How to determine value in real life

[major li]

Hi Community,

From the product document, I am aware of the following methods. 

Value (score_value field) is calculated as (*) 

a. Impact (60%)

Low: ❤️ locations and/or 1 Business Unit/Central Function
Medium: ≥3 locations and/or >1 Business Unit/Central Function
High: >15 locations and/or > 2 Business Units/Central Functions

b. Financial Return (40%):

10 if Financial Return >$1M

9  if $750K< Financial Return < $1M

8  if $500K< Financial Return < $750K

6 if $250K< Financial Return <  $500K

4 if $100K< Financial Return < $250K

2 if $50< Financial Return <$100K

1 if $0< Financial Return <$50K

However, in your daily work as a demand manager, are you following this? I have 2 recent case

1. a demand is submitted to pull data from SAP to cmn_location table. From the measurement, is the impact high? 

2. in the screening phase, when stakeholders are asked to assess the strategic alignment. one of the question is "does the demand align with strategic priority of the organization?". what if this demand aligns with business strategy, but they found wrong IT product to implement the demand? for example, aws may be more suitable for servicenow in some cases. how to make sure the demand management process align the right product with the right demand?

Thank you. 

[Shashank_Jain · Accepted solution]

@major li ,

• Product Scoring (Impact 60% + Financial Return 40%) is baseline guidance, but in practice demand managers adapt it with qualitative inputs, strategic alignment, and resource availability.

• Case A – SAP → cmn_location: Could be High Impact if data is used across many locations/business units; scope must be clarified before scoring.

• Case B – Strategic alignment vs. solution fit: A demand can align with business strategy but propose the wrong IT product.

  • Treat alignment (business need) separately from solution fit (technology choice).

  • Demand may be approved, but solution re-evaluated (via architects/governance).

• Best Practice: Don’t rigidly follow scoring; validate impact scope; separate demand alignment from solution fit; use governance (Architecture Review Board, portfolio managers) to ensure the right product is chosen.

[phil_bool_unifi]

I work as a partner of ServiceNow, so I've implemented this solution for a lot of customers.  The majority do not leverage the calculation you mention.  My belief is this is just an example configuration. 

In most cases, customers using SPM Pro prefer to use a Scoring Framework to analyse the value of their Demands and Projects side-by-side.  The scoring framework can quickly and easily be configured to show fields that are relevant to the use case, and roll up values in sub-totals and totals using simple calculations.  If you need to configure a scoring framework that's specific to you and you have access to SPM Pro, the Strategic Planning Workspace's Scoring Framework is definitely the way to go.

In cases where the customer only has Standard, or isn't ready to adopt the SPW (although these are now very few), I typically update the Assessment used to capture the data, and update the calculation rules in the assessment so the values align to the customer's needs.  

You mention pulling data from SAP to the cmn_location table.  I'm presuming you're actually putting the demand record into dmn_demand?  Given the very poor experience SAP's UI typically gives users, a well-built record producer may shortcut your entire process, and give you a huge time-saving advantage.

[kaushal_snow]

Hi @major li ,

In ServiceNow's Demand Management, the Value score is a composite metric derived from two key components: Impact and Financial Return. This scoring framework helps assess and prioritize demands based on their potential value to the organization....

The Value score is calculated as follows:

Value = (Impact × 0.6) + (Financial Return × 0.4)
Impact is assessed based on the extent of the demand's effect:
High (Company-wide) = 10
Medium (Multiple Users) = 5
Low (Single User) = 1

Financial Return is evaluated based on the expected financial benefit:

$1M = 10

$750K–$1M = 9

$500K–$750K = 8

$250K–$500K = 6

$100K–$250K = 4

$50K–$100K = 2

< $50K = 1

[Shashank_Jain · Accepted solution]

@major li ,

• Product Scoring (Impact 60% + Financial Return 40%) is baseline guidance, but in practice demand managers adapt it with qualitative inputs, strategic alignment, and resource availability.

• Case A – SAP → cmn_location: Could be High Impact if data is used across many locations/business units; scope must be clarified before scoring.

• Case B – Strategic alignment vs. solution fit: A demand can align with business strategy but propose the wrong IT product.

  • Treat alignment (business need) separately from solution fit (technology choice).

  • Demand may be approved, but solution re-evaluated (via architects/governance).

• Best Practice: Don’t rigidly follow scoring; validate impact scope; separate demand alignment from solution fit; use governance (Architecture Review Board, portfolio managers) to ensure the right product is chosen.

[major li]

hi @Shashank_Jain ,

What you provide is truly insightful and I really like the statement "separate demand alignment from solution fit". 

Can I say that demand management is the process for the whole organization's benefit instead of a single IT department/product? and it will not be wise to determine a product during whole demand management process.

If I understood correctly, after the approval and before the complete of the demand, ONLY demand itself has been approved, not the solution. Then what will be your practice to integrate the solution fit after demand approval? have you design some event (like ARB/demand board) ?