<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.itskeptic.org"  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
 <title>The IT Skeptic - OPSI</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/227/0</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>The IT Skeptic looks at ITIL Lite</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/it-skeptic-looks-itil-lite</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The IT Skeptic &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/review-building-itil-based-service-management-depa&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;was pretty scathing of Malcolm Fry&#039;s first ITIL V3 Complementary Publication&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Building an ITIL-Based Service Management Department&lt;/em&gt;.  Personally I wouldn&#039;t buy it (again).  Malcolm&#039;s second &quot;official&quot; V3 book &lt;em&gt;ITIL Lite&lt;/em&gt; is different.  It is worth buying just for Chapter 2: &quot;a simple but effective approach to ITIL process engineering&quot;.   I got several great ideas from it and the overall methodology is a good one.  But &lt;em&gt;ITIL Lite&lt;/em&gt; has several fundamental assumptions that many will disagree with.  These assumptions will mislead an already confused user community, and I think they spoil the rest of the book.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/it-skeptic-looks-itil-lite&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.itskeptic.org/it-skeptic-looks-itil-lite#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/231">book review</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/topic/itil">ITIL</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/230">Lite</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/227">OPSI</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/127">publications</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/35">TSO</category>
 <wfw:commentRss>http://www.itskeptic.org/crss/node/1893</wfw:commentRss>
 <pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:53:06 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>skeptic</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1893 at http://www.itskeptic.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>It&#039;s official - ITIL is a commercial product</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/its-official-itil-commercial-product</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;It is clear from reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/van-haren-publishing-and-the-office-of-government-commerce.pdf&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;a recent complaint report from the British Government agency OPSI&lt;/a&gt; (the Office of Public Sector Information,&lt;br /&gt;
part of the National Archives) that OGC and Van Haren Publishing aren&#039;t best mates any more. VHP allege a number of non-competitive practices, most of which OGC managed to duck as being outside the scope of OPSI&#039;s remit.  Read the report yourself for the detail, but I take some interesting points from it:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/its-official-itil-commercial-product&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.itskeptic.org/its-official-itil-commercial-product#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/topic/itil">ITIL</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/32">OGC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/227">OPSI</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/228">VHP</category>
 <wfw:commentRss>http://www.itskeptic.org/crss/node/1889</wfw:commentRss>
 <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:43:47 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>skeptic</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1889 at http://www.itskeptic.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
