Solving "ITSM Solutions"

Why are there 517* different “ITSM Solutions” on sale?

For one thing, “solution” is a tricky word. Just pasting it next to “ITSM” doesn’t mean that ITSM is suddenly going to take flight in an organization that doesn’t knowingly do it already. What it does mean, of course, is that there is a world of problems within the ITSM universe that are worth solving.

Going to an excellent solution compilation site to compare solutions is not necessarily a good idea if you don’t already know what you’re looking for. It’s abit like buying a car or a new cell phone when you’re not already loyal to a brand. Sites that compile and compare products, for example http://www.capterra.com/itsm-software (this is an example, not a paid endorsement!) can at least get you looking at explicit differences that can matter.

But it remains a curious thing that, this far along into ITSM adoption and tech developments, there is such a huge variety. After all, how necessary are these differences? Or putting it differently, why are these differences necessary?

Fast, Cheap or Pretty

An old saying goes that when it comes to products or services, you can usually only get one or two things to be true, but not all three: fast, cheap, or pretty. You get to decide what each one means specifically to you, but the claim is that the tradeoffs are usually between time, money and quality.

That may be true for many solutions available in ITSM and could sort them out in some final way. But you should probably not count on that, because getting an ITSM solution is not the end of something; it’s just the start.

Scale of usage, control of ownership cost, and scope of functionality are naturally going to affect the actual practicality of any ITSM “solution”.

The issue at hand is what predictability there is about those factors.

Because any company that installs and implements the solution will have its own peculiarities, the predictability lies mainly in the combination stated as “DESIGNED TO BE USED AS PRESCRIBED”.

Accordingly, the implementing company is presumed to have a sufficient degree of:

• readiness (ecological compatibility),
• discipline (sustainable commitment to plans), and
• awareness (knowledge-based competency)

Otherwise there is no reason to assume that the design, nor that the prescription, will succeed at the company.

The Who Cares Test

When it comes to how the solution is deemed effective, the essential problem is stated as “COMPLEXITY versus CAPABILITY”. This is virtually the same thing as considering why the solution provider/vendor thought it was necessary to offer another product. The provider always assumes that it can do something that people are not already getting enough of.

Having designed, co-developed, implemented, trained, customized, integrated and replaced dozens of commercial and home-grown “solutions” over two decades, I can tell you that there are five reasons why providers think a company will care about the provider’s solution “effectiveness”, and probably not more than one or two others. (Nominate your own extras…)  Many providers feel that they only need one of these reasons to get in the door ahead of competitors. Better providers have more than one of these reasons covered (as an advantageous distinction) from the start:

• User as Customer – interfaces and mobility – for self-service
• Workgroup as Provider – organizational modeling – for demand fulfillment
• Process as Provision - process standardization – for automated operations
• Systems as Services - information architecture – for “artificial” (analytic) intelligence
• Technology as Platform – development environment – for implementations

Most very accomplished consultants and practitioners will tell you that as ITSM scales larger in operation, all five of these factors are increasingly important. The notion of relying on only one or two of them becomes increasingly invalid.

It’s also true that each one of the factors can be hugely challenging, because “solutions” don’t cause these things to succeed – they allow them to succeed. Go ahead and "google" across the graveyards about each of these efforts:

• self-service
• demand fulfillment
• automated operations
• “artificial” (analytic) intelligence
• implementations

No one of them makes sense to try unless there is a strategy, executive accountability, multi-year funding, matched skills, change management, and knowledge management in place for it. Note that this checklist of six prerequisites does not mean a large staff is necessary; it means a capable staff is necessary, regardless of size.

The Wrapup

"Smart man learn from his mistake; wise man learn from smart man's mistake."

Many solutions are designed and prescribed really well and really carefully. Meanwhile, a well-known brand name does not magically make a solution well-done as an offering.

And be forewarned: Most solutions that fail have failed because of unsuccessful implementation at sites with poor readiness. No product on the market is immune to this reality. If you don't know how to change to put it in, and you don't know how to change to keep it in, then you cannot make a successful choice.

* While this was being written, 119 either went out of business, changed names, merged, or moved to a different market; and 53 others launched. Just kidding! Sort of. Once you get past 30, you tell me what difference it makes...