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?