from the Service Level Management section which can then develop organically as a top line heading.
PS I too am not sufficiently expert to edit this entry.
MS
I also come to the ITIL page via the redirection from Service Level Management, which I referenced while editing Rich Internet Applications. Because I am a specialist in the field of information technology, with a focus on software and application performance management, I am also familiar with ITIL. Even so -- and without even considering the concerns expressed above by contributor "MS" -- I agree that it is not ideal for the only material about the subject to be buried under ITIL. Even within the domain of software and information technology, the term Service Level Management has a wider meaning than the way it is defined in the ITIL standard.
The ITIL standard, because of its focus on IT, tends to emphasize those aspects of SLM that have traditionally been the responsibilities of IT organizations. It pays less attention to the design, creation, and testing of software applications, because traditionally most IT organizations are responsible only for deploying already developed applications. However, to be really effective, SLM concerns have to be considered more holistically, because it is much easier to deliver acceptable levels of service if they have been designed and built in from the start.
Merging SLM into ITIL removes the opportunity to discuss wider SLM concerns like this, and reinforces existing misconceptions about who is really responsible for delivering acceptable service levels.
Chris Loosley 00:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we do so? How? Charles T. Betz 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
We could move everything before the 'University of Utrecht' section to Talk:Information_Technology_Infrastructure_Library/Archive-Pre-April-06 ?
I vote yes, but not sure how to create a new talk page. Charles T. Betz 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this section. Process principles are referenced briefly elsewhere, and this section is not germane to ITIL per se, especially given the article's considerable length challenges - more cross references can be added if desired.
I also disagree that ITIL is an especially good example of an application of process theory. It's more a set of best practices. Many of what it calls "processes" are actually just functions.
Next up: figuring out what to do with each of the detailed sections that (in the eyes of some) are simply regurgitating the standard in a manner incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. Charles T. Betz 19:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What does "embodied" mean? Inspired by? Quoted verbatim in its entirety? Excerpted? --- Beland 01:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It was requested that given the recent work done on the article, that I review the need for the NPOV tag. The introduction has indeed improved quite a bit, though there is still one problematic statement, which I have marked. The addition of a criticism section has also helped round out the overall perspective of the article. The "Details of the ITIL Framework" section still has POV problems because it contains normative ("should") "how-to" suggestions. It is an official policy that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. This is mostly to enforce the vision of writing an encyclopedia, rather than simply a collection of all the useful information in the universe. The value of information which is too detailed for an encyclopedia is recognized, and Wikibooks is provided to host such useful works, including how-to manuals. -- Beland 02:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I continue to think that the best solution for the details section will be based on splitting each practice area into its own article, and noting that ITIL basically was neither the first nor the last word on any of them. I have a 1980 IBM publication in hand for example that details Change Control, Capacity Management, Problem Control, Recovery Planning, and Service Level Planning.
I am still concerned about the namespace issue, and would recommend that (instead of tagging the practice areas with ITIL) we tag them with ITSM. For example,
We can then go into origins and pros and cons of each one systematically. But I think the ITSM page should be the master, not the ITIL page.
Thoughts?
-Charlie
Charles T. Betz 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Can one of you guys better qualified than me also take a look at Service management please? In my view the existing entry needs work Pukerua 04:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added the confusion tag to the overview section because it uses lots of jargony acronyms, does not define the technical terms that it uses in plain language, merely lists the names of subsections instead of explaining what they say, and may be duplicative as an outline. Both the "Details" section and the automatically generated table of contents already provide outlines of the rest of the article. I think what lay readers may need from an overview is less of a table of contents, and more of a prose explanation summarizing the recommendations of the framework.
There are several lists of things which sound to lay ears like synonyms, which the article seems to think are technical terms with distinct meanings:
If these distinctions are important, they should be explained, preferably with concrete examples.
The mysterious acronyms ICT, CSF and KPI, are used without explanation.
-- Beland 02:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Charles T. Betz 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Added this, and it's a rich field for plowing. The yellow books aren't everything! In particular would like to get some of the Brit/Dutch history I hear about from time to time.
I have no financial stake in IBM but their role here is clearly of historic interest; I hope no-one feels this is overly commercial. Charles T. Betz 04:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's start a new thread. In response to Mark - if we "make the modules more independent" that means (to my mind) including non-ITIL background in the process areas; we may run into objections there as well... it's kind of a Catch-22.
Do we need a dedicated project page to coordinate this?
How many of the process areas already have their own articles? Charles T. Betz 12:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
They are a commercial operation (with whom i have no connection) but I do think we should include a reference to the Visible Ops group as an alternate approach to ITIL based on some solid research. Thoughts? Pukerua 10:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree. We cannot ignore the commercial contributions here; if it weren't for IBM, HP, and the rest, ITIL and IT Service Management as we know them today would not exist. Just need to be extremely NPOV when referencing a vendor's material. Charles T. Betz 11:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I put all citations in strict Chicago style. The Office of Government Commerce is the only name that appears on the title page, so that is the ITIL author for the formal cite - the Chicago Manual of Style is very clear on this. The only exception is the security book; I have the hard copy and the authors of that book do appear on its title page. Charles T. Betz 11:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I also put the Service Support section before the Service Delivery section. I am not aware that Service Delivery comes "before" Service Support in any meaningful way (as was stated) - please provide evidence if I am wrong. Most organizations start with Service Support. Charles T. Betz 11:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose that the first paragraph needs to state how many organizations say they have adopted these practices, or perhaps how many organizations claim to require them of vendors. Without a statement like this, it's impossible to definitively state this topic is even notable. Tempshill 07:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed this tag because I do not believe there is any basis for it any more. ITIL is a significant topic in and of itself, not owned by the Utrecht group. The article does need to continue to be pared down and split out into constituent ITSM process areas as discussed. Charles T. Betz 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As discussed earlier, I have started moving the detailed ITIL material into standalone sections, such as Change Management (ITSM). Speak now or hold your peace... Assistance please... Charles T. Betz 01:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have made some very large deletions and condensations. The material was good, just too much of it. We need to drive towards more terse, link-rich material. Apologies for oxes gored, but there are well-justified challenges from the Wikipedia community on this article's length. Charles T. Betz 03:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Split this out tonight. Little bit at a time. At this rate I'll be done breaking up the article in a week or so. Help would be appreciated. Haven't had ANY comments pro or con since I started this - a little surprised. Considered making Incident and Problem just one article, but figured that would cause too much angst. ITIL article no longer shows up with a length warning on edit, that is progress I think. Charles T. Betz 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason you have not had any comments is probably because you have rushed into your next change. People do not visit here every day. I think that you should wait weeks between significant changes like this, rather than just a couple of days. The page has been like this for a long time, and merits collective evolution, not revolution.
Binarygal
The precursors section in this new page talks about service management exclusively. This innaccurately represents ITIL. Mark G 10:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The Enterprise Computing Institute publishes a set of coordinated books covering general issues of large scale IT management. This may be a fact but what has it to do with ITIL ?
This seems a bit extreeme? I think that this critisism needs to be removed, or re-described from an NPOV and without the loaded metaphor. I have been working in environments where ITIL is heavily used for many years and have yet to encounter anyone who believes it is a religion. Plenty of people who become obsessed with process over purpose maybe but never anyone who has formed a formal belief system around it. Mark G 10:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a reference to 'uneven quality' in the main article. Does this refer to format (lack of consistency often critisised), rigour (some areas clearly less rigourously defined than others) or validity/accuracy (not sure?). Quality here needs defining in order for it to avoid being an 'empty' statement. Mark G 10:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This was, i believe useful to non initiates. Not sure how it's removal adds value. Comment in article says for 'brevity', however see : [ [4]] for a description of why brevity need not be an aim in itself. I believe that many valuable contributions by other editors to these pages have been lost in an unneccesary quest for brevity. Clarity, yes please. Division/Separation of pages for re-use elsewhere - yes please. Removal of valid content - no thank-you. Mark G 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
IMHO this is not acceptable, these sections have been removed while others have been relocated out of this main page. Relocation - sure no problem. Deletion without re-provision amounts to the willfull removal of valuable information. A reader of this article could now quickly and very wrongly form a view that ITIL simply covered Service Management. These sections should be restored or reprovided in their own page-space. I am concerned that there needs to be a solid committment (consensus) from the WP community before proliferating pages as I have previously suggested and was waiting for, without such a consensus there will be insufficient voices to defend the content from deletion by those wikipedians who (incorrectly IHMO) believe that this content is not relevant. I really don't think that meeting an arbitrary 34k page size limit is really a good reason to jetison valuable information, especially when the net result is to weaken the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the article such that it risks rendering it misleading.
Sad that we are back to almost a April 2005 view of ITIL from a WP perspective and have lost many of the contributions of the 30+ individuals who have added their voice over that period of time. We must progress, but with consent and consensus and without being bound by unneccesary and arbitrary guidelines that serve more as information than regulation. Mark G 10:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
As sections move out and gain their own independent life e.g. 'Service Desk' etc. I am wondering if we should be keeping a short 2-3 sentence introduction here. I am concerned that for the first time visitor seeking information on ITIL we will be directing them out to maybe up to 20 sub pages that ultimately will make it impossible for them to get a good overview without much reading. Mark G 09:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed the wording in the intro re "claim to." It seemed too much a concession to some of the criticism leveled re: not NPOV enough. I think it is more accurate and sufficient to say that ITIL is "intended to" do X. Whether it succeeds in these objectives are where we strive for balance. Picky I know but that wording has been bugging me every time I read it. Charles T. Betz 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the last change because it wasn't working right - while we've agreed that we can retain brief introductions for individual sections, the change that was made deleted the link to the Service Desk standalone article and had some complications I didn't quite understand. Charles T. Betz 16:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
OK? Charles T. Betz 18:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think so too, assuming you mean the talk page! Binarygal
The Service Catalog entry is flagged as having few or no incoming links. I would think the ITIL page would be a good place to add a link to service catalog, but being relatively new to ITIL, it's not clear to me where in the ITIL article such a link would go. Any suggestions? Are there other articles which could link to service catalog? West81 18:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I addded the reference to the Microsoft Operations Framework at the top of the page. I think it is necessary since the page seems to be masquarading an a Goverment lead inititive, but is actually a Microsoft led scheme. I thought it necessary since there is no mention of open standards and this will explain why.
In the section 'Details of the ITIL Framework/Service Support/Release Management' the explanation of the Delta Release uses as an example: "Security patches to plug bugs in a software". I don't believe that this text is correct, but I don't know how to fix it. Someone, please, correct this problem. -- Marcelo Pinto 19:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in trademarks, but it seems to me strange that this article has a registered trademark symbol after the first use of the initials ITIL. Two questions:
Rugops 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw this added as an ITIL alternative, and reverted an attempted deletion. The TMF/eTOM work is highly regarded and is in fact a viable ITIL alternative, especially for telecomm providers. (I did not add the reference originally). Charles T. Betz 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This external link appears to be covered by the WP:EL guidelines as one of those specifically to be avoided (Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors). I removed it but it was re-added. This site doesn't seem to me to have much useful content that is not either covered in this article or in the other external linked sites. I am not suggesting that this site is not a worthwhile venture (although expanding the ITIL content within Wikipedia seems a more worthwhile activity in my view), but unless it is an authoritative source of information on the subject beyond what is covered in this article and the other sites, the guidelines suggest it shouldn't be linked. Why should it stay? Thanks.-- Michig 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested over there that indeed a further split is what's warranted. Particularly: All the ITIL#Details_of_the_ITIL_v2_framework should be separated from this article into another. 198.49.180.254 18:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I created a first draft for a SVG version of the ITIL green pin at
. Maybe we could use at this article? --
Pinnecco (
talk)
10:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
There used to be a large segment explaining the v2 certification scheme (Foundation/Practitioner/Manager). This is an important aspect of ITIL, yet it is now missing. Does anyone know why? Perhaps it has been moved somewhere? 86.130.173.212 ( talk) 08:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Due to the volume of discussion, some of which should be kept as it provides a historical understanding of how these pages have developed old talk content has been moved to an archive: Talk Page Archive to April 2006
Image:ITIL framework.PNG does not seem to be adding anything to the article. Perhaps it is simply missing an explanation. What is the significance of the arrangement of the various boxes? What relationships are being diagrammed?
Is it essentially copied from the handbook it mentions as its source, or is it a re-creation of a similar diagram based on the underlying ideas? I ask for copyright reasons. It is currently marked as "fair use", which for a diagram which could be easily re-created, is not an adequate license. -- Beland
Just a quick comment. The opening sentence of this article begins, "The ITIL is a framwork of ..." One of the criticisms state, "The OGC also doesn’t claim that ITIL is a framework." I would think the OGC is an authorative source for the description of ITIL. So I guess what I'm saying is if the OGC doesn't think ITIL to be a framework, the article should describe it as one.
Reverting out ridiculous unproductive row about self-linking. The Wikipedia guidelines are extremely clear: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked".
Please adhere to this.
Some of the general v3 stuff needs to be cut from this page, with a subset of the v3 page added. Not an easy task, granted.
I wont modify the page but I think it should be done. Is it good practice to quote IBM as an authority on IBM's contribution to ITIL? (Refs 5 and 6). How about this from Brian Johnston, author of 5 of the ITIL version 1 books: "I wrote five of the original books under the supervision of Dr John Stewart the person who DID create ITIL. In that time I did not consult anyone from IBM, I did not refer to any of the IBM 'body of knowledge' nor did my colleagues to my knowledge... John in his research period did talk to people at IBM but he did not base ITIL (in fact GITIMM as the acronym was at that time) on the IBM materials it was only one of a ton of influences that were distilled. John did his research and NOTHING fitted the scope of what he wanted to build, so the IBM claim is like many others, a stretch." http://www.itskeptic.org/node/29#comment-66 From Alan Nance, also an original author: "What is undoubtedly true is that the thinking from IBM’s ISMA heavily influenced the first ITIL books (Helpdesk, Problem and Change Management). Traditionally there was particular criticism of the helpdesk book for this reason and also the fact that it did not jive with the other later books. In fact had the CCTA not changed course quickly, I doubt that ITIL would have been anything more than an echo of IBM speak. ...the growth of ITIL to international best practice was really forged in the later books. Brian in particular reached out to experts and thought-leaders from across the sea and in different walks of life like Hans Dithmar, Martin van Kesteren and myself and of course many others whom I know less well. These efforts lead to real assimilation of best practice and the strength of the books today." http://forums.datamation.com/service-management/32-history-itsm-itil.html To read this Wikipedia entry as it stands is to think IBM wrote ITIL, which is a great distortion of fact. Pukerua ( talk) 08:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Quick check on external links, removed the following in accordance with WP:EL:
— Ashleyvh ( talk) 10:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
To avoid any potential confusion for later reviewers, please note that in the following discussion User:Binarygal was initially editing under the anonymous IP User:86.167.136.66 as they later clarified here diff.— Ashleyvh ( talk) 23:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Rather than engaging with someone writing from an anonymous IP address in what seems to be a personal attack, I'll slow this down and take each link in turn.— Ashleyvh ( talk) 09:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a link to a magazine article (dated 2005) which is not referenced in the main page. Such links would conventionally be a footnote reference to substantiate something on the main page.— Ashleyvh ( talk) 09:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an website with brief descriptions of some commercial ITIL related toolkits and books that can be purchased through TSO affiliate links (affiliate number A10112). The website registrant is Mr Stephen Addison. The website is not referenced anywhere in the body of the page and appears to add no value that a direct link to the TSO publisher's site or the APM Group's ITIL-officialsite would not provide in a more detailed or up to date manner. Following the guidance of WP:SPAM this link should be removed.— Ashleyvh ( talk) 10:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Addressing your points one at a time:
WP:EL makes it clear that links should serve a particular purpose within an article (i.e. to enhance it in ways that adding content to the article cannot, or to link an article on a notable organization or public figure to their official website if one exists). The links added here violate that policy as they are only indirectly related to the subject and serve no real purpose other than to be promotional - and since the editor who originally added them has an admitted conflict of interest, this also violates the Wikipedia policy on WP:SPAM. If ILL toolkit becomes notable someday, someone who has no conflict of interest will come around and write an unbiased, neutral article about it. I'm going to leave the 3O notice open but I think its clear the links don't belong. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I also came from 3O and also agree the links do not belong here per our WP:EL rules. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The advice I'd get at this point is to follow WP:DENY. Until User:Binarygal is prepared to take some of the advice given to them at WP:WQA by other editors, any attempt at discussion seems pointless. My edits to Information_Technology_Infrastructure_Library from this point on will take that approach.— Ashleyvh ( talk) 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It might be helpful if I were more specific with referring to WP:EL in reference to the original four links I removed. For the discussion forum sites itlibrary.org and itilcommunity.com the relevant section to consider is WP:ELNO point 10 which states that unless these sites are official pages of the article's subject that discussion forums or groups should be avoided (I am summarizing for convenience, please review the original). The remaining two links I removed are more straightforward and have been discussed above as part of the WP:3O process. If an editor considers the discussion forums are fundamental to the article they could show these sites have official recognition by referring to published sources supporting their view in the article in order to cater for the guidance of WP:ELNO. Please note that I removed what I thought at the time were the least controversial external links. The remaining external links might also be candidates for removal using the same WP guidance.— Ashleyvh ( talk) 12:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't followed the detail of the above discussion, but this is my view of these links with respect to the accepted guidelines. Make of it what you will.-- Michig ( talk) 13:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
There is overwhelming consensus of opinion that this particular website adds no value to the article with third party opinions contributed earlier on this talk page supporting that view. It was originally removed over seven weeks ago and I am removing it again on the basis of the extensive (and possibly pedantic) discussion since then.— Teahot ( talk) 09:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)