Well the truth is the actual name is the ITIL Software Endorsement Scheme. 'Scheme' may be the operative word here. What's disappointing is the press is already calling it a standard (see ITIL tools standard, endorsed by ITIL creator, seeks to aid buyers).
The sharks are still in these waters (Service Lifecycle Solutions: The Blood's in the Water) and this sort of chum only increases the dangers. Having the OGC, APMG and now the SMGC (none a standards body) create a 'scheme', with the press using words like 'standard' to describe it, is just throwing chum in shark-infested waters.
Just a few drops from the chum bucket caused comments like these:
"...what on earth are they doing?"
"...I was obviously mistaken in my belief that UK Government bodies were not allowed to endorse software products. Well, you learn something every day."
"...[the scheme] will measure compliance against individual ITIL processes. It seems to provide a 'badge' for each part of an overall solution. I cannot quite see how this helps with the procurement of a 'system' that comprises a set of interrelated requirements and parts that form a complex whole."
"...what level of maturity [he has] chosen to set the standard, because obviously a tool that supports process to Level 5 maturity will be measuring and reporting a lot more than a tool that supports to Level 2."
Look, having a tool to select a tool may be nice. But the increasing availability of other frameworks (CobiT, MOF, ISO2000, USMBOK, FITS, ISM, eSCM, CMMI-SCM...) will continue to drive the need for a harmonizing assessment standard --- such as ISO 15504 --- that can allow different frameworks to offer compliant Process Reference Models and Process Assessment Models to base line against.
That is what customers should be demanding. In the meantime however, you'd better be careful swimming in these waters.