Managing ITIL User (Fulfiller) Licensing
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
2 hours ago - last edited 2 hours ago
We have been looking to solve an economic problem: maximize utility given scarce resources. In our case the utility is effective and efficient fulfiller license allocation, the scarce resources are fulfiller licenses. In short, we need a way to discern whether to approve requests for additional itil licenses to be added by having a new user added to a fulfiller group. Kindly review and comment with the hopes to strengthen the model further.
Currently, the request generates usage data:
I then feed this into CoPilot, and looking to semi-automate with CoPilot Agent.
Here is a proposed paper summarizing this approach
Utility-Based ITSM License Governance: A Framework for Allocating Scarce Enterprise Resources (DRAFT)
Jeffrey Boltz
Abstract
Information Technology Service Management (ITSM) platforms have become essential components of enterprise operations, supporting incident management, change management, service request fulfillment, production support, and operational governance. As organizations expand their dependence on these platforms, the allocation of finite software licenses increasingly becomes a governance challenge rather than a simple administrative process. Traditional approaches to license allocation typically rely on managerial requests, role-based entitlements, or historical assignments, often without evaluating whether additional licenses generate meaningful organizational value.
This paper proposes a Utility-Based ITSM License Governance Framework designed to support the allocation of scarce ITSM Fulfiller licenses. The framework integrates principles from IT governance, IT service management, and economic utility theory. Rather than evaluating software requests solely on organizational activity or group affiliation, the proposed model assesses organizational dependency, utilization patterns, workload distribution, and expected marginal utility.
Analysis of operational ServiceNow data suggests that organizational dependency alone is insufficient to justify incremental license allocation decisions. The findings demonstrate that while some groups display significant reliance on ITSM capabilities, workload frequently remains concentrated among a small number of contributors, limiting the value generated by additional licenses. Consequently, effective governance requires evaluating the expected incremental organizational benefit of allocating the next available license.
The proposed model provides a transparent, repeatable, and scalable governance framework that supports resource stewardship, operational effectiveness, and financial accountability. The paper concludes by exploring opportunities to automate governance analysis through ServiceNow and Microsoft Copilot while preserving human oversight for final approval decisions.
Keywords: IT governance, IT service management, ITIL, ServiceNow, utility theory, resource allocation, software licensing, marginal utility, decision support systems
Introduction
Modern organizations operate in environments characterized by increasing technological complexity, growing regulatory expectations, and escalating demands for operational efficiency. ITSM platforms have emerged as foundational systems supporting these objectives through structured management of incidents, changes, requests, service delivery activities, and production support operations. As organizations become increasingly dependent upon ITSM platforms, the governance of access to those platforms becomes strategically important.
Historically, software licenses were often managed as administrative commodities. Requests were evaluated individually, approved through management channels, and fulfilled according to available capacity. Such approaches function reasonably well when licenses are abundant. However, when utilization approaches capacity constraints, license allocation becomes a resource allocation problem requiring governance oversight.
Within many enterprises, ITSM Fulfiller licenses represent a finite and costly resource. Demand frequently exceeds available capacity, creating pressure to determine which users, functions, and support organizations should receive access. Under these conditions, organizations must move beyond simple request approval mechanisms and adopt governance frameworks capable of maximizing the value derived from scarce resources.
This paper argues that the allocation of ITSM licenses should be treated as an economic and governance problem rather than solely an operational or administrative process. Specifically, organizations should evaluate not only whether a group depends upon ServiceNow but whether allocation of an additional license generates meaningful incremental value. By integrating governance principles with concepts from utility theory, organizations can establish transparent and repeatable decision frameworks that improve stewardship of limited technology resources.
Problem Statement
Most software licensing programs implicitly assume that demand represents need. When a user requests a license, the governance process often focuses on validating the request rather than assessing potential value.
Three dominant approaches are commonly observed:
Role-Based Allocation
Under role-based allocation, licenses are assigned according to organizational roles or job functions. While administratively simple, this approach frequently leads to license accumulation and reduced accountability as responsibilities evolve over time.
Request-Based Allocation
Request-based allocation relies primarily on managerial sponsorship and business justification. While responsive to immediate demand, it can produce inconsistent outcomes due to subjective evaluations and varying approval standards.
Capacity Expansion
Organizations frequently respond to license pressure through additional purchases. This approach treats licensing shortages as procurement challenges rather than governance problems and may obscure underlying utilization inefficiencies.
Each of these approaches addresses demand. None directly addresses value creation.
The research question guiding this paper is therefore:
How should organizations allocate scarce ITSM Fulfiller licenses in order to maximize organizational utility while maintaining transparency, consistency, and operational effectiveness?
Literature Review
IT Governance
IT governance focuses on ensuring that technology investments align with organizational objectives while balancing risk, value creation, performance, and resource optimization. Contemporary governance research consistently identifies resource allocation and strategic prioritization as central governance functions. Mature governance frameworks establish structures and decision mechanisms that help organizations allocate finite resources in support of business goals. [mdpi.com], [files.eric.ed.gov]
Research emphasizes that governance mechanisms create value by improving accountability, transparency, and decision quality. Effective governance structures help organizations determine where limited resources should be directed and how technology investments contribute to organizational performance. [mdpi.com], [files.eric.ed.gov]
IT Service Management
ITSM frameworks such as ITIL provide organizations with structured practices for managing services throughout their lifecycle. Existing research identifies benefits including improved service quality, greater stakeholder satisfaction, enhanced operational efficiency, and stronger accountability mechanisms. Organizations increasingly depend on ITSM platforms to coordinate operational activities and support business processes. [mdpi.com], [multiresea...ournal.com]
Nevertheless, most ITSM literature focuses on service delivery effectiveness rather than governance of access to the supporting platforms themselves. This creates an opportunity to extend governance concepts into software licensing decisions.
IT Service Governance
The evolution from IT service management toward IT service governance reflects a transition from operational execution toward strategic oversight. Governance expands decision-making beyond process management to encompass prioritization, accountability, optimization, and organizational alignment.
Research examining the integration of ITIL and governance frameworks such as COBIT suggests that governance mechanisms improve alignment between business objectives and technology investments. Governance therefore provides an appropriate theoretical lens through which to view software licensing decisions. [researchgate.net]
Utility Theory and Marginal Utility
Economic utility theory provides an additional perspective on software licensing challenges. Utility refers to the value generated by the consumption of a resource. Under conditions of scarcity, organizations seek to maximize total utility by directing resources toward their highest-value uses.
Marginal utility represents the additional value generated by consuming one additional unit of a resource. Applied to software licensing, the relevant question becomes:
What additional value will be created by allocating one more ITSM Fulfiller license?
This perspective shifts governance conversations away from demand and toward value creation.
Methodology
Research Design
This study employed a design science and applied governance methodology. The objective was not to test a preexisting theoretical model but to develop a practical governance framework capable of supporting real-world licensing decisions.
The framework emerged through iterative analysis of license requests, group utilization patterns, and operational ServiceNow metrics.
Data Sources
The analysis utilized ServiceNow operational data including:
- Incident records
- Change requests
- Change tasks
- Problem records
- Catalog tasks
- Assignment groups
- Escalated production incidents
- On-call participation
These metrics were evaluated across multiple support organizations exhibiting distinct operational profiles.
Research Process
The framework evolved through three stages.
Stage 1: Request-Based Analysis
Individual requests were reviewed using traditional approval mechanisms. This stage revealed inconsistencies in business justification standards and limited insight into organizational demand.
Stage 2: Organizational Dependency Analysis
Assignment groups were evaluated according to operational metrics including:
- Incident volume
- Change activity
- Escalation activity
- On-call participation
- Service request volume
This phase resulted in a quartile-style classification model designed to identify organizational dependency on ServiceNow.
Stage 3: Utility-Based Evaluation
As additional cases were analyzed, researchers observed that organizational dependency did not necessarily predict demand for additional licenses.
Several high-dependency groups exhibited concentrated workload distributions in which a small number of contributors performed most operational work. These findings suggested that incremental licensing decisions required a second layer of analysis focused on expected value creation.
The resulting framework incorporates:
- Organizational Dependency
- Current Utilization
- Marginal Utility
Together these dimensions support recommendations regarding approval, denial, or requests for additional justification.
Utility-Based Governance Framework
Organizational Dependency
Organizational dependency measures the extent to which a group relies upon ServiceNow for operational activities.
Indicators include:
- Incident management
- Change management
- Escalation management
- On-call participation
- Service request fulfillment
Dependency establishes whether the organization derives value from ITSM capabilities.
Utilization Assessment
Utilization assesses whether current licensed capacity appears effectively employed.
Measures include:
- Tasks per licensed user
- Contributor participation
- Ownership distribution
- Workload concentration
- Unassigned work percentage
These factors provide insight into the effectiveness of existing allocations.
Marginal Utility Assessment
Marginal utility evaluates the expected benefit generated by allocating an additional license.
Potential indicators include:
- Expanded operational responsibilities
- Increased production support coverage
- New change ownership responsibilities
- Increased service delivery demand
- Operational capacity constraints
The governance question becomes:
Will the next license create measurable organizational value?
Findings
Several important themes emerged from the analysis.
Organizational Dependency Does Not Automatically Justify Additional Licensing
Numerous groups demonstrated significant reliance on ServiceNow. However, operational dependency frequently failed to establish a compelling case for incremental licenses. Existing allocations often appeared sufficient to support workloads.
Workload Concentration Is Common
Many groups exhibited Pareto-style distributions where a small minority of contributors completed the majority of operational work.
This finding suggests that group-level activity can obscure individual utilization patterns and overstate the need for additional licenses.
Assignment Quality Impacts Governance Confidence
High percentages of unassigned work reduced visibility into actual utilization and complicated governance decisions.
Accurate ownership data emerged as a prerequisite for informed resource allocation.
Marginal Utility Is the Most Important Variable
The strongest determinant of approval outcomes was not activity volume but the likelihood that an additional license would increase organizational value.
This finding supports the central proposition of the framework.
Discussion
The results suggest that traditional licensing approaches are insufficient in resource-constrained environments.
Quartile models effectively identify organizational dependency but fail to answer the central governance question regarding additional licenses.
Similarly, demand-based approval models focus on requests rather than outcomes.
A utility-based framework provides a more effective governance mechanism because it evaluates expected value creation rather than activity alone.
The distinction between organizational dependency and marginal utility is particularly important. A group may have substantial operational responsibilities and still lack a persuasive business case for additional licensing if existing capacity remains underutilized.
From a governance perspective, this represents a significant shift. Technology resources should not be allocated simply because demand exists. Instead, resources should be allocated where they create the greatest organizational benefit.
Practical Implications
The proposed framework offers benefits in several areas.
Governance
- Increased transparency
- Consistent decision-making
- Documented rationale
- Improved auditability
Financial Stewardship
- Better utilization of existing licenses
- Reduced unnecessary purchases
- Improved capacity management
Operational Effectiveness
- Alignment of resources with business needs
- Improved visibility into utilization
- Better prioritization of scarce licenses
Future Research
Future research should evaluate:
- Automated assessment models
- ServiceNow workflow integration
- Microsoft Copilot-based governance agents
- Asset Management integration
- Predictive license demand forecasting
- Longitudinal studies of licensing effectiveness
An especially promising direction involves AI-assisted governance systems capable of automating data collection, workload analysis, and recommendation generation while preserving human decision authority.
Conclusion
The challenge of allocating ITSM Fulfiller licenses is fundamentally a resource allocation problem involving scarce enterprise resources. Traditional approaches emphasizing requests, roles, or organizational activity provide insufficient guidance when capacity constraints emerge.
This paper proposes a Utility-Based ITSM License Governance Framework that integrates organizational dependency, utilization assessment, and marginal utility analysis. The findings suggest that organizational dependency establishes the need for ITSM capabilities but does not independently justify additional allocations.
Instead, governance decisions should focus on the expected value generated by the next license. By adopting this approach, organizations can maximize utility, improve stewardship, and create a transparent framework for technology resource allocation.
References
Karataş, M. H., & Çakır, H. (2024). A systematic literature review on IT governance mechanisms and frameworks. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 88-101. [files.eric.ed.gov]
Ladapo, O. O., Dosunmu, A. A., Jooda, D., & Abolaji, T. O. (2023). An IT service management literature review: Challenges, benefits, opportunities, and implementation practices. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research Studies, 3(6), 2875-2889. [multiresea...ournal.com]
Moudoubah, L., El Yamami, A., Mansouri, K., & Qbadou, M. (2021). From IT service management to IT service governance: An ontological approach for integrated use of ITIL and COBIT frameworks. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 11(6), 5292-5300. [researchgate.net]
Serrano, J., Faustino, J., Adriano, D., Pereira, R., & da Silva, M. M. (2021). An IT service management literature review: Challenges, benefits, opportunities and implementation practices. Information, 12(3), 111. [mdpi.com]
Vaya-Arboledas, Á., Ferrer-Oliva, M., & Medina-Merodio, J. A. (2025). Evolution and perspectives in IT governance: A systematic literature review. Computers, 14(12), 520. [mdpi.com]
Case Study: Low Marginal Utility Despite Legitimate ITSM Usage
Organizational Profile
A small technology support team submitted a request for an additional ITSM Fulfiller license. The team performs a limited amount of incident management and service request fulfillment activity through the organization's ITSM platform.
Table 1
Sample Group Operational Metrics
Metric Value| Active Members | 5 |
| Total Tasks (12 Months) | 130 |
| Incidents | 91 |
| Change Requests | 13 |
| Change Tasks | 11 |
| Escalated Incidents | 0 |
| On-Call Participants | 0 |
| Unassigned Tasks | 23 |
Workload Distribution
Table 2
Contributor Activity
Contributor Category Tasks| Contributor A | 46 |
| Contributor B | 36 |
| Contributor C | 14 |
| Contributor D | 3 |
| Contributor E | 3 |
| Remaining Contributors | 5 |
| Unassigned | 23 |
Two contributors account for most operational activity while several existing licensed users demonstrate limited participation during the review period.
Traditional Assessment
Using a conventional review approach, decision makers might focus on:
- 130 completed tasks
- 91 incidents
- Active use of ServiceNow
- Small support team
A traditional assessment could conclude:
While intuitive, this approach evaluates demand rather than value.
Utility-Based Assessment
Step 1: Organizational Dependency
The group demonstrates a legitimate reliance on ITSM capabilities.
Indicator Assessment| Incident Management | Present |
| Change Management | Limited |
| Escalation Activity | None |
| On-Call Coverage | None |
| Operational Support | Present |
Result
Dependency Assessment: Moderate
The group clearly benefits from existing ITSM licenses.
Step 2: Utilization Assessment
The utilization review produces different insights.
Observations
- Two contributors perform approximately 70% of assigned work.
- Several licensed users show minimal activity.
- 18% of workload lacks assignment ownership.
- Existing licensed capacity does not appear fully utilized.
Result
Utilization Assessment: Low to Moderate
Step 3: Marginal Utility Assessment
The critical question becomes:
What additional organizational value will be created by allocating another license?
The request documentation does not identify:
- New production support responsibilities
- Expansion of operational coverage
- On-call participation
- Capacity constraints
- Additional service demand
- New ownership responsibilities
As a result, the expected incremental value of another license appears minimal.
Result
Marginal Utility Assessment: Low
Governance Decision
Figure 5
Utility-Based Decision Outcome
Recommendation
License Decision: Decline
The organization demonstrates legitimate use of ITSM capabilities and derives value from its existing licenses. However, the available data does not indicate that current licensed capacity has been exhausted or that an additional license would create measurable operational benefit.
Several existing licensed contributors exhibit minimal activity, while operational work remains concentrated among a small subset of users. Furthermore, the request does not identify new responsibilities, increased service demand, or operational requirements that would justify incremental licensed capacity.
Accordingly, the request should be declined.
Key Learning
This example illustrates one of the framework's most important principles:
Organizational dependency establishes the need for ITSM capabilities; however, dependency alone does not justify allocation of additional scarce licenses.
A group may legitimately require ITSM licenses while simultaneously lacking a compelling business case for increasing its allocation. Under a utility-based governance model, the absence of demonstrated incremental value supports a decline decision even when the group is an active participant in ITSM processes.
This distinction prevents scarce enterprise resources from being allocated based solely on activity levels and instead aligns licensing decisions with expected organizational value.
Case Study: High Organizational Dependency with Demonstrated Incremental Value
Organizational Profile
A production support and application development team submitted a request for an additional ITSM Fulfiller license. The team supports several business-critical applications and is responsible for incident resolution, production changes, and operational support.
Table 1
Sample Group Operational Metrics
Metric Value| Active Members | 7 |
| Total Tasks (12 Months) | 1,245 |
| Incidents | 412 |
| Change Requests | 278 |
| Change Tasks | 391 |
| Escalated Incidents | 64 |
| On-Call Participants | 6 |
| Unassigned Tasks | 28 |
Workload Distribution
Table 2
Contributor Activity
Contributor Category Tasks| Contributor A | 284 |
| Contributor B | 241 |
| Contributor C | 196 |
| Contributor D | 171 |
| Contributor E | 154 |
| Contributor F | 123 |
| Contributor G | 48 |
| Unassigned | 28 |
Unlike many organizations reviewed, work is broadly distributed across the team rather than concentrated among one or two individuals.
The top six contributors all demonstrate substantial engagement in operational activities.
Traditional Assessment
A traditional review would likely conclude:
In this example, the traditional assessment and utility-based assessment reach the same outcome, but for different reasons.
Utility-Based Assessment
Step 1: Organizational Dependency
The team exhibits strong operational reliance on ITSM capabilities.
Table 10
Dependency Assessment
Indicator Assessment| Incident Management | High |
| Change Management | High |
| Escalation Activity | High |
| Production Support | High |
| On-Call Coverage | High |
Result
Dependency Assessment: High
The team's core responsibilities cannot be effectively performed without ITSM platform access.
Step 2: Utilization Assessment
Current licensed users demonstrate consistent and meaningful participation.
Observations
- Work is distributed across multiple contributors.
- All primary contributors exhibit significant operational engagement.
- Only 2% of activity is unassigned.
- On-call participation is broadly shared.
- Multiple users own incidents, changes, and escalations.
Result
Utilization Assessment: High
The available evidence suggests existing licensed capacity is actively leveraged.
Step 3: Marginal Utility Assessment
The requesting manager documented that the proposed user will:
- Participate in the production support rotation
- Join the on-call schedule
- Assume ownership of production changes
- Serve as backup support for critical applications
These responsibilities represent new operational coverage rather than passive group membership.
Result
Marginal Utility Assessment: High
The additional license is expected to increase operational capacity, improve resiliency, and expand support coverage.
Governance Decision
Figure 6
Utility-Based Decision Outcome
Recommendation
License Decision: Approve
The organization demonstrates substantial operational dependency on ITSM capabilities through change management, incident management, production support, escalation response, and on-call participation.
Existing licensed users show strong utilization, workload is broadly distributed, and assignment ownership data provides high confidence in the assessment. The request further demonstrates that the proposed user will assume active operational responsibilities that expand support capacity and reduce operational risk.
Accordingly, the request should be approved.
Key Learning
This example demonstrates the conditions under which the Utility-Based ITSM License Governance Framework supports allocation of an additional scarce license.
The approval is not based solely on workload volume. Instead, it is supported by three concurrent factors:
High Organizational Dependency
The team relies heavily on ITSM processes to fulfill core operational responsibilities.Strong Utilization of Existing Licenses
Current licensed users demonstrate broad and sustained engagement.Demonstrated Incremental Value
The additional license will expand operational coverage and provide measurable organizational benefit.
The case illustrates the central principle of the framework:
Scarce ITSM licenses should be allocated where organizational dependency is high, existing capacity is being effectively utilized, and the next license is expected to create measurable incremental value.
Case Study: High Organizational Dependency with Uncertain Incremental Value
Organizational Profile
A business application support team submitted a request for an additional ITSM Fulfiller license. The team supports a portfolio of operational applications and participates in incident response, change management, and production support activities.
Table 1
Sample Group Operational Metrics
Metric Value| Active Members | 12 |
| Total Tasks (12 Months) | 425 |
| Incidents | 145 |
| Change Requests | 102 |
| Change Tasks | 118 |
| Escalated Incidents | 27 |
| On-Call Participants | 7 |
| Unassigned Tasks | 96 |
Workload Distribution
Table 2
Contributor Activity
Contributor Category Tasks| Contributor A | 118 |
| Contributor B | 84 |
| Contributor C | 52 |
| Contributor D | 31 |
| Remaining Contributors | 44 |
| Unassigned | 96 |
Several contributors demonstrate meaningful activity, and the team clearly performs operational support work. However, a substantial portion of the workload lacks ownership attribution.
Traditional Assessment
A traditional review would likely conclude:
This approach focuses primarily on organizational activity.
Utility-Based Assessment
Step 1: Organizational Dependency
The organization demonstrates substantial reliance on ITSM capabilities.
Table 13
Dependency Assessment
Indicator Assessment| Incident Management | High |
| Change Management | High |
| Escalation Activity | Moderate |
| On-Call Participation | Present |
| Production Support | Present |
Result
Dependency Assessment: High
There is little doubt that the group requires ITSM licenses to perform its operational responsibilities.
Step 2: Utilization Assessment
The utilization review produces mixed results.
Positive Indicators
- Multiple contributors are actively engaged.
- The organization participates in change management.
- The organization participates in production support.
- Several users appear to own operational work.
Areas of Concern
- Approximately 23% of all tasks are unassigned.
- Participation outside the top contributors is limited.
- Existing capacity utilization cannot be fully validated.
- Ownership transparency is incomplete.
Result
Utilization Assessment: Moderate
Existing licenses appear to be providing value, but the data does not clearly indicate whether current capacity has been exhausted.
Step 3: Marginal Utility Assessment
The focal question becomes:
What additional value will be created by allocating another license?
The request states that the user will support the team; however, the submission does not specify whether the individual will:
- Join the on-call rotation
- Own incidents
- Own changes
- Provide production support coverage
- Assume new operational responsibilities
As a result, the expected benefit of an additional license cannot be reliably estimated.
Result
Marginal Utility Assessment: Uncertain
Governance Decision
Figure 7
Utility-Based Decision Outcome
Recommendation
License Decision: Additional Justification Required
The organization demonstrates a clear operational dependency on ITSM capabilities and derives significant value from existing licenses. Incident management, change management, production support, and on-call participation indicate that ITSM access is important to the group's mission.
However, the available data does not provide sufficient evidence to determine whether an additional license will create measurable incremental value. Existing workload distribution, assignment ownership, and utilization patterns suggest that current licensed capacity may be adequate, but incomplete ownership visibility limits confidence in that conclusion.
Before a final decision can be made, additional information should be provided regarding:
- The requestor's expected responsibilities
- Planned incident ownership
- Planned change ownership
- Participation in production support activities
- Participation in on-call rotations
- Any operational gaps the additional license is intended to address
Key Learning
This example demonstrates the importance of a third outcome within the governance framework.
Many licensing decisions are neither clear approvals nor clear rejections.
An organization may:
- Demonstrate significant operational dependency
Possess legitimate ITSM requirements
Generate substantial activity - while simultaneously lacking sufficient evidence to show that:
- Existing licensed capacity is fully utilized
The proposed license will create measurable incremental value
In these situations, the framework appropriately avoids both automatic approval and automatic rejection.
Instead, it requests additional evidence to determine whether the next scarce license will meaningfully improve organizational capability. This approach balances operational flexibility with responsible stewardship of limited enterprise resources.
