A portfolio is only governable if it is legible to executives. Too often, ServiceNow portfolios reflect organizational charts or tool modules rather than the services customers actually consume. This misalignment creates opacity and makes governance reactive instead of strategic. The starting point should be a customer-centric service taxonomy—examples include “Employee Onboarding,” “Access Provisioning,” “Major Incident Response,” and “Field Service Dispatch.” Each service must have a clearly defined purpose, consumption channels, measurable outcomes, and a designated service owner accountable for delivering value.
Within ServiceNow, establish a canonical service model that includes services, offerings, service-level targets, requestable items, and underpinning configuration items (CIs) and knowledge articles. Every change, demand, and incident should be tied to the affected service—not just to a team or module. This linkage enables executives to see where value is created or eroded and supports informed decision-making.
Funding should align to services and value streams rather than isolated projects. Where feasible, adopt product-line P&Ls to track unit economics, such as cost per onboarded employee or cost per resolved incident. For governance, implement stage gates that evaluate service health, technical debt, risk posture, and customer outcomes, supported by Now dashboards. Standardize intake criteria and prioritize based on strategic fit and impact—not who shouts loudest. Ultimately, a service portfolio designed for executive visibility transforms platform transparency into disciplined capital allocation.
