Talk:ITIL/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is ''IT Service Management'' a separate layer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images and comments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ITIL 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ITIL uses "process" loosely 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Objective point of view, real world experiences 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added some information on Infrastructure Management 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incident Management Definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spellings US v UK 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Links to Blogs on the ITIL page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thoughts from an outsider 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additional comments & thoughts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion carried across to ITIL V3 Discussion Page - As Requested. 

message: (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)
replies: text: I added the merge tags because the version of the ISO 20000 article that was up at the time made it sound like it was simply an officialization of ITIL.  I've posted a request on the ISO 20000 talk page for expansion, to explain what it actually is. I've also removed the merger tags.  Thank you all for the clarification. -- Beland 00:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging ITIL and ISO 20000 

message: 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? 
# There is much of value in the Change Management Process (ITIL) page that is useful to the community and that clearly describes the purpose, function and best practice ideals of the ITIL Change Management process,this is valuable in any comprehensive reference and adds to the IT Management content in wikipedia.
# I believe that in the medium term the ITIL page itself will have to fragment into its constituent processes as it is already long and the main page should aim to serve the wider community who's interest is more in an overview that the detail.  
# I believe that with the impending arrival of v3 there will be considerable overlap and duplication of content under v3 will be avoided by referencing common content.
# As it is likely that many orgnaisations ?Microsoft included? may at least in the short term stick with v2 it will be neccesary for the two to co-exist, and indeed there may be critisism of the v3 approach or modifications that will be more easily represented by maintaining a single page for each core process and allowing the page to explain the critisism that exists. 
Mark G 16:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Change Management (ITIL)]] and [[Change Management process (ITIL)]] 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Done - old content now located at : Talk Page Archive to April 2006 Mark G 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent - an improvement, think we need to mention a little more clearly the extent that ITIL draws on Deming in order to develop it's approach. Mark G 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is always more than you think 

message: Can we do so? How? Charles T. Betz 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done - old content now located at : Talk Page Archive to April 2006 Mark G 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving this talk page

message: 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)
replies: text:  Excellent - an improvement, think we need to mention a little more clearly the extent that ITIL draws on Deming in order to develop it's approach. Mark G 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Process theory section

message: 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)
replies: text: You only need add a parenthetical tag to the title of articles if it would be ambiguous.  Since there is no existing article on change management, for example, it would be fine to put an article on change-management-in-general under the title "Change management".  Certainly articles discussing these topics in general would be much more appropriate to an encyclopedia than merely documenting the subsections of one particular government standard.  And any respectable encylopedia should have an article on something as important as change management. -- Beland 02:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that we will quickly get into disambiguation. "Change management" would also merit an entry for "organizational change management" which is a different beast. Agreed that the parenthetical shouldn't be ITIL though. ITSM is a discipline and not owned by anyone, that's why I propose it.Charles T. Betz 04:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ITIL precursors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Restructuring project 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation fixes 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Strictly speaking, I think that Service Delivery does come before Service Support as Service Delivery covers those areas that requre the engagement of the customer and the setting up of Service Level Agreements and Financial targets / budgets etc.  Without these implementing Service Support fails to have the business buy-in etc that is required for a propper implementation.  The Continuous Service Improvement Programme that ITIL prescribes be used for implementation (Planning to Implement) is expected to be under the management of Service Level Management and so from that perspective again SD comes before SS.  However, I agree that in practice most organisations implement SS first (or at least a component of it) as typically they look to ITIL as a part of a 'new Helpdesk/Service Desk' project.  There are however others who arrive through governance with an initial priority on IT Service Continuity and others still who start with Service Level Agreements (actually usually an iterative process starting with SLR). Mark G 18:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-ordering of Support and Delivery 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Method Engineering 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ITIL disaggregation 

message: The precursors section in this new page talks about service management exclusively.  This innaccurately represents ITIL. Mark G 10:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that "representing ITIL" is the purpose of that section. Simply trying to accurately identify the history, which started with the IBM Yellow Books. If there are other documented precursors let's put them in.Charles T. Betz 11:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias toward Service Management 

message: 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 ?
:ITIL is a library. The ECI library is the only other coordinated collection covering the same ground I am aware of. Helps put ITIL in context. We could put this in the ITSM article instead perhaps. Charles T. Betz 11:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great - thanks for the clarification. Mark G 09:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  relevance of external reference? 

message: This was, i believe useful to non initiates.  Not sure how it's removal adds value.  Comment in article says for 'brevity', however see : [] 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)
replies: text: I have restored this in the interests of working through these issues amicably. I do think that the text needs some further tweaking.Charles T. Betz 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Charles - I'll have a look at it again from a clarity perspective. Mark G 09:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of library overview opening paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: My view is that describing the non-Service Management volumes is not the place of Wikipedia. It's simply providing advertising for the OGC. Splitting them out doesn't work for me - I'd question the value of a page dedicated to (for example) the Planning to Implement Service Management volume. It's not notable enough, nor is it an established IT practice area in the sense that Service Desk or Change Management are. That said, if those volume descriptions are restored to the ITIL artcle, I will defer. Charles T. Betz 11:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm a little concerned that we have lost Security and the ICT Infrastructure Management, clearly the 'in small units' and 'planning to implement' can be accomodated to some degree or another in the Service Management pages.  However Application Management, Security, ICT Infrastructure Management and to a lesser extent 'The Business Perspective' do not overlap with ITSM in the ITIL/MOF/CoBIT sense and describe distinct management  processes and functions for areas of IT Management outside of ITSM.  Of note, Capacity Management relies on 'managed Technical Support' from the Orange Book which is heavily drawn on by other disciplines.  Release Management requires (often but not always) input from 'Deployment Management' from ICT IM.  Application Management has key application lifecycle management elements and creates the interface between an ITIL 'world' and development methodologies such as Unified, RUP, XP, etc etc.  Security, while being not a perfect volume provides the interface between ITIL and ISO/IEC 17799 and several other security processes.  The Business Perspective covers processes and functions for the operation of an ICT unit as a business unit and is very relevant to both modern outsourcing operations and internal 'profit centre' based ICT as well as being the predicate upon which many of the moves from 'IT Director' to 'CIO' as the strategic position in large businesses - it helps to clearly define the provider/customer boundry for IT - often a problem in the implementation of large systems.   Why do you believe that ITSM elements of ITIL deserve Wikipedia coverage and these other valuable 'practices' don't?  Mark G 12:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added these back in in the interest of working through this amicably. I do think that all these practices should be covered in Wikipedia, but not necessarily using ITIL-based names for the articles. The Application Management and Business Perspective volumes I think would be covered in Wikipedia by Software Engineering and IT Portfolio Management. I think also that an Application Lifecycle Management article would be good, as that is a term emerging in the industry. Charles T. Betz 12:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Funny, I put in Application Lifecycle Management expecting it to be a new page - but someone just created it today!Charles T. Betz 12:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of Non Service Management content 

message: 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)
replies: text: I am fine with this. Charles T. Betz 19:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  retention of brief introductions as we move sections out 

message: 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)
thread_title:  a very small NPOV change 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Service Desk reversion 

message: OK? Charles T. Betz 18:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's archive this page... 

message: 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)
replies: text: After learning a little more about ITIL, I added a Service Catalog link in the Service Level Management section. West81 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add link to "Service catalog"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Patches to plug bugs in a software? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding the ITIL_v3 merge proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SVG version of the Green pin. 

message: 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)
replies: text: It was replaced in September with a block of vandalism (see diff). The vandalism was removed but the section was not restored. I have restored the section, since it appears to have been removed inadvertently. Tjarrett (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITIL Certification 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Challenge NPOV of the "Precursors" section 

message: *http://www.govtech.net/magazine/
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)
thread_title: Link: American ITIL

message: 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)
thread_title:  External link itil.org.uk