Talk:ITIL v3

message: ITIL v3 is a notworthy sturctural change to ITIL v2. However I would suggest heavy edits to the ITIL v3 page as it reads like an advertisement. Several attempts to edit the page have been made but instantly removed by the orginal author. I strongly suggest that it be put forth for speed deletion until an more agnostic definition for ITIL V3 can be established. 
--Tobryant (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do Not Merge and Remove ITIL v3 

message: Mark and other editors, 
Please consider the following content/messages for inclusion on this page:-
From my "ITIL V3 Perspectives" Slide Deck:-
~ Slide 3: Summary of who Sharon Taylor is; more information on her background/credentials; this should be interesting to ITIL practitioners
~ Slide 6: More information on how the focus of V3 is on demonstrating the ROI of ITIL
~ Slide 7/8: Specifics on the lifecycle approach that is a feature of V3, particularly with the forthcoming news texts; Design > Introduction > Operations > Improvement; "hub and spoke" analogy is also important
~ Slide 9/13: Comments on how ITIL V3 will be including, in some way, references to the linkages to other methodologies such as Six Sigma / holistic process landscape for V3. Obviously the OGC has released a paper on ITIL and CoBIT integration already - but this is also needed for other methodologies now. This will help to ensure that practicing organisations leverage their investments wisely. Possible external link to the CoBIT / ITIL integration paper?
~ Slide 11: Q&A Segment: ITIL version 3 will address the structure for dealing with outsourcers and other third parties. This is driven by many organisations seeking ISO20000
~ Slide 13: Q&A Segment: Regular updates expected to complement core ITIL V3 information; Looking at establishing a group to manage templates; white papers in this area
~ Slide 14: Q&A Segment: Comment on how complementary ITIL V3 guidance will be available to help different sized (smaller) organisations implement ITIL (you mention Markets/Industries rather than size). 
~ Slide 15: Q&A Segment: ITIL is not being sold and will remain with the OGC. 
In addition to the inclusion of the above text - there is also information available on the IT Service Blog covering profiles of each of the Authors. I believe a short profile of each of the forthcoming authors would also be of benefit. This helps to re-enforce the credibility of the forthcoming texts and also provides a valuable insight into what we can expect from the new texts - particularly the Strategies. Michael Nieves and Najid Iqbal have illuminating backgrounds with their research work in IT Service Management. Whilst I wish to avoid speculation - I understand that many of the concepts that they have researched accademically and put into practice will be included in the forthcoming texts. 
Please can I have your views on the above? 
Mark, I respect the fact that this page is pretty much your 'baby' so far - so I am happy for you to take the lead - based on your comments. 
Regards,
Robin.
User:IT Service Guy 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please consider the following content for this page 

message: Robin, thanks for your thoughts.  With regard to including a description of Sharon, I have included a reference in the project section that describes her role, I have Wikified this link so that if you think that the wikipedia needs a full description you can create a full page on Sharon at your leisure.  I think it is more in keeping with an encyclopedia that these kinds of items are cross references rather than included in the ITIL v3 item, but of course and happy to be overruled by the majority if people think it should live here.
On the same lines, I am hoping that the page will evolve with elements of the project process cleanly arranged so that they can be severed and jetissoned onto a separate archive page for the refresh project when the project is complete leaving us with a new, well thought out summary of ITIL v3 ready for Wikipedia users to refer to.    From this perspective, again I am not sure that profiles of the core works authors are appropriate at the current time, but perhaps the best way to include them would be to create 'placeholder' links for the new books in reference format and Wikify the author names if you want to add profiles to wikipedia.
I am very keen to learn more on how ITILv3 will be focussing on ROI, do you have any more information at the current time?  
With regard to mappings with other frameworks, methodologies and processes I think that this is vague at the moment but have added a link to the existing CoBIT mapping to the ITILv2 page; of course as ITILv3 is published it is likely that the coverage will change and that probably ITIL will cover more CoBIT objectives, I wouldn't want any CoBIT users to be put off v3 because they looked at the v2 mapping. 
I've cross referenced the implementation in smaller units text and hope that helps clarify the support for scalability (up and down) planned in v3 complimentary work.
If you think i've missed anything specific I'd love to see some draft paragraphs or edits here if you don't want to dive straight into the main page and then we can discuss and work on them.  I believe that the ITILv3 team is using similar technology to facilitate their collaboration around the texts!.
Mark G 21:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on reccomendations for inclusion.

message: I've been adding, modifying and editing information to this article as I become aware of it. I am a v2 Service Manager, also v2 Practitioner certified in Release and Control and completing Support and Restore this week. I am a very active ITIL trainer and consultant, delivering courses worldwide on a weekly basis for a major US training organization. I am currently preparing to upgrade to the ITIL Diploma as well as deliver v3 training. As I get more information on certifications and training I'll post it here. Flybd5 01:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. This is an encyclopedia, not a sales brochure. --Malleus Fatuarum 05:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  v1, v2, v3 edits 

message: I've tagged the article as having external links not up to WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK.  The issue of external links is separate and unrelated to advert/NPOV issues.  Sorry that I wasn't clear earlier.  --Ronz 01:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No response?  Then we all agree they should be removed? --Ronz 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've found and added the real official site.  Of the rest of the links above, I see no reason to keep any of these except itlibrary.org.  The others are off-topic, and their inclusion could appear promotional for those organizations and their services. --Ronz 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EXIN and ISEB are not duplicates of APMG. APMG is the umbrella certification authority and EXIN/ISEB work under them to administer and manage certifications within geographic areas. They've been associated with OGC/ITIL for quite some time. Flybd5 13:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  There was perhaps some merit in some of your arguments on the basis of APMG being commercial Ronz, but you lost me completely by changing an OGC link to a totally commercial website like 'itgovernance'. I humbly suggest that any further changes require more in depth research into the topic matter, because this now seems to be heading off track.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.66.107 (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I explained below, I found a replacement link for the one that is now bad.  Who hosts the document isn't very important, but I don't think anyone would object if it was replaced with another working link to the same document hosted elsewhere. --Ronz 00:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have replaced this with the correct original and official reference source, rather than the copy of this hosted on that commercial site. 77.232.66.107 00:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Ronz 00:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. I think all the original itil.co.uk references can now be found on the official replacement, Best Management Practices. They haven't exactly made them easy to find, but they will be there. 77.232.66.107 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the other links per EL, SPAM, and NOT#LINK. --Ronz 15:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've updated two of the links.  I've been unable to find the other two, but I notice that only one is actually being used as a reference at this time. --Ronz 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The domain itil.co.uk belongs to Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. That agency no longer exists, it was merged into OGC, that's part of the basic "ITIL 101" knowledge that everyone who teaches ITIL imparts on their students. The domain is managed by The Stationery Office, the people who publish the basic ITIL knowledge for OGC. The domains best-management-practice.com and itil-officialsite.com are both owned by OGC as well. The link you used to replace one of those (itgovernance.co.uk) is a commercial link that doesn't belong in the article.  Flybd5 13:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved even before you made the comment above. --Ronz 15:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Best Management Practice
--Ronz 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "ITIL v3 web-based material" Section

message: the APM Group
Examination Institute for Information Science
Information Systems Examination Board of the British Computer Society
--Ronz 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Certification and Version 3" Section

message: Note that these are in part duplicates of the above:
* The OGC ITIL website - this looks like the official site, but actually redirects to best-management-practice
* The ITIL Open Guide
* The APM Group website
* The EXIN website
* The British Computer Society's ISEB website
--Ronz 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found and added the real official site.  Of the rest of the links above, I see no reason to keep any of these except itlibrary.org.  The others are off-topic, and their inclusion could appear promotional for those organizations and their services. --Ronz 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EXIN and ISEB are not duplicates of APMG. APMG is the umbrella certification authority and EXIN/ISEB work under them to administer and manage certifications within geographic areas. They've been associated with OGC/ITIL for quite some time. Flybd5 13:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  There was perhaps some merit in some of your arguments on the basis of APMG being commercial Ronz, but you lost me completely by changing an OGC link to a totally commercial website like 'itgovernance'. I humbly suggest that any further changes require more in depth research into the topic matter, because this now seems to be heading off track.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.66.107 (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I explained below, I found a replacement link for the one that is now bad.  Who hosts the document isn't very important, but I don't think anyone would object if it was replaced with another working link to the same document hosted elsewhere. --Ronz 00:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have replaced this with the correct original and official reference source, rather than the copy of this hosted on that commercial site. 77.232.66.107 00:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Ronz 00:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. I think all the original itil.co.uk references can now be found on the official replacement, Best Management Practices. They haven't exactly made them easy to find, but they will be there. 77.232.66.107 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the other links per EL, SPAM, and NOT#LINK. --Ronz 15:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "External links" Section

message: This site is no longer being used and isn't redirecting in a useful way.  The official site is now itil-officialsite.com. We'll need to fix a number of references to link properly. --Ronz 15:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated two of the links.  I've been unable to find the other two, but I notice that only one is actually being used as a reference at this time. --Ronz 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The domain itil.co.uk belongs to Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. That agency no longer exists, it was merged into OGC, that's part of the basic "ITIL 101" knowledge that everyone who teaches ITIL imparts on their students. The domain is managed by The Stationery Office, the people who publish the basic ITIL knowledge for OGC. The domains best-management-practice.com and itil-officialsite.com are both owned by OGC as well. The link you used to replace one of those (itgovernance.co.uk) is a commercial link that doesn't belong in the article.  Flybd5 13:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved even before you made the comment above. --Ronz 15:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: itil.co.uk Redirects

message: I've decide to no longer participate in edits and discussion of this article or any other ITIL article on Wikipedia. After consultation with my colleagues in the industry in the US and abroad, we've come to a consensus that what Wikipedia says about ITIL is inconsequential, irrelevant and has no impact on anything of our activites or on the ITIL framework and its widespread, worldwide acceptance. The participation of totally uninformed people under the guise of "editors" basically reduces this article to the level of hearsay. There are plenty of sources of information for ITIL, all of much higher quality than is possible in Wikipedia. Have a nice day, folks. Flybd5 (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to review WP:RS and WP:V to see how material should be editing in Wikipedia.  WP:NOT will help you find what Wikipedia is not, and you will also find that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so it will not impace or influence yours or others decisions.  Wikipedia reports.  What you should do is encourage your colleagues to have the information published in reliable sources rather than random newgroups and factoids.  Until then, Wikipedia will be like an encyclopedia that it is rather than the spam site you have tried to make it in the past.  Shot info (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps at last this will be allowed to evolve into an encyclopedia article instead of a sales brochure. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Shot info (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsequential

message: User:192.18.8.1 has redirected the page to :Information Technology Infrastructure Library#Overview of the ITIL v3 library. Though I cannot see contributions from this IP during the discussion process, reviewing the lengthy discussion about merging on this talk page I suggest any further discussion on this matter is conducted on :Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library as the consensus appears to be in support of this merger.—Ashleyvh (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final page redirection