OGC and TSO release ITIL V3 Update scope and development plan
Fresh out of the pan today, the Scope and Development Plan: ITIL® V3 Update is released. (Thanks Liz for the tip!) I'm getting ready to leave for the Pink Elephant conference in Las Vegas (see you there! Come to my sessions, or see me in booth 203), so I may not get time to comment on this document. We all welcome your comments - leave them here.
Made in New Zealand 
Comments
Service Strategy 'clarification'
I've yet to thoroughly digest the update plan, but was sorely disappointed to see that the SS volume is slated for 'clarification', e.g. dumbing down.
For my money, most of the material in that volume is vastly more coherent, consistent, and lucid than the other volumes. Yes, a bit more challenging, but all the more engaging and rich for being so.
The individual who wrote that material possesses a rare intellect. I know some of the targeted refresh authors, but not all of them. The ones I do know are competent, but not nearly of the same caliber as the person who wrote most of SS.
I'm hoping this doesn't end up being a race for least common denominator.
SS is in the way
ITIL is now a commodity high-volume product. SS is in the way.
You can see my original review of SS here
SS has negative real world value
There is good stuff in SS, but I'm afraid I don't think it resonates with the real world audience. Or to put it another way I think it turns more people off than it induces to become ITIL converts. Existing C level managers with an MBA won't find much that is new in it, whereas operational IT managers won't find clues in it to appeal to a C level mentality.
Portfolio Management Book
While I liked much of the Service Strategy book, it was one of the least prescriptive of the publications (to use an 'ITILsm').
I was lucky enough to get an advanced copy of a new book being released in June called Taming Change with Portfolio Management, and while the intent of the book is much broader in scope than just IT or ITIL it was an interesting read.
This is one book that would appeal to both IT and the Business. I'm hoping to review it in next month's web cast. http://www.brighttalk.com/channel/2191
John M. Worthington
MyServiceMonitor, LLC
So -ize is now an international spelling
The document says that ITIL will be revised to "international English (note that this is not American English)" then goes on immediately to say that "-ize" endings will be used. Proves they live on another planet.
Same planet.
Rob, I think you'll find that -ize endings are acceptable in English usage of English because of the Greek origin of the suffix.
the Concise Oxford
Hmm I see the Concise Oxford agrees with you. I'm surprized. I still regard it with some skepticizm.
So long as we resist catalog and color, I'll retain some optimizm. But it will never be permitted in my organization.
Upgrade of IT Skeptic T Shirt
Hi Skeptic
Given the upgrade to ITIL V3 I was wondering what your plans are for the upgrade of your T-Shirt?
'It'll be fixed in ITIL V3'
Is it a manual fix (i.e. red pen out and '.1' added by hand?)
or are you planning something more process oriented?
I think the world needs to know.......:-)
New IT Skeptic product: It'il be fixed in Version 4
OK a fair question. How's this?
(also available as shirt, t-shirt, coffee-mug, or mouse-pad)
Review Feedback
Dear Skeptic
You didn't provide a feedback form with your notice but I hope this will do.
1) Love the design
2) Text-wise -- still think you're optimistic.......but hey lets have the other user feedback before changing the number '4' to '5' or '6'.........
(Do I get a free badge for my extensive input?)
Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
A customer enters a pet shop.
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
And in the same spirit of Monthy Python I too would like to register a complaint against the Skeptic!
Mr. Skep - how can you issue a new version of what has become a much loved iteration of your wares? And so early, after all ITIL Version 3 has yet to be fixed. Surely this type of change warrants a vigorous period of discussion with your loyal customers - what about the voice of us customers! After all, I now have a whole team of 6 year old apprentice Full Tilt poker players wearing what will now be an out of date shirt!
And why a version 4 when a simple new edition would have sufficed. I mean, there seem to be no new concepts or earth rocking ideas in this. Its not reversible, I can''t turn it back to front to get 4 wears out of it before being forced to wash it, like I can my underpants..
Then I hear you put the design out to bid! Can you at least assure us that those designing the replacement have proven experience in this? How can I be sure you won't include some amazing new fashion statement in the next one, such as the flap across the back to vent hot air and sweat equity that so many of us have been demanding for years? Damn you...
And what about the other related items - the tea cup, and especially the embroided camel jockstrap and nose ring for guys married more than 20 years?
I suppose you are going to claim you surveyed your entire customer base and were forced to make these adjustments....
So, please record this as a complaint... my first...
Castle Skeptic
Castle Skeptic believes our consultation was sufficient at all stages of the release of this new version of the product. Your comment clearly demonstrates that you have a channel for feedback, and your feedback is noted.
We cannot comment on how you might employ the shirt after purchase - it is the buyer's responsibility to adapt the shirt to your own circumstances. We advise you seek professional advice when adapting our products.
Our products speak for themselves in demonstrating the almost universal adoption of our shirts in the IT industry. Almost without exception, everyone we talk to about our shirts has bought one, and 100% of the photos in our Rogues Gallery show people owning one of our products. In a recent survey, 90% of our friends either owned one of our products or indicated that they were considering buying one in 2010. Of those who owned a product, 100% reported that they had been astute in buying it, and that they had in fact received something for their money.
Who is this David Cannon who is an ITIL V3 Update author?
Why is David Cannon listed amongst the five authors as "David Cannon, Quorum 5"? Is this not the same David cannon who is Chair of itSMFI? Because THAT David Cannon is listed on the itSMFI website and on his LinkedIn profile as still being an employee of HP.
Perhaps it wouldn't look good since one other of the five authors, Stuart Rance, is also from HP?
So too is the Technical Continuity Editor, Ashley Hanna. And of course mentor of two of the books, David Wheeldon is recently retired from HP.
Quorum5 - Landing place for human cannon ball?
... shot from an HP cannon? Has David left HP?
The Quorum5.com domain name was established almost a year ago. Site offers ITIL services, and has not been proof read.
Quorum 5
Ouch!
And have you seen the webpage? LOL!
And there are 4 of the 10 author and mentors coming from HP, and a few of them coming from the itSMF USA Board, and another "independent" coming from BMC...
interesting
Antonio
transparency and governance
Hey don't be rude about the website. This one is no oil-painting either.
I'm not getting at David here - the policy of this site is to keep personalities out of it as far as possible.
My concern is transparency and governance over who controls and influences ITIL. We all know it is a small ITSM world. The movement depends on the energy and money of vendors. And we don't know how many people actually stepped up for the jobs. I didn't want the gig. But the public deserve to know how many HP-affiliated people are involved in this project. I'd also like to know who else were candidates. Anyone from IBM, for instance?
You are right
Ok, you are right... won't be rude anymore. (although a "This page is hosted free, courtesy of GoDaddy.com" banner is not for such serious company!)
I've written a post with my 10 thoughs about the paper, but the most significant one is about the term "Out of Scope" where it explicitly says
As expected, many people has used the concepts and adapted them to their needs, so... it's possible that everything is out of scope because they don't know which adaptations have been made! (or nothing is out of scope because no change would invalidate anything).
Antonio Valle
We all have to start somewhere...
Forget the website at quorum5.com - we all have to start somewhere. Skep's point about transparency and governance is the key point for discussion here. Lets get this straight - OGC and the others involved in ITIL V3 have every right to do whatever they want with respect to how ITIL V3.1 evolves. After all, despite all the gnashing of community teeth - its a commercial concern!!!
What is worrisome to me is the persistence of the impression by some that ITIL is public domain, shareware, or a community led product. Its clearly not, nor need it be, just to please the itSMF community.
Back to transparency - the level of transparency is again (within legal limits given the government agency framing), an OGC decision. What they want to give is what we get - period. Stop squeaking. As for limiting enhancements to cleaning up current thinking - I just don't see why they should work within that limitation - nor do I see them doing so.
ITIL is a product. OGC manages ITIL (or it should) as any product manager does - based upon market needs. The market has spoken and OGC needs to address distinct failings within the ITIL V3 publications, some of which, yes SOME - are described within the change log. If they limit themselves to that log and "read my lips - no new concepts" - there will soon be an ITIL V3.2
Leave them alone - let them do as they please - and realize that as a professional in the ITSM community you have little or no voice in all this.... despite the impressions set. If anyone has issues with how OGC approaches the development of the next edition of their product - take it up with your representative... your sales representative... and distribution channel 'partner' for OGC....