Talk:ISO/IEC 20000

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Systems

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Untitled[edit]

Shouldn't this node be called ISO/IEC 20000 instead?

Zimage 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binarygal I would suggest that ISO/IEC 20000 should be a pointer to this page. The plain ISO numbering system seems to be applied to most other standards. I could be wrong!

ISO names standards as 'ISO/IEC' if they originate from Joint Technical Committee ISO/IEC JTC1, and as 'ISO' if the originate from other ISO Technical Committees, so yes, strictly speaking this should be ISO/IEC 20000, but a redirect from ISO 20000 would be useful, since that name is often used informally. I recently renamed ISO 11179 to ISO/IEC 11179 for the same reason. I would support renaming this and other JTC1 standards to use the correct title. RayGates 14:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion requested[edit]

This article was recently modified to indicated that it is different than the ITIL standard, but other than that, it is not clear what "ISO 20000" is. Questions that this article leaves the reader with are:

How is this different from BS 15000?
What are its basic recommendations?
Who developed it?
What is the relationship between this standard and "frameworks" like ITIL and the Microsoft Operations Framework? "Support" and "reflect best practice" are a jargon phrases that do not shed much light.
The article says: "It is comprised of two parts: a specification for IT Service Management and a code of practice for service management." What is the difference between these two parts? Perhaps if a one or two paragraph summary of the standard's basic recommendations were given, that would suffice to replace this vague statement.
What kinds of organizations use this standard?
Are there any statistics on how popular it is or any notable organizations that use it?

-- Beland 23:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to q3 above, who owns it? Is it a proprietary standard that has been developed for profit?

--Cruzlee (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the website authentic?[edit]

Who is the governing body of the website?

http://www.isoiec20000certification.com/about/index.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.191.80.9 (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That site is simply itSMF trying on a land grab by trying to create a role for themselves: but there are other similar 'registers' out there too. ISO are the owners of the standard, as with any other ISO standard. 216.245.203.74 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StandardsDirect.org[edit]

I removed the link to a standards purchase site, standardsdirect.org. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#StandardsDirect.org for more about this site. As I see it, Wikipedia is not a directory and we're not here to help people sell things. Most of these standardsdirect.org links have been added by single purpose accounts who likely have a conflict of interest. See:

If an established, high-volume editor wants to add it back to the article, by all means go ahead. Otherwise, it stays out pending resolution at the spam discussion link above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]