Talk:ITIL

Reference to Lean-IT ?

A reference to the Lean-IT concept is surprisingly missing in this article ! I did not know about "Lean-ITIL", by the way. Anyway, if someone competent thinks this should appear somewhere in there, here is the link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medewik (talk • contribs) 07:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms are Criticisms (comments by user:198.103.223.52, moved to talkpage by user:bobrayner)

Criticisms...and meant to stimulate areas of thought and research!! Prove that they are wrong 1st before deleting - Raynor This should not be considered an advertisment like most delusional "defenders of the faith" like to imagine. "Sniping" would be a calculated and considered attack but does not diminish the fact of truths, but may seem threatening to those over zealous fans with either; little actual knowledge or experience in the subject matter or perhaps, only knowledge in that subject matter.
The availability of the official OGC books (of which I have stacks) and the cost (which is less than university fare), is held up as a criticism of the ITIL. This is neither true nor a valued, intelligent criticism entry for this subject. It does not offer critical insights to the pros and cons of ITIL.
"Accusations that...." that entry might be considered "sniping" since it sounds like a hotly contested issue about to be deliberated upon - where as it is merely inflammatory semantics and lexicology, but did not suffer arbitrary deletions in wikiadvertise
And as originally pointed out...Additionally:
1) Anyone can institute ITIL and create service levels so low that the claim for successful implementation can be made. - absolutely True and the way it is currently being implemented in many sectors.
2) The flexibilities required to intelligently deploy are beyond the hosts of average left hand brain constrained business executives. - Most execs are very inflexible and hold up names of things as a method of not providing CSI and doubtful if they might even identify the interdependencies and linkages.
3) The language used in all the manuals meanders from overly obvious generalities to ambiguous inflations without clear validations. - True look yourself
4) Senior executives can arbitrarily decide to subjugate ITIL to their personal preferences without analysis or proofs. - True and the general way it is most often implemented.

I moved these comments to the talkpage because there are some problems that may need to be resolved before they can appear in article space.

Complaining about other wikipedians disagreeing with you is not the kind of thing that the public should be reading; least of all arguments that any wikipedian who disagrees with your unsourced criticism must be ignorant.

If there's a good basis for these criticisms of ITIL, I'd love to see them implemented in the article. But first, there may need to be some structural change.

"somebody can do a half-arsed implementation of X, thus undermining the intent of X" is a criticism of practically any IT standard. Similarly, criticism of execs reflects a problem with execs rather than a problem with a specific family of technology standards.

bobrayner (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed this quote as it is inaccurate (it may have been accurate in 2002 but not now) As Jan van Bon (author and editor of many IT Service Management publications) notes,

There is confusion about ITIL, stemming from misunderstandings about its nature. ITIL is, as the OGC states, a set of best practices. The OGC doesn't claim that ITIL's best practices describe pure processes. The OGC also doesn't claim that ITIL is a framework, designed as one coherent model. That is what most of its users make of it, probably because they have such a great need for such a model...

Because - OGC *DO* claim that ITIL is a framework. The ITILv3 Official Introduction says "After twenty years ITIL remains the most recognized framework for ITSM in the world. While it has evolved and changed its breadth and depth, it preserves the fundamental concepts of leading practice." There are many many places in the OGC docs where they refer to ITIL as a framework and a cohetent model. Davebremer (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarity of Text

I may be out of my depth here, but "Features include:

   * single point of contact (SPOC) and not necessarily the first point of contact (FPOC)

"

If there is a single point of contact then surely there is also a first point of contact (only one in fact). If I've misunderstood, which I suspect I have, then the text isn't clear enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haxbyct (talk • contribs) 14:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Impact of policies and procedures for technical supports (impact on cost, user experience, escalation process, tired support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.117.215 (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge sections "Frameworks mapping to ITIL" and "Variants of ITIL"

I believe that these sections contain overlapping and redundant information.

I'm new to editing wikipedia. But I'd be happy to try to re-word these two sections into prose which both lists and discusses: COBIT, MOF, BECTA's FITS, IBM's ITUP and eTom.

But that seems to be a major change and I don't feel comfortable just diving in without warning ... I guess I'm not really looking for approval so much as checking to see if there's any objection from anyone watching this. Fecnde (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that there's some redundancy. Looks like a good idea.

Go ahead and try making some improvements. If you need a hand with anything, just ask here (or try the helpdesk). I look forward to your contributions. The worst that can happen is that somebody disagrees with you, in which case we can come back here to discuss the best way forward for the article; we won't bite! bobrayner (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're doing a lot of rearranging, it can be helpful to use the "Show preview" button every so often, to get a feel for what the page will actually look like once you submit. It's important for content to be sourced, so where practical, try to cite a source for things that are non-obvious or potentially controversial. (As a minimum, if you want to cite some other webpage, just put the URL in square brackets and somebody will come along and tidy that up afterwards). bobrayner (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'll see what I can do (btw fecnde is me - changed user to my real name instead of nick). Thanks for the quick feedback. Davebremer (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

ok ... that's done(ish). I'm not totally happy with some bits of that section (now merged just one) but I think that's cleaner. It feels wrong editing the live page. Is it possible to save something as a draft somewhere? Davebremer (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of putting a copy of the text in your userpace, at User:Davebremer/ITIL, where you can play around with a "draft" as much as you like; when you're happy that you've perfected it, you can bring it back to live. That page won't show up in Google searches &c. Hope that helps? Have fun! bobrayner (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks! That is exactly what I was after. It felt really wrong editing the live version. When I'm done, do I just copy/paste the code or is there a merge feature? I guess I should rtfm :) Davebremer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC).

Next to the preview button is a "show changes" button which presents a diff of the current article and your proposed changes. Apart from that, it's just copy and paste. Merging page histories must be performed by an administrator, you can request it by placing {{histmerge|page to merge histories with}} in the article. MER-C 09:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If all the changes to the userified text have been done by a single person, and any changed sections would be just pasted into the existing article not unlike a normal edit, and would all be attributed to the same person, do we really need merged histories?

Davebremer: the draft in your userspace is not a complete replica, because "live" articles have things like categories at the bottom which could be problematic if they appeared on a duplicate article in userspace, so I omitted those. Don't just overwrite the whole article, instead it would be better to replace the bits that you've improved. Other people might have worked on any part of the live article in the meantime, so be careful of that; MER-C's suggestion is helpful. bobrayner (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)