Strategies to mitigate value traps in ServiceNow implementation

[SGUPTA1]

In my last blog titled ‘Avoiding value traps in ServiceNow implementations, I wrote about four common traps that hinder value realization during implementation. Now, in this follow-up piece, I'll outline several strategies to effectively mitigate the impacts of these traps.

Trap 1: Taking the "Lift and Shift" approach.

ServiceNow provides standard processes aligned with various frameworks such as ITIL and others. If there are features that can achieve the same outcome as the old process, then this is the ideal choice. This allows utilization of best practices without modifying the configurations. However, this still needs OCM effort as the teams need to learn the new features and become comfortable with user interface. The OCM effort is offset by reduction in design, coding, and testing efforts so there will be net savings.

Teams should also prioritize the critical processes or use cases in the old system to migrate to ServiceNow. An incremental approach is advised where the components are migrated in a phased manner with more critical one’s going first and less critical ones following them. This helps with better risk management and minimizing the impacts in case of any issues.

Trap 2: Ignoring the current state.

It is important to analyze the current state to inform the future state. There are several methods to do this, but the popular ones are process mapping and process shadowing. Process mapping creates detailed representation of the process flow typically using flow charts, swim lane diagrams and process maps. This helps visualize the activities sequence, interactions, clarifies roles and responsibilities and identifies the bottlenecks.

Process shadowing is ideally done by people responsible for designing target state processes by sitting with the process users and observing them executing the current process. By doing this, the gaps between documentation and the current process are revealed. The sticky points in the current process can be noted and amount of change management needed can be anticipated.

Note that these efforts should be intentionally time-boxed and be done early in the project. It could take months to do process mapping, so it is important to think critically about which processes are the ideal candidates and what level of detailed exploration is needed.

Trap 3: Trying to get 100% coverage.

Defining the implementation scope is the initial challenge that the team faces due to potentially unlimited number of workflows, integrations, requests. The ROI depends on three factors 1. The transaction volume of the process 2. incremental value provided by each transaction and 3. investment needed to operationalize the process.

The most predictable factor is ‘Volume’ as historical data available from the process users can be leveraged. A formula can then be defined to assess these factors and assign weightage in context of the business to compute a final score.

Once this is defined, it is advisable to set up an upper limit number for the processes (10 business services or 50 catalogue items or 5 asset types for discovery) and evaluate each process opportunity with the mentioned criterion. The upper limit number can be arbitrary to start with and can be refined from the inputs received during the evaluation. By doing this, informed decisions about prioritizing features can be made that deliver maximum value in the initial implementation phase.

Trap 4: Reducing the OCM time.

Cutting on OCM efforts is often a necessity for many projects. However, there are some strategies to minimize the impact of reducing OCM efforts that may be considered. One strategy is to create standardized set of clear, step by step instructions for performing activities in the desired future state, ensuring consistency, and reducing errors. These task instructions should also identify the person or team who is responsible, accountable, informed or consulted (RACI) for each task.

Another strategy that works well is to open live calls or team channels between business users and the implementation team just after go-live. The users can get prompt responses instead of waiting for scheduled updates. It also provides good insight for implementation teams on the transition progress and identifying major issues.

Conclusion:

We have covered the four most common value traps and strategies to mitigate them. There is always a delicate balance that needs to be maintained between how much time to invest in analyzing past processes versus focussing on future design. By avoiding these traps and following the mitigation strategies, you will be more likely to achieve your value preposition from the project.

Reference:

'ServiceNow for Architects and Project Leaders' book by Roy Justus | David Zhao