6
Smart Steps for ITSM Tool Selection Success
Published 21 November 2019 - ID G00407777 - 34
min read
Identifying
the right IT service management tool will be challenging if relying exclusively
on the Magic Quadrant or ITIL-based RFP templates. I&O leaders should use
this six-step buyer’s guide to better assess factors such as I&O maturity,
ITOM integration, licensing and vendor viability.
·
I&O leaders frequently overbuy ITSM tools beyond their
needs. Choosing powerful yet more complicated tools slows down service
improvements and requires increased overhead.
·
Add-ons to the core ITSM tool are often bought for future
potential requirements on the assumption that I&O maturity improvements are
successful. These sometimes go unused but add an average of 82% extra cost.
·
Because shortlists for ITSM tools are often based on a
superficial review of industry analysis, I&O leaders often do not
understand how products and vendors align with their requirements.
·
Standard ITIL process checklist-style RFP solicitations for ITSM
tools do not enable I&O leaders to effectively evaluate how a vendor’s
product would help the organization achieve its objectives.
I&O
leaders focused on infrastructure, operations and cloud management must:
·
Ensure ITSM tool selection is aligned with current and planned
ITSM and ITOM capabilities by using an assessment such as the Gartner IT Score
for I&O to determine I&O maturity.
·
Avoid lock-in on subscriptions by choosing the appropriate
license metrics and hosting platform for a budget covering the initial contract
length plus time to switch to an alternative.
·
Align the scope of the ITSM tool selection to I&O maturity
by using the ITSM tool Critical Capabilities research to evaluate popular
tools’ capabilities, user experience and overhead.
·
Assess vendor suitability as a partner by using the ITSM tool
Magic Quadrant research to determine if a vendor has the strategy and stability
to compete in the long term.
·
Communicate your issues and goals in an outcome-focused RFP that
will encourage vendors to explain how their offering meets the organization’s
unique needs.
·
Leverage existing customer references such as end-user reviews
on Peer Insights to quickly gauge satisfaction with shortlisted products and
vendors.
Through
2023, I&O leaders will overspend by $750 million on buying unused features
of ITSM tools, up from $600 million in 2019.
The
most critical mistake I&O leaders make in their selection of an IT service
management (ITSM) tool is not ensuring that it is aligned to their desired state
of I&O maturity before determining the appropriate ITSM tooling strategy.
Often, buyers of ITSM tools begin vendor evaluations by determining which
vendors are market share leaders or positioned well in industry research
analyses. This can be useful provided that the unique needs of the organization
are met; but when I&O leaders invest in solutions that reach far beyond
their current maturity, they become locked in to a costly and
resource-intensive solution that they soon regret purchasing. I&O leaders
must match the needs of their specific organization with a tool that not only
will support current initiatives (at a level that makes sense), but also will
enable improvement and growth. This research describes six steps that I&O
leaders should follow to select an ITSM tool that will deliver value, is suited
to their current needs and enables I&O improvements (see Figure 1).
ITSM
tools are components of the experience management minisuite of IT operations
management (ITOM) tools (see “IT Operations Management 2025: Shift to
Succeed”), which focuses on improving the overall level of quality and
efficiency with which the I&O organization supports business consumers. ITSM
tools may optionally integrate with other tools from the automation minisuite
or the availability and performance minisuite for deeper overall ITOM
capability.
I&O
leaders should start all ITSM tools acquisition projects with two questions:
·
What is our current level of I&O maturity?
·
Where do we want/need to go with ITSM in the next three to five
years? (That is, where do our business leaders want us to go?)
ITSM
tool vendors typically use the size of an organization (either number of
employees or annual revenue) to determine which solutions they feel are best
positioned to meet their customers’ needs. But an organization’s roadmap to
I&O maturity would be a better indicator of whether a solution matches its
customer’s requirements. Evaluating maturity over size or revenue takes into
account the tool features that your organization will leverage. This prevents
less mature organizations from acquiring solutions that provide more
functionality than they can optimize, and prevents more mature organizations
from acquiring solutions that do not provide enough functionality to meet their
needs.
IT
organizations should use Gartner’s “IT Score for Infrastructure &
Operations” to better understand the current, future and desired state of
I&O maturity, and use that understanding to assist in the scoping of an
ITSM tool. IT organizations can then determine which tool vendors align to
their roadmap. IT organizations that fail to align their level of IT maturity
with their next ITSM tool purchase run the risk of acquiring tools they do not
have the ability to optimally utilize. Generally speaking, IT organizations at
lower levels of process maturity should optimize investments by acquiring and
implementing basic or intermediate ITSM tools. IT organizations at higher
levels of maturity can optimize investments with ITSM tools that are part of
larger ITOM suites (see Figure 2 and Note 1).
ITSM
tools are classified, based on ITSM capabilities and integration with ITOM
solutions, as follows:
·
Basic ITSM tools have some ITSM capabilities and limited
integration with ITOM solutions.
·
Intermediate ITSM tools have good ITSM capabilities and
provide some basic ITOM functions or integrate with intermediate third-party
ITOM solutions.
·
Advanced ITSM tools have a full range of ITSM capabilities
and provide broad ITOM functionality natively or integrate with advanced
third-party ITOM solutions.
The acquisition
and implementation of an ITSM tool are often in the first phase of an I&O
maturity roadmap. The organization can leverage the out-of-the-box best
practices that the solution provides as a means to begin standardizing
processes. Organizations often use this as a mechanism to generate excitement
about the project while washing away any remnants of previous failed approaches
to IT service management and support.
Purchasing
ITSM tools for these reasons introduces risks that can have a broad, magnified
impact on the I&O organization. Failing to achieve visible and tangible
results can quickly stall progress toward I&O maturity. For I&O
organizations at lower levels of maturity, advanced ITOM capabilities — such as
managing IT service views (via the configuration management database [CMDB]),
modeling, capacity planning, and baselining historical analysis and SLA
reporting — cannot be effectively leveraged. Purchasing ITSM tools suited to
maturity levels beyond that of the organization’s own I&O maturity would
expose these organizations to high license, implementation and maintenance
costs.
At
lower levels of IT maturity, a basic ITSM tool is the first step to gaining
visibility and managing the IT infrastructure environment. At these levels,
reacting versus responding is standard, ad hoc processes are the norm and
customer confidence is low. At higher levels of I&O maturity, an
intermediate or advanced ITSM tool accelerates the path to, or enhances the
service-aligned relationship with, the other business areas. At these levels,
industry best practices and SLAs are in place, and I&O is seen as a trusted
service provider on the path to business alignment.
At
higher levels of maturity, organizations will increase the probability of
deriving value from solutions that offer tight integration of functions across
process modules (for example, incident, problem and change management) if those
processes are well established. ITSM tools have functionality that has been
available for decades, but I&O leaders haven’t taken advantage of that
functionality due to cultural and process limitations. I&O maturity
assessments will better position organizations to develop roadmaps to address
resource gaps in leveraging these integrations. When evaluating ITSM tools,
I&O leaders need to reference their I&O roadmap to know how and when
functional modules will be implemented and integrated. Acquiring an ITSM
solution to leverage only incident and change management modules will result in
higher costs (for licenses, maintenance and professional services) for lower
utilization. For example, the 11% most mature I&O organizations are gaining
efficiencies and service quality through standardization, automation, policy
development, governance structures and the implementation of proactive,
cross-departmental processes. At this level, the mature I&O organization is
able to optimize cross-level processes that the other 89% of organizations have
yet to put in place.1
It is
important to differentiate between an organization’s current level of I&O
maturity and the desired end-state maturity. In most instances, the I&O
roadmap involves multiyear planning and must be aligned to current and future
business-side objectives and customer needs. I&O organizations at lower
levels of maturity should realize the low probability of adopting, formalizing
and integrating incident, problem, change, configuration, release, availability
and knowledge management within 36 months. Few IT organizations that purchase
an ITSM tool will implement all available functions during the first 18 months.
Service improvement momentum slows after tool implementation projects, and
features that are unused during the first half of the agreement usually remain
untouched for the second half.
I&O
leaders frequently overbuy ITSM tools beyond their needs. Choosing powerful yet
more complicated tools slows down service improvements and requires increased
overhead. Through 2023, I&O leaders will overspend by $750 million on
buying unused features of ITSM tools, up from $600 million in 2019.2
I&O
leaders in organizations not already at, or imminently at, an advanced I&O
maturity should select an intermediate ITSM tool to set a solid foundation for
service improvements that may later justify the additional cost for an advanced
tool.
There
are more than 400 ITSM tools on the market,3 and
prices vary from free or ad-supported basic tools to multimillion dollar,
advanced ITOM suites. The core ticketing functions of ITSM tools are similar,
so the major difference between many of the basic offerings is price.
To keep
the market insensitive to this, vendors want it to be difficult to compare
solutions. Although we don’t recommend choosing an ITSM tool based on price
alone, you must understand the common pricing structures when beginning a
procurement exercise.
ITSM
tool vendors have their own models for named (or “fixed”) and concurrent (or
“floating”) licensing for both perpetual and SaaS/subscription purchases
(see “Improve Deal Value and Optimize Costs Through Better Analysis of
Software and SaaS Pricing Metrics”). I&O leaders must determine the correct
balance of named and concurrent seats by analyzing patterns of use, as well as
the numbers and types of users.
More
detail on these tool license metrics is provided in Table 1.
Enlarge Table
·
|
License Type
|
Description
|
|
Named User (Fixed)
|
Called “fixed-user pricing” by some ITSM tool providers,
named-user pricing for ITSM tools enables a specific person to access the
functionality of the software. These licenses are usually nontransferable
other than on a one-time, permanent basis. Used alone, this model requires
every user who needs to access ITSM application functionality to have a
named-user license. When users leave the company or no longer require access
to the ITSM system, their licenses should be released and reallocated to new
staff members (see “How to Recycle Licenses to Optimize Software Costs”).
Not all vendors permit license transfers, so confirm the possibility and
conditions for this at an early stage of negotiations.
|
|
Concurrent User (Floating)
|
Concurrent, or “floating,” user licenses are shared
across a pool of users. This works well for shift systems, in which users
access application functionality across different time zones. When the number
of concurrent users reaches the maximum number of licenses, each additional
user may be denied access to the system. Concurrent user definitions almost
always relate to maximum simultaneous access, rather than average, so
calculate your requirements carefully.
Ratios of users per concurrent license typically range
anywhere from 1-to-2.5 to 1-to-5, depending on the size of the organization,
the types of users and the operating hours. ITSM tool vendors tend to
calculate the license ratio of one concurrent license to three identified
users (1-to-3) when they establish pricing. Your own ratios may differ from
this, so use your estimated ratios when selecting the optimal license metric.
If you have usage data from an incumbent ITSM system (see “Five Ways to
Save Money and Reduce Risk With Your IT Asset Management Tools”), software
asset management (SAM) tools can aid in identifying a suitable ratio.
|
Source: Gartner (November 2019)
Most
(but not all) ITSM tool vendors allow different mixes of user metrics, and that
offers the most efficient mix for the majority of organizations. Frequent and
important users should have named licenses. The remaining users should share
the pool of concurrent licenses. For example, suppose an organization has 250
users: 100 are frequent users (for example, the IT service desk) and 30 are
important but infrequent users. This organization, therefore, will require 130
named licenses. The 120 remaining users can share 40 concurrent licenses, using
the rule-of-thumb ratio of 1-to-3 (see Figure 4).
Table 2
describes the three ITSM tool license terms: perpetual, subscription and
enterprise license. Calculate the long-term costs before choosing between these
models. Consider enterprise license agreements (ELAs) only if the volumes are
high and significant flexibility is required.
Enlarge Table
·
|
Type
|
Description
|
|
Perpetual
|
Perpetual licensing gives the licensee the right to
deploy and access the functionality provided by the specific version of ITSM
software forever (that is, without any time restriction). For some ITSM tool
vendors, this will be a right to deploy and access just the version
purchased. For others (often if maintenance is continuously purchased), it
may mean the right to deploy and access the latest version of the
functionality. Even if maintenance is terminated, customers retain the right
to deploy and access the latest version available during the support and
maintenance contract period.
|
|
Subscription
|
Subscription fees are usually provided on a per-user,
per-month basis, even though, typically, they are payable annually in
advance. Basic maintenance and support is included in the user fee. Higher
support service levels (that is, premium support) may be purchased at an
additional cost. Many ITSM tool vendors offer discounts when subscriptions
are purchased for a minimum of three years.
No permanent rights to the software are acquired. You
would be renting the temporary right to access certain services for a certain
number of people. Distribution/use rights for your own managed service
providers and contractors needing access should be included in the subscription
provision and, therefore, would need to be removed if those partnerships are
terminated.
Subscription models carry the risk of “lock in” when
organizations fail to prepare an exit strategy that allows for a migration to
another tool before the agreement lapses. Access to the application is
removed immediately after the subscription ends (unlike perpetual licenses,
which permit access even if support and maintenance is no longer provided).
I&O leaders who leave ITSM tool subscription renewal negotiations to the
last minute find they are forced to renew subscriptions at uncompetitive
prices. One-year extensions at higher prices are a commonly forced necessity
when the tool is no longer desired because it is almost impossible to
completely transition to a replacement ITSM tool from another vendor before
the incumbent subscription lapses. This makes the option of staying with the
incumbent, yet unsuitable, tool for a further three years appear more
favorable. An ITSM tool that is used beyond IT (i.e., for enterprise service
management) needs an even longer exit plan, and the lock-in effect is
exacerbated.
|
|
Enterprise License Agreement
|
ELAs are designed to cover the entire licensing
requirement of an organization, regardless of size and changes in usage over
time. This model can conceal costs and is more suitable for organizations
that need at least 4,000 user licenses for ITSM, and for whom the volume and
distribution of licenses is expected to vary considerably. Watch out for
bundling of add-ons and non-ITSM components inflating the final cost.
Few I&O organizations need more than 3,000 ITSM tool
licenses, but many are enticed by seemingly low pricing per license. Although
the cost of a single seat may appear to be low, vendors set a high-volume
requirement to secure this pricing. This improves vendors’ profit margins if
customers overbuy and underuse. The I&O leader will bear that risk, which
offsets any savings for most organizations.
|
Source: Gartner (November 2019)
Of the
three common hosting platforms for ITSM tools (see Table 3), SaaS is currently
the most popular choice for I&O leaders (although many have no preference).
Some organizations with regulatory or security considerations will opt for
on-premises, but such cases are becoming less common as more industries that
previously were restricted from using cloud-based services are now buying ITSM
tools via SaaS.4
Enlarge Table
·
|
Hosting
|
Description
|
|
On-Premises
|
The ITSM tool is hosted, funded and managed by the
customer at its own location.
This option typically involves perpetual licensing, but
some ITSM tool vendors are now offering subscription pricing for on-premises
implementations. Where on-premises subscriptions are a factor, IT
organizations must build and fund the hosting platform as per perpetual
licensing. But there is no large upfront fee or separate ongoing support and
maintenance charge. Like SaaS, the right to access and use the software is
revoked if subscription payments are not made. At present, too few products
use this license model to build a long-term generic pricing model.
|
|
SaaS
|
The ITSM tool is hosted by the vendor and access is
provided through subscription. There should be a single SaaS contract, with
the vendor taking ultimate responsibility for the deliverable — not a license
agreement stapled to a hosting agreement.
Classic SaaS subscription metrics are named seats, but
many ITSM tool vendors also offer concurrent seats. Although the application
is provided “as a service,” the vendor is responsible for the hosting
platform and operating system. Management and configuration of the tool
itself (such as workflow or portal design) fall to the customer.
|
|
Outsourced Hosting
|
The ITSM tool is hosted by a third-party service
provider, and the tool is managed by you not by the tool vendor or a managed
service provider (as part of ITSM or service desk outsourcing).
This type of platform is increasingly rare for ITSM
tools, although some vendors, such as Broadcom (formerly CA Technologies) and
Micro Focus (formerly Hewlett Packard Enterprise), offer this via partners in
lieu of a SaaS solution.
|
Source: Gartner (November 2019)
Table 4
shows typical pricing for advanced ITSM tools, including capabilities for CMDB,
discovery and reporting. Note that concurrent licenses are more expensive per
unit, but are comparable in price to named licenses when shared by multiple
users at a ratio of 1-to-3.5
Enlarge Table
·
|
License Type for 300 Users
|
Average List Price (USD)
|
Typical Discounted Price
(USD)
|
|
Named SaaS
|
$88 per user per month
|
$72 per user per month
|
|
Concurrent SaaS
|
$246 per license per month
|
$177 per license per month
|
|
Named perpetual
|
$2,026 per named user
|
$1,660 per named user
|
|
Concurrent perpetual
|
$4,439 per concurrent license
|
$3,640 per concurrent license
|
Source: Gartner (November 2019)
Basic
and intermediate ITSM tools will be less expensive. Some basic tools are very
low cost, with some vendors providing free or ad-supported access for small
businesses that need fewer than 10 licenses.
There
is insufficient data to determine a typical price for an enterprise licensing
agreement, as those are relatively rare and highly variable for ITSM tools. We
recommend that you divide the total cost of any ELA proposal by the actual
number of expected users (not the total potential number provided by the
vendor) to determine the cost per user per month. Gartner analysts can provide
further guidance on an inquiry call.
Subscription
pricing (such as SaaS) seems less expensive initially. Because SaaS models
include hosting and maintenance in the price, it can seem more predictable and
simpler to budget for them. In reality, the ongoing nature of the fees,
combined with price increases at renewal and a number of hidden costs,
eventually overtakes the ongoing costs of on-premises models (see “Toolkit:
Minimize SaaS Risk and Cost Using This Toolkit to Efficiently Negotiate Optimal
SaaS Contract Terms and Conditions”). Figure 4 shows how, on average, SaaS
pricing becomes more expensive than perpetual on-premises license pricing
within five years and, in many cases, within two years. This timeline is
shortening as more deals are done on SaaS subscriptions and fewer are done on
on-premises perpetual licenses. Prior to 2019, the crossover point between
these two common pricing models was just before Year 3.
The
data above considers net present value with a 10% cost of capital or discount
rate (provided as an example). This should benefit the subscription model
because capital needed to pay for Year 2 and Year 3 of the agreement can be
invested elsewhere until payment is due. Further discounts can be achieved by
paying for the whole term upfront. However, this means those funds cannot be
leveraged for investment for other business activities, and the organization
loses the benefit of treating the ITSM tool as an operational expense versus a
capital expenditure.
Some
vendors do not include all of the possible extended functionality as part of
the base cost. Those that quote only for the base tool appear cheaper in the
short term but will probably cost more in the long run if you end up purchasing
add-ons later. Add-ons required to meet an advanced ITSM use case increase the
total ITSM tool cost by an average of 82%.5,6
Common
ITSM tool add-ons include:
·
Live chat
·
Remote control
·
Chatbot or virtual support agent
·
Analytics and extended reporting (business intelligence)
·
Premium integrations and orchestration packs
·
Discovery tools for configuration management database (CDMB)
·
PC and mobile endpoint management
When
evaluating ITSM tool pricing, I&O leaders must obtain the prices of all
included features, as well as any add-on features needed to meet their needs
for the next three years, even when not buying/using immediately. Obtain quotes
for desired future purchases to include in your vendor evaluation. This is not
an excuse to buy add-ons that you don’t need! Paying for features that are not
utilized produces no return. The same applies to buying add-ons now in hopes of
using them later. This is especially true in subscription deals where the value
is only realized at the point the feature is consumed. There is zero advantage
to getting a cheaper deal for an add-on that won’t be used until months or
years later — if ever.
The
Gartner Critical Capabilities research is a companion to the Magic Quadrant
research. The ITSM tool Critical Capabilities research analyzes product
functionality based on a set of use cases that match client deployment
scenarios and maturity, while the Magic Quadrant positions vendors in the ITSM
market. Critical Capabilities research enables organizations to get the most
value from Gartner’s analysis based on their unique business and technology
needs.
Gartner
Critical Capabilities research evaluates popular tools that have proved to be
of interest to Gartner clients; but do not limit your search to these products.
Many
local and smaller vendors could be a good fit for your organization but may not
yet have created enough awareness and momentum to meet the inclusion criteria
for this research. And it’s possible that a highly rated vendor in a Magic
Quadrant could have a low-ranked product or service in a Critical Capabilities
use case, as even leading vendors can produce products or services that miss the
critical needs of the market. Conversely, it’s possible that lower-rated
vendors in Magic Quadrants could struggle to make their businesses thrive, yet
they produce a tightly focused and highly targeted product or service that
outranks all other vendor offerings. The purpose of Critical Capabilities
research is to provide an assessment framework for rating vendor offerings.
Critical
Capabilities research evaluates ITSM tools on incident, request, change and
configuration management, as well as other capabilities shown in Figure 6, plus
AITSM facets (see “2019 Strategic Roadmap for IT Service Management” and
Note 2), overhead, and user experience and flexibility.
Choose
a Critical Capabilities use case based on your I&O maturity and digital
workplace needs from the following options:
·
Basic maturity I&O
·
Intermediate maturity I&O
·
Advanced maturity I&O
·
Basic digital workplace ITSM
·
Advanced digital workplace ITSM
These
five use cases best align with market requirements by balancing the weighting
of Gartner’s evaluation of capabilities critical to ITSM tools. These can be
customized to better suit your own requirements (for example, by increasing the
weight of knowledge management and decreasing the weight of total cost of
ownership). Note that the option to create client-customized Critical
Capabilities content is intended to give you relevant insight into a market,
product or service, but does not represent Gartner’s view.
This
research is produced annually and covers ITSM tools that are in production as
of March of each year (subject to change); but many leading vendors produce one
or two major updates each year. Check the version reviewed, and seek updates
from the vendors and Gartner analysts as new product updates are made
available.
To gain
further insight on how best to use this research for your particular scenario,
see “How Products and Services Are Evaluated in Gartner Critical
Capabilities” and schedule an inquiry with a Gartner analyst.
Magic
Quadrant research analyzes a market and can help focus your search on important
criteria. However, it does not provide the details needed during the vendor
selection process to align your requirements to a particular vendor. Nearly
two-thirds of Gartner clients who use Magic Quadrant research have not read the
companion Critical Capabilities research. Additionally, client interactions
have revealed that many I&O leaders do not realize that the Magic Quadrant
research is about ITSM vendors’ positions in the market, not their tools.
Do not
start an ITSM tool selection with the Magic Quadrant. Begin by focusing on your
own use case, and use the Critical Capabilities to learn how tool features
align with your specific requirements.
Magic
Quadrant inclusion and evaluation criteria are based on global market position
over tool features. Factors such as global strategy may not be key for I&O
leaders operating in a single country or region. Sales and marketing
performance help to understand the vendor’s momentum, but do not guarantee a
good fit for a single I&O organization. Use the Magic Quadrant research to
learn about a vendor’s competitiveness and focus to gain assurance that it has
a solid ITSM strategy and the stability to compete beyond the short term.
To gain
further insight on how best to use Magic Quadrant research for your particular
scenario, refer to “How Markets and Vendors Are Evaluated in Gartner Magic
Quadrants” and schedule an inquiry with a Gartner analyst.
I&O
leaders preparing to select ITSM tools typically compile a large list of
requirements from multiple IT stakeholders and then add generic ITIL process
references. They use this approach because they are unable to specify which
features and capabilities are vital to their business. This RFP approach
results in a long list of technical questions that solicit similar answers from
each bidding vendor and does very little to distinguish among offerings.7 Requirements
that loosely reference common ITIL processes are often added, even if the
organization is not ready to implement them. This approach frequently results
in the selection of a vendor and product based on criteria that are not
important to the organization. In addition, it may result in the organization
paying for features that won’t be used.
Gartner
analysts have also encountered prospective buyers reusing templates or the RFP
from a previous selection process. This almost certainly means that the I&O
leader has not examined the organization’s current needs or growth
requirements. ITSM tool purchasing behavior trends indicate that, through 2023,
I&O leaders will overspend $750 million on buying unused features of ITSM
tools, up from $600 million in 2019.
Ensure
that your RFP fits your use case, focuses on outcomes and emphasizes value.
Share your vision with vendors by identifying the issues and goals that you
need an ITSM tool to address and achieve, and by being candid about your
current capabilities. This approach will help you identify a solution that
suits both the organization’s current needs and the processes you plan to
implement in the near future.
Because
many vendors respond to lengthy checklist-style RFPs with almost identical, boilerplate
answers, slight differences in replies tend to have a disproportionally large
impact on the final scores. Ensure that your technology selection isn’t based
on unimportant requirements by asking vendors to complete a prequalification
questionnaire containing only your “must haves.” Also, distinguish crucial
requirements from nice-to-have features by performing a “must have, should
have, could have, won’t have yet” (MoSCoW) analysis during the definition phase
(see Figure 6).
Treat
must-have requirements as pass-fail criteria. If a vendor cannot meet these
requirements, you should remove that vendor from consideration, regardless of
how successful it may be in other categories. The vendor should confirm if
these requirements can be met “out of the box” without add-ons or
customization. If a vendor claims it can satisfy your must haves without
customization, acquire proof before letting that vendor pass to the next stage.
After
you have determined your must haves, limit your should haves to less common
functions and important, but not crucial, capabilities. I&O leaders
typically place too much attention on commoditized ITSM tool features such as:
·
Tool generates a unique ticket number for each incident
·
Tool can create a problem ticket from an incident
Such
less common functions are more likely to be unique to your organization or
industry. Consider the following examples:
·
Mobile business user location can be determined dynamically so
that the tool can automatically assign the closest on-site engineer at the time
of the issue.
·
The tool should provide a dashboard that enables support staff
to prioritize incidents from a mixture of phone calls from standard users and
appointment requests from doctors so the appointments take priority.
Concentrating
on specific, noncommoditized functions will separate vendors further.
ITSM
tool vendors won’t understand how to tailor their offerings to your IT
organization’s needs unless you:
·
Communicate your organization’s progress through the various
phases of IT maturity
·
Inform vendors of your issues and goals
For
example, if you are using Gartner’s “IT Score for Infrastructure &
Operations” as a model for improving maturity, communicate your current
level to vendors. Then explain your goal for moving to the next level. To flesh
out your story:
·
Focus on specific strengths associated with organizations at
higher levels of maturity (for example, effective problem management processes
or strong release management programs).
·
Provide a few examples of use cases to give vendors more context
and a better chance to test their solution’s suitability.
Identify
the goals that you want a new ITSM tool to help you achieve. Ask vendors to
explain how their product will help you reach your goals. Be candid about your
current capabilities and maturity.
Most
ITSM tool contracts and subscriptions are for 36 months, so ask for a solution
that suits both your current needs and your proposed changes — that is, the
processes you plan to implement during the next 18 months. This approach can
prevent overinvesting in features that may not be used before the next renewal.
Consider
your reasons for switching from your existing service desk tool, and ask
vendors to explain how their product won’t result in similar limitations and
complaints. For example, if you are seeking to reduce problem recurrence, the
vendor could show how its solution would capture trending information and
identify potential root causes more effectively than alternative offerings.
This
approach helps foster a longer-term relationship with the vendor, in which the
vendor takes some responsibility for the solution. It also creates an
opportunity to tie renewal conditions and exit clauses to meaningful system
performance. Vendors that are not prepared to do this are identified quickly,
giving you early insight into how they would behave after a deal is done.
The
experiences of existing customers using ITSM tools on your shortlist are an
essential information source. ITSM tool vendors typically will provide
references primarily from satisfied customers, but even happy customers are
able to provide useful feedback. Ask vendors for references with circumstances
similar to your own (such as country/region, industry and I&O maturity
level). Ask about the experiences with the vendor as well as the software
itself.
Gartner
analysts can share aggregate and anonymized commentary on particular ITSM tools
and vendors based on feedback from clients during inquiry.
Gartner’s Peer Insights currently includes more
than 9,000 verified end-user reviews of ITSM tools from 43 vendors.8 These
reviews do not represent Gartner’s opinion, but they are primarily useful for:
·
Sourcing additional customer references beyond those nominated
by ITSM tool vendors
·
Discovering additional ITSM tools and vendors that, for various
reasons (such as smaller market share, operating in just one geographic region
or less often sought after by Gartner clients on their shortlists), are not
featured in the Magic Quadrant or Critical Capabilities research
When
using Peer Insights as a customer reference tool, note that the volume of
reviews is indicative of the evidence base not the level of customer
satisfaction. Some vendors have multiple products, and the vendor score is
affected by all of those combined, so dig deeper. Look at Peer Insights from a
critical perspective rather than an appreciative perspective. This means,
rather than focusing on the great things said about a particular vendor, you
should try to look for challenges with the product, implementation and support.
Look for reviews by companies of a similar profile to yours (such as size or
vertical industry sector) and reviews by people in roles similar to yours. Also
consider how long they have been using the product to understand how mature the
implementation of that tool is likely to have been in that organization. The
review source will also show how the review was left and if a gift was provided
in exchange for the review. These gifts are of nominal value — similar to those
distributed for free at events. We have observed that the review source and
offer of a gift has not affected the likelihood of a positive or negative
review.
Gartner
clients also can ask other I&O leaders for references via Peer Connect.
Examples include this Peer Connect discussion or
this Peer Connect discussion.
|
MoSCoW
|
MoSCoW
is a mnemonic that stands for “must have, should have, could have, won’t have
yet” (the lowercase o’s have no representative significance). It is a
business analysis technique used to categorize the priority of requirements
in a project. The technique was developed by Dai Clegg of Oracle U.K.
Consulting for rapid application development (RAD) projects in 1994, and is
now officially part of the dynamic systems development method (DSDM).
|
1 ITSIO
2019: 89% of Gartner clients that completed an IT Score for I&O assessment
up to June 2019 scored an overall maturity level of less than 3.
2 Gartner
has tracked ITSM tool pricing from leading and popular ITSM tool vendors,
including the percentage charged for add-ons in addition to the base ITSM tool,
since 2017. The data used for this analysis was acquired from 18 leading ITSM
tool vendors, including all of the providers that participated in the “Critical
Capabilities for IT Service Management Tools” and “Magic Quadrant for IT
Service Management Tools.”
Gartner
has also observed that 89% of I&O organizations have not reached a state of
I&O maturity advanced enough to fully utilize all the add-ons and
extensions that they are purchasing or subscribing to. Even though many
organizations do get value from some add-ons (such as discovery for CMDB),
Gartner estimates that more than half of additional features purchased by basic
and intermediate maturity organizations fail to be fully deployed. By tracking these
factors alongside rising annual revenue from the ITSM tools part of the
experience management market, Gartner has identified that this waste translates
to an overspend in 2019 of $600 million rising to $750 million in 2023.
Note: This
analysis is based on ITSM tools and features only and does not cover any
investment in tools and products outside of ITSM and ITOM (such as so-called
enterprise service management aspects like HR, facilities and application
platforms). Additional overspend on those areas is likely and probably
extensive.
3 Listly’s “Helpdesk Tools for ITIL &
Service Management,” as of August 2019, shows 446 products.
Although some are duplicates, Gartner has encountered products that are missing
from that list.
4 Less
than 2% of Gartner clients have restricted their shortlist to on-premises ITSM
tools in over 1,400 client inquiries on the topic of ITSM tools since July
2017.
5 The
data used for this analysis was acquired from 18 leading ITSM tool vendors,
including all of the providers that participated in the “Critical
Capabilities for IT Service Management Tools” and “Magic Quadrant for
IT Service Management Tools.”
Pricing
information provided to Gartner by these ITSM vendors is at list pricing of
ITSM tools for 300 concurrent licenses or 100 fixed licenses on both SaaS and
perpetual terms, where available. These offerings include CMDB and reporting
features. Actual prices offered by vendors will vary according to the size of
the deal, market conditions, and other optional add-ons or complementary
products included in the deal. Schedule an inquiry with a Gartner analyst to
discuss specific pricing deals.
Pricing
information from smaller vendors with lower-capability ITSM tools was not
included. This includes products that have basic ITSM capabilities only, such
as incident ticketing.
6 To
demonstrate the requirements of the advanced ITSM use case in the ITSM tool
Critical Capabilities research, the average cost increase of all the add-ons
offered by vendors (over the base license or subscription cost of the ITSM
tool) ranged from 36% to 113%. The average across six modes of license was 82%.
7 When
Gartner analysts have provided advice on the subject of ITSM tool RFPs in the
past 18 months, requirement lists have ranged from 60 to 600 line items. At
least half of these RFPs contained more than 300 line items.
8 9,355
reviews as of 28 October 2019.
Manual
import/export: Data is shared by exporting to files such as
comma-separated values (CSV) files.
Custom
connectors: Data is shared through connectors that are built by the vendor
by request, usually for a fee.
API: Data
is shared through generic API interfaces as long as the other tools and sources
also support the same protocol.
Prefab
connectors: The vendor supplies a prebuilt and prepared connector to
specific external sources.
Native
to the platform: The ITOM functionality is provided by the ITSM tool
vendor, either within the ITSM tool itself or via partner products and add-ons.
AITSM
is the optimization of ITSM practices to enable the application of context,
assistance, actions and interfaces of AI, automation and analytics on ITSM
tools to improve the overall effectiveness, efficiency and error reduction for
I&O staff.
The
four domains are:
·
Context: Structured and unstructured data that can help
both humans and “robots” better understand a situation and make informed
decisions on how to respond.
·
Assistance: Analysis of the context and further information
to provide recommendations that speed response of the human operating the
process.
·
Action: Automation of the ITSM process in the ITSM tool or
virtual support agent/chatbot. This includes updating of data sources so that
context and assistance are subsequently improved.
·
Interface: The outcomes of these domains will often enable
automation, deployment and healing activities delivered by external tools, most
typically from AIOps solutions (for ITOM tasks such as event management,
monitoring or orchestration), but sometimes by the ITSM tools themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment