http://www.itskeptic.org/node/86 Comments for "You don't need a weatherman... watch everyone scramble aboard ISO20000" en http://www.itskeptic.org/node/86#comment-468 <p>I have been a long term supporter of BS15000, but my recent experiences are revealing just how flawed ISO 20000 is despite its long gestation period. The conclusion I've come to is it that early adoptors, who were mostly already using ITIl, CMMI and ISO9000 have found it relatively easy to apply, and have gained added value from it by being forced to fill some of the gaps between processes.</p> <p>Where it all falls apart is with clients who are attempting to use ISO20000, who discover just how ambuiguous it is. Some of those ambiguities seem to be carried over into what I've seen of ITIL3. I can't help feeling it would have been better to have introduced ISO20000, allowed it to go through at least one revision cycle based on the experiences of "ordinary" users to iron out the bugs, and only then to have updated ITIL3. Revising ITIL3 at the same time that the industry is only just getting to grips with ISO20000 seems rather foolish in retrospect.</p> Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:33:52 +0000 JamesFinister comment 468 at http://www.itskeptic.org http://www.itskeptic.org/node/86#comment-449 <p>great gossip :-) I too heard something similar</p> Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:39:08 +0000 skeptic comment 449 at http://www.itskeptic.org http://www.itskeptic.org/node/86#comment-446 <p>Just a thought - why was the ISO 9000 standard not extended to include the simplistic service provider concepts instead of offering a version in crayon within ISO 200000. Can anyone dispel the rumor that the failure to launch ITIL V3 in April 2005 (as originally "scheduled") led to those involved having to fast-track the woeful BS15000 into ISO 20000 before the BS 150000 'standard' lapsed at the end of 2005? Are we to repeat the long uphill struggle of repairing ISO 20000 as happened to BS7799 and ISO 17799.... please spare us. There is actually a standards development process ISO prefers folks use and the fast-track method seems so much like the 'emergency change' we all despise publicly, but are ok with when we are not directly affected.</p> Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:12:05 +0000 Onus comment 446 at http://www.itskeptic.org