Talk:IT service management

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In my understanding, IT Service Management is a generic term for the overall discipline. ITIL is a instance of a library that covers IT Service Management. There are other libraries considered part of the IT Service Management world: ASL, BiSL, ASPL, etc. I don't think it is appropriate to reduce ITSM just to ITIL.

Charles T. Betz 03:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, there are other standards, some based on ITIL like Microsoft Operations Framework and others not that use Service Management, there is a considerable overlap in their contents however so there is probably a good reason to keep the page (currently a stub I think) and add to it to clarify this.


Mark G 16:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There, I've added a more ITIL-independent take on it. Would love to get clarity on who coined the ITSM term first. Charles T. Betz 20:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continuing to work the page, some good material was added. I split out a new ITSM organizations section, made the references all the same type (opportunity for me to research preferred Wiki style, I was using the old style). I did delete the enumeration of COBIT - let's just keep a pointer to the COBIT material. I am considering deleting the enumeration of the ITIL sections within Service Support/Delivery as well, in the interest of brevity - those are exhaustively covered over on the ITIL definition. Charles T. Betz 15:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nice work. thanks Pukerua 09:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expansion and clarification requests[edit]

  • What is the difference between customer-centric and "technology-centric" management strategies?
  • What are some examples of technology-centric management strategies?
  • What are some examples of the type of "back office" technology under consideration?
  • What types of companies are interested in this strategy? Do any profess to use it?
"Service management as an IT discipline is in its infancy in the U.S. While there are some visible successes reported, such as Proctor and Gamble (Galup, et al., 2007), Unilever (Sherman, 2006), and AutoNation (Drucker, 2006), there are many more companies for which service management is a multi-year, difficult transition that meets resistance at every step." (Source: "Confusion in the Ranks: IT Service Management Practice and Terminology"; Dr. MaryAnne Winniford, Sue Conger, and Lisa Erickson-Harris; Information Systems Management, 26: 153–163; Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC; ISSN: 1058-0530 print/1934-8703 online; DOI: 10.1080/10580530902797532)

--Anayanci lop (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • When did it become popular, if ever? Has it been superceded?
  • What do critics of this strategy have to say about it?
  • The concept of "Service" in an IT sense has a distinct operational connotation, but it would be incorrect to then assume that IT Service Management is only about IT operations. However, it does not encompass all of IT practice, and this can be a controversial matter.
What is the difference between "operations" and "IT practice"? Why is this controversial?
  • The article does not seem to contain any details about what a IT Service Management "strategy" actually entails. Though it appears there is no one standard set of recommendations, what are the most common points?
  • In this respect, ITSM can be seen as analogous to an enterprise resource planning (ERP) discipline for IT - although its historical roots in IT operations may limit its perspective here.
Huh? What is meant by "here"? The article?

-- Beland 01:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Service Management existed long before IT, where are the parallels between ITSM and customer service delivery or manufacturing service centers, this is not new, before a PC was ever built, people provided services, seems their is a reluctance to see ITSM as just a plagiarized version of what primary, secondary and tertiary industries have been doing for hundreds of years, something that is called customer service. Maybe this why problem management is such a core part of ITSM, if you create problems you got to solve em! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I reverted the deletions of ECI and BISL. I am not affiliated with ECI in any way. Their library is a notable American alternative to ITIL, probably the only other coordinated set of books that can be said to provide an alternative full ITSM framework. I see no reason to privilege ITIL just because it is published by a (profit-making) arm of the UK government while ECI is fully private.

Not sure why BISL was deleted, I want to give this effort the benefit of the doubt for now. If it doesn't go anywhere let's revisit.

Charles T. Betz 02:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am continuing to revert well-intentioned purges of links to commercial ITSM publishers. As noted inline in comments, ITSM material (other than ITIL) is not particularly easy to find and I believe that these links are of service. The books will remain available through libraries and the secondhand market indefinitely, so I do not think that these references are ephemeral.

IT Service Management does NOT reduce down to ITIL. I would draw the line at advertising Accenture or other such consultants. Any ITSM books may provide useful material that can be used royalty-free (once the book is obtained). The OGC (ITIL's publishing arm) deserves no special privilege just because it is government-owned. Charles T. Betz 02:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infra Corporation[edit]

Firstly, I need to make a disclosure. I work for Infra Corporation in technical support. My request here is to have Infra Corporation added to the List of IT Service Management providers. infra Corporation have a significant list of large companies and has a large market share in Australia, and an ever expanding market share in the UK. infra makes a product call infraEnterprise and is ITIL certified. It does Incident Management, Problem Management, CMDB, Federated CMDB, Change Management, has a service level management module and a knowledge management module that is KCS certified. Without wanting to get into too many technical details (lest this be construed as spam), it uses a multi-tier architecture that is fairly flexible and customisable. Anyway, I was hoping we could add it to the list. I am also adding a request for Infra Corporation to be created, though I realise that as an admin and a long term editor I can quite easily do this myself. I really don't want to cause my firm or myself any grief by doing so, and I certainly don't want to cause any disruption.

I should also note that our marketing director approached me on the best way of having an article created about us and how to list us on this article. I am fully aware of the potential conflicts of interest, and I have rarely ever edited any articles about ITIL and certainly have never edited any articles about our competitors. If the article is created, I will largely stay away from it and ask for information to be added/removed/changed from the talk page, unless, of course, it is blatant vandalism. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed links[edit]

Whether the editor has a personal interest or not, the webpages in question are merely there to offer book sales. To argue otherwise is absurd. The difficulty in finding the books in not WP's concern. Montco 04:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Helping readers find sources is indeed a valuable WP function. You may be right about some (I haven't looked at them), but based on what you've done on other articles, I'm reverting. See my comments on your talk page. Dicklyon 05:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a slightly different topic, I am reverting the removal of links to the Pink Elephant survey of ITSM and ITIL compatible software. That list was linked specifically to provide a neutral perspective on software that supports ITSM. Pink Elephant is an ITSM and ITIL consultancy that does not itself produce software, and that publishes evaluation criteria as well as verifying ITSM tools, and as such is the closest thing the industry has to a neutral voice. I am happy to hear counterarguments, but I want to have some discussion before the link is removed again. Tjarrett 03:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that link needs to be justified before it is added. All I see is a deep link to a commercial website, promoting their own commercial verification scheme. I cannot see how it significantly adds to the explanation of IT Service Management. Quog
IT Service Management is process facilitated by software. Discussion of the process aspects of IT Service Management without the inclusion of information about software means that the article is incomplete. Yes, Pink is a consultancy, but they are the only organization out there that rates software applications specifically on the basis of their adherence to the guidelines laid down by the IT Service Management books of ITIL. If we need a section that talks about importance of software to ITSM processes, I can write that. 12:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjarrett (talkcontribs)
That verification scheme is pretty well respected, though. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External link[edit]

I have removed the following external link which I note has been previously removed, replaced and discussed above but without a definitive resolution:

On the basis that this is a commercial site to market this book and website and so fails WP:ELNO #5. You will note that the site shows a "contact us" link which does not work, making this site also appear to be a potential dead link. There is no way of validating the information presented and the site makes no claim to have any official sanction and so also fails WP:ELNO #2. There is no evidence that this link is useful to the reader or provides any unique, accurate or valuable information and should be removed in compliance with WP:NOTDIRECTORY.—Ash (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on the site information, it is owned by Service Management 101 LLC: 297 Kingsbury Grade Suite D, PO Box 4470, Nevada 89449. Looking at available public records, the company itself is more complex as the only active company with this name has a single officer registered of "Seguros S.A., Seefeldstrasse 69, CH-8008 Zürich, Switzerlan" with a local agent of "Nevada Corporation Services LTD, 4231 Dant Blvd, Reno" (which appears to be a general umbrella company). Very little information is available on "Seguros S.A." however a simple google search shows a large number of scams have used this company name which may be a complete coincidence.—Ash (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again your information is inaccurate. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the USMBOK and ITIL. If you know of any name some. Both have commercial roots. The USMBOk is licensed by non-profit professional associations and used as a preferred reference with respect to designing service management systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable sources for these claims would be handy, particularly to demonstrate that there is no difference between USMBOK and ITIL; if that were true then I would be sure it would need its own Wikipedia article. As stated before, please login to your main account rather than contributing from random anonymous IP addresses.
The GOOGLETEST may be useful here in order to compare USMBOK with ITIL, the results are quite easy to interpret:
  • 5,700,000 for ITIL
  • 3,330 for USMBOK
There's no typo here, ITIL has more than a thousand times more matches, I'd say that was statistically significant when it comes to judging comparative notability.—Ash (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)—Ash (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External link[edit]

I have removed the following link in accordance with ELNO #5 and #2. This is an unofficial and unauthorized interpretation of ITSM and appears to exist to promote the company that owns the website, the Quintica Group. There is no way of validating the information presented.

Ash (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External link[edit]

This Californian website claims to be a Society for Service Management but based on the details supplied on the website I can see no sponsors named and no official affiliations. I suspect this website is a fraudulent con. If nobody has serious objections I suggest it is removed as it contravenes WP:ELNO #4 and #5 and probably #10.—Ash (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same link removed again, this time spammed by Servicemanagement101 (talk · contribs).—Ash (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The site is run by Service Management Society, Inc. 27068 La Paz Road #451, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-3041.

Public information on the company: Service Management Society, Inc., Number: C3100898, Date Filed: 4/23/2008, California, 29211 Pompano Way, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677. Agent for service of process, Kenneth Gonzalez, 29211 Pompano Way, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677. —Ash (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comments regarding both these organizations are both inaccurate and fringe on libel! I am Service Management 101. 'Fraudulent con' how dare you! Who do you represent and what interests do you have in excluding bona fida organizations that excel, no lead the field of service management in some eyes from being listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refer to no legal threats. If you are Servicemanagement101 (talk · contribs) then please make comments using that account rather than other anonymous IP addresses.—Ash (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links to[edit]

I have removed this link. It is not an officially recognized organization and was created in 2008.—Ash (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC Should be included as a valid external link?[edit]

no Declined

The following discussion is closed.

An external link to has been removed from the IT service management article on the basis of not being an appropriate external link. A representative of the IT Service Management Professional Association has asked for reconsideration (diff), recommending the site as a valuable addition. Do you support inclusion of this site? Ash (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose: I do not feel this site fulfills Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. from WP:ELNO. They are fairly recently founded and have thus not established themselves as a professional association and charge for premium membership, so one might consider this a commercial link. Valar (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Clarify: Base Memberships are Free - Site was established 2 years ago, not sure what relevance that has since The group currently holds 1100 members worldwide.It is recognized by ITSMF and Industry Luminaries such as Mark McGregor, Steve Towers and Malcolm Fry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is the criteria for INCLUSION. There are a number of similar organizations listed, including the itSMF, ISACA, PMI. In each case I see a membership based organization formed as a non-profit with the intention of helping professionals network. Is there a Carpenters of Plumbers union. As far as I can tell the ITSMPA is no different except there seems less undue vendor influence and commercial intent than some of the others. By the way, each of the above mentioned associations charge fees and why should an organization have to have tenure - that implies a closed rather than open criteria - exclusive. Where are the specific rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The "rules" you are asking for are probably most relevantly WP:ELNO and WP:ELYES. However an RfC such as this one may produce a valid local consensus for interpretation of these guidelines.
    • Following up on the comment "as far as I can tell the ITSMPA is no different", a quick WP:GOOGLETEST shows ITSMPA→2,000 hits, itSMF→577,000 hits, ISACA→538,000, PMI.ORG→432,000. These numbers seem to show a distinct disparity in notability.—Ash (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: Peer forums with over 1000 members could potentially provide information beyond what the article would contain if it was a featured article. However, from what I can tell, even the peer forums require a paid membership. The free basic membership doesn't give you any more access on the website than is available to the general public. I think that means this fails WP:ELNO #6: "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation." Even if I'm reading it wrong and the free membership does give you access to training and forums, that still fails as that means it requires registration. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defining itself by itself[edit]

"IT service management (ITSM or IT services) refers to the implementation and management of quality IT services that meet the needs of the business."

So IT services (I was redirected from that page) is the implementation and management of IT services. Great. I still don't have a clear idea of what IT services is, only that its definition includes more than services themselves.-- (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funny. ITSM is the management along the life cycle of a service. You have to think about a Strategy around all your IT services. The core life cycle is design of a server, the transition (built) and the operation. At least you have do look for improvements, which leads you again to design. --Bernd F Dollinger (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be nice if there was a clear definition of ITSM for newbies. My questions are, Is ITSM just a broad concept? Is there any formal written description of ITSM? Is there a responsible body for maintaining ITSM? It would be nice if someone with more in depth knowledge could provide a simple one sentence description. 2600:1003:B111:58A9:588C:5048:F681:B18D (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Service Management has just been deleted Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_6#Category:Service_Management

I didn't see this or I'd have spoken against it. The "decision" was to delete it, maybe to upmerge to Category:Information technology management. The trouble is that this category already has 300 pages in it, 28 sub-categories and a big sign on it saying "Move stuff to sub-categories". So why is deleting an obvious sub-cateogry a good idea?

There was a comment that the name was wrong: didnt say "IT" and had too many caps in it. OK, I can see that. So what should the new category name be? We need a category for this, it's a real thing - or why have IT service management as an article? There are yards of shelf space in the office (of nearly everyone reading this?) given over to ITIL manuals. Service management might be the dullest thing in the world, but it pays the bills for a load of us.

So how about Category:IT service management? Viam Ferream (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Service Management is an important discipline - part of Service Governance. IT Service Management, is an important sub-section of it. Both categories would be useful.

It should not be a subset of Category:Information technology management, because of its strong links to services, and much less strong connection to IT.

Fustbariclation~enwiki (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Service Management isn't a subcategory of anything, it was deleted as "unimportant to wikiworld". If you want it reinstated, that's a different battle. Category:IT Service Management though is pretty obviously part of broader IT. Viam Ferream (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am not sure if it is just me, but I think the Frameworks section could be improved. First, it could contain more useful entries. It might be useful to add more links such as YASM, IT4IT, VeriSM. Second, I'm not sure I'd agree with all entries. For example, TOGAF is not primarily a service framework. Third, one should avoid mixing a "framework" like ITIL (which is a set of guidelines) with an "standard" like ISO20000, which is something more rigid and specific. Both should be mentioned, but more precise wording to separate "framework/standard." DysprosiumCaliber (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]