OGC fix their trademark guidance for ITIL, Prince2 etc

There seems to be a little common sense filtering through with OGC's trademark enforcement. [Update: no there doesn't. Stories coming in of obviously silly threatening letters being sent to owners of products - mostly books - that have ITIL in the name. One of the tales is in the comments below.]

TSO embraces open public information

I like to think I'm skeptical not cynical but some days it's tough. This latest initiative from TSO, OpenUp, has got me (and others) plunging into cynicism.

How does OGCs MoV stack up against ValIT?

[Ooops I used the wrong licensing terms so part of this post has been deleted. Sorry about that, my mistake]

OGC have launched Management of Value™, another framework. It looks from the little information available to be comparable to ISACA's Val IT.

Inconsistency in ITIL product compliance?

Reading an official OGC webpage today, it seems to me to imply that products certified by OGC before a certain time were assessed to a laxer set of criteria than more recent certifications. What do you infer when you read the following?

Dirty Deeds reprise - ITIL is clearly a commercial product not a community work

Why did OGC get control of ITIL licensing content back from the British Government agency (OPSI) that is tasked with making government IP freely available to the public or at least free from monopolistic trading on it? Did TSO spit the dummy at the competition for their ITIL product sales? Or is it just that OGC are tasked with becoming a profit centre instead of a body for the public good? And where does that leave all the volunteers who so willingly contribute to the promotion and translation of ITIL? Who are they working for? We've had our share of commercial dirty deeds in ITIL's past but this latest lot may be the most troubling. (and check out this amazing video from the 1970s: AC/DC in their early days on Australian TV)

It's official - ITIL is a commercial product

It is clear from reading a recent complaint report from the British Government agency OPSI (the Office of Public Sector Information,
part of the National Archives) that OGC and Van Haren Publishing aren'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's remit. Read the report yourself for the detail, but I take some interesting points from it:

One reason why OGC has to make some serious money out of ITIL and PRINCE2

Ever wonder why OGC is so commercially-motivated? It's unusual for a government department in a country with a committed goal to put publicly owned data into the public domain. For one clue, check out this list from the BBC of the UK's highest paid civil servants.

How many ITIL Examination Institutes is enough?

In an announcement last week, APMG have appointed a ninth Examination Institute. Readers will recall these are the companies that are licensed by APMG and in turn accredit all the 350+ training organisations delivering ITIL training. The EIs also administer the exams using standardised question content but their own tests and their own delivery systems.

Why the difference in numbers between PinkVerify and OGC ITIL product certifications?

There appears to be more vendors certifying their products against more processes on PinkVerify than the OGC scheme. Why is that? What can OGC learn from Pink about making it easier for vendors? or does it show that PinkVerify is too easy? Does it matter?

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.

Syndicate content