To put it another way....

In my post earlier today I linked to the self congratulating page of reviews for ITIL 2011 Edition.

James West tweeted that

"If ITIL v3 was so hard to read in the first place, as these comments infer, why wasn't it called a draft?"

Good point James, so why don't we turn those comments around to refer to v3.0:

'ITIL lacks  clarity and consistency amongst the five books , is difficult to read and hard for users to understand.' 

'The first edition contains many inconsistencies to be removed .' 

'Although these are a  great set of books there is content  that needs clarification or correction, and other topics I wish had more coverage!' 

'ITIL publications require an astounding improvement . The language and descriptions are not clear and concise, and don't give  the reader a clear appreciation of the processes and stages of the ITIL lifecycle.'

 'ITIL is a useful resource but not an essential one.' 

'Strategy is not accessible. It doesn't flow, it  doesn't link up to the other stages of the lifecycle .' 

' ITIL Service Strategy is not an easy read. it is too theoretic and not practical.' 

'Service Design. is like a 'jigsaw' puzzle without the picture on the box.'

ITIL Service Operation ' is ambiguous, and inconsistent especially around roles and responsibilities, particularly in technical management, IT operations and applications management.' 

'The inclusion of proactive problem management and additional analysis techniques [in ITIL Service Operation] would be of great value.' 

'Service Transition has many confusing aspects.  SKMS, CMS, CMDB  is a mystifying and unhelpful maelstrom.' 

' Service Transition lacks synergy making it hard for the reader to locate like-for-like content across the process areas covered. More practical application and alignment more closely to real-world experience would be useful'

Now, aren't you glad you spent all that money on the v3.0 books and training?