Tag Archives: outcome-based thinking

If Service Management is about business value, then why don’t we talk about…Business Value?

October 5, 2026 Doug Tedder Leave a comment

Service management has always been about enabling business outcomes, yet many organizations still practice it as a technology management discipline. The question isn’t whether service management understands business value—the question is why organizational leadership, and IT cultures often fail to frame it that way.

Why we don’t understand

There are several reasons why service management is misunderstood—from both IT and non-IT perspectives.

It’s an identity problem – Frameworks like ITIL^® have emphasized value creation, outcomes, and services for years. Yet in practice, many organizations still experience service management as a collection of operational processes. There’s a gap between the theory and the implementation.
The approach to service management adoption – This may have been one of the unintended consequences of widespread framework adoption. Organizations spent years implementing IT operational practices like incident management, change management, service request management, and maybe a few other practices…and stopped. Service management success was measured in terms of IT compliance with these practices and IT-defined performance measures rather than organizational outcomes. The conversation became “Did we follow the process?” instead of “Did the process improve customer outcomes?”

And when that happens, the organization naturally associated service management with bureaucracy instead of value creation.

Leadership delegated – or ignored – service management instead of owning it – Many executives view service management as something to delegate to IT rather than as a management discipline that spans the enterprise. Consider how CEOs typically discuss strategic priorities in terms of customer experience, digital transformation, innovation, growth, and operational resilience. Rarely do CEOs discuss service management as a strategic differentiator. Ironically, these strategic priorities depend on the outcomes from good service management to realize strategic success.
IT made service management about itself – IT initiated an implementation project without inviting non-IT colleagues to be part of the strategy or design of service management. As a result, many service management implementations are focused only on the work of (some parts of) the IT organization and not on the business of the business.
IT reinforces the misconception – Many IT organizations continue to define themselves by technology rather than by the services and business outcomes they enable. Ask an infrastructure team what they do, and you’ll likely hear about managing servers, networks, cloud platforms, and endpoints.

Ask non-IT colleagues what they need, and you’ll hear things like closing sales, shipping products, collaborating with employees, and processing customer orders. Those are entirely different conversations. Technology should be discussed as an enabler, not the objective.

Why this matters now

I think the rise of AI makes this conversation even more important.

AI can make individual tasks dramatically faster. It can summarize incidents, route requests, answer questions, generate code, and automate workflows. But as I’ve said before, AI cannot compensate for a poorly designed service operating model. If the underlying service is fragmented, the data is inconsistent, ownership is unclear, or processes optimize local efficiency instead of customer outcomes, AI simply accelerates those shortcomings.

Organizations that will benefit most from AI won’t necessarily have the best AI. But they will have the clearest understanding of:

the services they provide
the outcomes those services are meant to achieve
the governance to continually improve them

That’s the domain of mature service management—not as an IT function, but as a business capability.

Imagine a sales organization whose “service” is enabling representatives to close deals. If requests for pricing, CRM access, and contract approvals bounce across siloed teams and misaligned tools, AI chatbots and copilots will only help sales reps get faster (but poor) answers to a broken process. When service management focuses on the end-to-end sales outcome instead, AI can amplify a well-designed service rather than accelerate dysfunction.

It’s about the business

Here’s the deeper issue.

Many organizations still see service management as running services. I think the future of service management is managing the enterprise through services.

That’s a subtle but profound distinction. “Running services” is concerned with system availability, meeting SLAs, and resolving incidents. “Managing the enterprise through services” asks (and provides answers to) the following questions:

Are customers accomplishing what they came here to do?
Are employees able to deliver value without unnecessary friction?
Are our services adapting as customer needs change?
Are we creating outcomes that strengthen the business?

The first perspective is operational.

The second is strategic.

The opportunity is there…if we only take it

For me, that’s the opportunity for the profession. Service management doesn’t need to reinvent itself; it needs to reclaim its original purpose; it needs to reframe the conversation. Instead of being known for process governance or just as a service desk, it should be recognized as the discipline that enables organizations to consistently deliver value, improve experiences, and adapt with confidence.

In that framing, here are examples of some of the clearest indicators that service management is succeeding:

Employee Experience – Employees spend more time creating value and less time dealing with technology challenges.
Customer experience – Customer interactions are easier, which helps drive improved satisfaction.
Revenue protection – Effective service management protects existing revenue by minimizing or eliminating the impact of disruptions to customer-facing systems.
Time-to-market – New products and services reach customers faster.
Strategic Execution – Good service management ensures that technology investments support, deliver, and sustain strategic goals and objectives.

When executives talk about digital transformation, operational resilience, and customer experience, they are already talking about the outcomes of service management—even if they don’t use that language.

It’s time for service management professionals to help leadership reframe the conversation from “IT processes” to “services that deliver strategic business outcomes.”

Customer Experience, Governance, Leadership

From Behaviors to Business Value: A Customer Experience Framework for Operationalizing CX

August 2, 2026 Doug Tedder

Customer Experience (CX) is broadly defined as a customer’s overall perception of a company or brand based on all their interactions with it. This spans every step of the journey, such as visiting a website or store, interacting with customer service, using a product or service, or receiving follow-ups, emails, or support.

For example, if you quickly find what you need on a website, get helpful support when you have a problem, or receive your product on time, you’d likely say that the company provides good CX. However, if any of those things go poorly, you’d probably say that you had a bad CX.

This simple example highlights the core challenge of CX. CX – good or bad – is based on the perception of the customer. While companies do not control the customer perception, they can influence it through the experiences they design and deliver.

Business leaders know CX matters. But many businesses struggle to connect CX to employee behaviors, business decisions, budgets, and organizational priorities.

It’s not that these organizations aren’t collecting customer experience metrics. They are measuring customer reactions rather than intentionally designing the experience. More importantly, they are not linking those experiences to business results.

Are you focused on the effect rather than the cause?

Many organizations treat CX as a “soft” discipline and rely heavily on perception-based metrics. For example, surveys and measures like NPS and CSAT focus only the perception of the customer post-interaction. This reactive approach provides limited insight into business results, resulting in CX being viewed separately from business performance. This makes it difficult for business leaders to justify CX investments because they cannot connect investments to business outcomes.

Having said that, CX is a key differentiator as products and services become more similar and commoditized. Poor CX can (and will) drive customers away – even if the product itself is good.

In the face of “doing something rather than nothing”, business leaders often invest in “last mile” customer-facing capabilities in reaction to poor CX scores. Organizations invest in digital capabilities like mobile apps, AI chatbots, and self-service portals as they perceive that customers prefer these channels for interaction. They invest training and coaching programs within the contact centers to teach skills like structured problem-solving or empathy. Or they invest in workforce management tools and flexible staffing models to better forecast and meet anticipated customer demand.

And while these investments may influence the customer perception in the moment, they still do not directly translate to business results. In fact, they often mask the real issues – poor system design, poor understanding of the customer journey, and a poor understanding of the underpinning foundation that enables good CX.

Where good CX actually starts

Good CX does not start at the digital channel or the interaction with a contact center. Not taking these steps in order results in the service and support provided at the last mile appearing to be an afterthought.

Good CX results from the following three steps:

First, understand the real-world issue customers are encountering through journey design. Journey design focuses on the human experience, mapping out the steps a customer takes to achieve a goal, uncovering their emotions, points of friction, and needs along the way.

The next step is to engineer a scalable user-friendly way for the customer to accomplish their goals and eliminate those points of friction. This is done via product and solution design. To be clear, product design focused on building a specific repeatable vehicle isn’t enough; the end-to-end infrastructure, software, and processes needed to deliver a solution must also be developed. (Design thinking is a good approach for product and solution design.)

The last step in enabling good CX is the intentional design of service and support. Intentionally designing the operational workflows, contact center procedures, knowledge bases, and contact channels to help customers before the customer needs help ensures that resolution to issues feel seamless and matches the experience designed during journey mapping.

Following these three steps shifts the focus from reacting to the feedback of the day to proactively developing and delivering the CX the organization wants. Now CX becomes measurable in a way that is relevant and meaningful to the business.

A framework for measuring CX

When it comes to measuring CX, most organizations focus on the effect, rather than the cause. This focus on the effect often results in organizations investing in things that may not move the needle when it comes to realizing business outcomes from CX.

Building on the foundation of journey design, followed by product and solution design, and finally to purposeful design of service and support, organizations can focus on identifying and implementing CX measures that are relevant to organizational strategy and business results. Drawing on established performance management principles, a simple cause-effect-business outcome CX framework (similar to service value streams) can be used to measure and evaluate CX.

Cause – “Cause” represents behaviors that are within the control of the organization. The cause consists of employee behaviors and operational activities that shape the customer experience. Employees that follow through on commitments, demonstrate ownership, and solve issues quickly shape a positive customer experience.
Effect – The effect represents what customers experience and perceive. This is where the traditional measures like NPS, CSAT, and survey responses belong, and reflect if the intended experience is being delivered.
Business Outcome – Business outcomes illustrate whether the customer experience is delivering business value. Business results and value are typically depicted in an organization’s goals and objectives, and represent targets like revenue growth, customer retention, reduced customer churn, and lower service costs. When measures connect cause to effect to business outcomes, CX evolves from being just a customer service initiative to a business discipline.

This is not to say that perception measures like NPS and survey feedback are no longer needed or useful – they are. But too many organizations consider perception metrics to be the goal, which it is not. Perception metrics help the organization understand if the customer is realizing the intended outcomes of product and service design.

Secondly, the strongest causes are both observable and measurable. It’s one thing to say that an organization demonstrates customer focus; it’s another thing to measure that customer focus in terms of response time, resolution quality, and commitment completion rates.

Lastly, keep in mind that not every behavior influences every business outcome. Organizations must first identify the causes that have both the greatest impact on customer experience and on business results.

Making CX Measurable and Meaningful

Making CX measurable and meaningful starts with shifting focus from what customers say to what drives their experience – and how that connects to business outcomes. Ask these three questions:

What customer behaviors or employee actions are we measuring as causes?
What customer perceptions are we measuring as effects?
What business outcomes are we expecting those experiences to produce?

If you can measure the effect but not identify the cause or connect it to a business result, your CX measurement framework is incomplete.

Service Management

Fear of collaboration: A silent killer of ESM initiatives

September 8, 2025 Doug Tedder

Is your Enterprise Service Management (ESM) initiative stuck? Does it feel like no one wants to talk about, much less support, ESM? Do you feel like you’re on an island? If these questions resonate with you, your ESM initiative may be a victim of a fear of collaboration.

Collaboration is when two or more people work together to achieve a common goal. Successful collaboration involves sharing responsibilities, supporting each other, and sharing risks. When people collaborate, they invest in the success of each other, and work as a team to overcome challenges to achieve shared goals.

Successful ESM requires collaboration. But to many, being asked to collaborate is intimidating. It’s uncomfortable. In some cases, it is counter to the culture of the organization. In other cases, it’s a threat to an individual’s sense of control, self-worth, or identity.

Collaboration can be downright scary.

Why are people afraid of collaboration?

People are often afraid of collaboration for several reasons. These reasons range from psychological, cultural, and organizational factors – factors that create obstacles to the effective collaboration needed for successful ESM.

This article from Harvard Business Review discusses the “blind spot” many leaders have when asking their teams to collaborate. Leaders often overlook the experience teams may have when invited to collaborate, such as when asked to divulge information, break down organizational silos, share resources, sacrifice autonomy, or even relinquish responsibilities that define them as a group. Rather than embrace the opportunities and successes that come with effective collaboration, some teams take on a defensive posture to protect their team identity, legitimacy, and sense of control.

An ESM initiative may encounter other barriers to collaboration. Some people fear appearing incompetent or weak when admitting gaps in their knowledge, especially in high performing organizations. Others are concerned about being indebted to others or having to reciprocate in the future, which can make collaboration feel transactional rather than mutually beneficial. In workplaces that highly value individual achievement and self-reliance, people may feel pressure to solve problems on their own. Collaboration can be seen as a weakness, discouraging people from reaching out for help or engaging.

Why good ESM is critical to success in the digital economy

Why is having and practicing good ESM so important for organizations now?

Having reliable and responsive technology solutions is critical for business success in the digital economy. The digital economy moves at digital speeds. Understanding the organizational value streams – how work and value flow through an organization – is foundational for reliable, repeatable, and trustworthy digital interactions. Since technology is a critical factor in underpinning and executing organizational value streams, having a mutual understanding of the outcomes and value the organization wants to achieve is required. Good ESM enables and embeds that mutual understanding across the organization.

The customer experience will be significantly influenced by the interactions of customers with technologies provided by the organization. Those interactions must be frictionless, intuitive, and responsive – and in many cases, will not involve a human from the organization. Good ESM enables organizations to understand and continually improve how the technologies underpinning organizational value streams that face the customer.

Good ESM requires good collaboration

As I’ve stated before, ESM is not “ITSM for the rest of the organization”. ESM is holistic, organization-wide approach focused on value delivery, collaboration, and continual improvement, rather than just technology deployment. Good ESM is a strategic initiative that requires proper planning, leadership, and a focus on real business outcomes.

The focus of ESM must be on value streams and business outcomes, not implementing tools. Good ESM is achieved by aligning workflows and processes with organizational value streams and regular engagement among colleagues from across the organization to understand priorities and pain points and identify opportunities for improvement.

Good ESM relies on shared processes, increased collaboration, and improved communication across departments. This holistic approach enables organizations to leverage the full talents and competencies of the entire workforce, leading to better outcomes.[i]

Overcoming the fear of collaboration

While there is no “instant fix” that results in collaboration, there are some significant steps an organization can take to enable and motivate the collaboration required for ESM.

First, an ESM initiative requires executive sponsorship and a champion. Since good ESM requires a holistic approach, executive sponsorship is critical for helping tear down organizational silos. Equally as important is having an ESM champion. The champion not only represents the initiative at the senior levels of the organization but must also convey the vision for ESM. It must be emotionally compelling. Logical arguments alone are insufficient to overcome the deep-rooted emotional responses as discussed earlier.

Leaders must talk openly about the importance of psychological safety and make it an explicit team goal. Leaders should model inclusive leadership by actively soliciting input, showing vulnerability, and being approachable about mistakes. Associates have to feel safe to ask questions, experiment, and make mistakes.

The goals, expectations, and roles of the ESM initiative must be clearly communicated from the start. Leaders must define clear, mutual objectives so that everyone is working toward the same outcome. Regularly schedule check-ins to clarify any misunderstandings and to maintain alignment as the ESM initiative evolves.

Finally, having the right person lead the ESM initiative – and having the right people engaged – is key. Build an ESM team environment where team members feel safe to voice ideas and concerns without judgment. Encourage empathy and understanding among team members. Celebrate and reward knowledge sharing, but just as importantly, celebrate the learning that comes from failures.

Move toward a collaborative ESM initiative

Here are some suggestions for overcoming collaboration challenges and getting your ESM initiative moving in the right direction.

Establish the shared purpose – Why is ESM so important for the future of the organization? In his book, Start with Why, Simon Sinek wrote “people don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it. And what you do simply proves what you believe.” [ii] Without the strong and compelling “why”, ESM efforts will not return the expected benefits.
Have a plan – ESM is not just extending the ITSM tool across the enterprise. ESM must be seen as a business strategy, not just a technology or IT initiative.
Make collaboration a personal objective – Start actively listening to others’ ideas and perspectives with empathy. This creates a foundation for trust and respect, which will open the door for more meaningful interactions and collaboration.

Effective service management is a key to success in the digital economy. But the future of service management is not within the IT department, but within the enterprise. Good ESM requires good collaboration across an organization to realize success.

[i] https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/20429/626830

[ii] Sinek, Simon. Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. New York: Portfolio, 2009

Service Management

Start with Reporting first then Measurement

March 11, 2024 Doug Tedder

What are some common reasons why IT organizations measure and report metrics? Unfortunately, in my experience, the answers are not always the greatest.

“We produce this report / measure this indicator because we always have.”
“We measure this indicator because everyone else we know does.”
“We produce this measure because our tools enable us to.”
“We read/heard about this measure in a magazine/training class, and it sounded like something we should be doing.”
“My boss expects to see this report.”

Like I said, not the best reasons that I’ve ever heard.

The purpose of measurement and reporting is to enable fact-based decision making. But if no one is making any kind of decisions from your reports, then you’re not capturing and providing the right measures to the right people in your reports. Perhaps you should apply outcome-based thinking and start with reporting first, then measurement!

Are your measures and reports telling the (right) story?

The fact is that regardless of the quality of your measures and reports, a story is being told. But is it the story that needs to be told?

But what you measure, what you report, and the story that is told within those reports is the difference between enabling valuable insights and actions and just noise and confusion. Here are some common measuring and reporting mistakes:

Mistaking outputs for outcomes. Many reports contain measures that confuse activity (outputs) with accomplishments (outcomes). In other words, just because you closed the incident record, or answered the telephone within 60 seconds, doesn’t mean that you’ve accomplished any kind of result.
Only focused on the Service Desk. Measures that are meaningful and relevant to the service desk have little to no meaning outside of the service desk. No one outside of the service desk really cares about measures like ASA or utilization.
Missing business-oriented measures. In today’s digital enterprise, technology is integrated with business processes – so integrated that businesses cannot function without technology. But IT-produced technology-based measures and reports typically do not reflect the business of the business.
The infamous “watermelon SLA” report. The measures that IT reports do not reflect the experience of the consumer. IT hits its (self-defined) targets, pats itself on its back, but then wonders why customers aren’t happy. Well…
“Customer satisfaction” isn’t about the customer – part 1. First, many IT organizations conflate the terms “customer” and “user.” Remember, a customer defines the requirements for a service and signs a service level agreement (SLA). Users do not sign SLAs. Yet IT organizations send out satisfaction surveys to users and call that “customer satisfaction.”
“Customer satisfaction” isn’t about the customer – part 2. Secondly, the surveys that are being sent out to users are often not returned. And if they are returned, it is typically from people who are not happy with the interaction that they just had with IT. Yes, occasionally you get a response from a happy user. Yes, it’s good to know that users have had a poor experience. But regardless of the response, IT continues to send out the same surveys, containing the same questions, reporting the same measures, and nothing changes– good or bad – about user interactions with IT.

Not having consistent, relevant, and meaningful performance measures and reports damages the reputation and value of IT. What’s worse, measurement and reporting are activities often done as an afterthought.

Start with reports first

Starting with a “reports first” mindset will dramatically improve the usability and impact of your reports. How can you apply outcome-based thinking to measurement and reporting? In other words, how to start with reporting first?

Identify the audiences for your reports. Yes, audiences – plural. At a minimum, your audiences will be consumers, IT management, senior executives, and the service desk team. Keep in mind that each audience will have unique reporting requirements. For example, reports that you may provide to senior executives will be different than reports that you may provide to consumers; reports that you may provide to service desk staff will be different than reports that you may provide to other IT colleagues.

What does each audience want to know? Why do they need to know this information? What will they do with the information? What decisions do they need to make? Do they have performance objectives or targets that rely on this information? How frequently do they need the information?

What do you want your audiences to know? Why do you need them to know this information? What would you like them to do with the information? What decisions do you want them to make?

By identifying what your audiences want to know, as well as what you need to tell them, you’ll identify the specific measures that you will need to capture, monitor, and report…but there’s still more to do.

Does the data to develop these reports exist?
Can the data for each measure be captured?
Is the data coming from a source that can be controlled?

If the answer to the above questions is “yes,” you’re on your way to providing the measures and reports your audiences need – and value. But if the answer is “no,” never fear. This just means that you and your audiences will have to do some more work and negotiate what can be done that will meet your audience’s needs.

Make your reports measure up!

Do your reports measure up (pardon the pun!)? Here are my suggested steps for getting your approach to measurement and reporting up to speed.

Audit your current reports. Do you know the audience for each of your reports? Are you “missing” an audience for reporting? Do you know what decisions are made from what is reported?
Develop decision maps for each published measure. What decisions are enabled by a published measure? Who makes or should be making decisions based on the measure? What may potentially no longer need to be reported?
Compare published measures with the organization’s Mission, Vision, Goals, and Objectives (MVGO). Are your measures strictly technology or process measures? What measures are needed to relate the activities of your team or department to MVGO?
Review your reports with your audiences and gather feedback. Yes, meet with the receiver of each report and walk through your current reports with them. Ask questions about their job function, business contributions, and goals for their team. Ask them to tell you what measures they need to act upon or make decisions. This does a few things for you. One, it helps you understand how reports are being used. Two, it provides you with insight into another area of the organization. Three, it builds and enhances your reputation as a business-focused (not just technology-focused) colleague.

Effective measuring and reporting don’t happen by chance. Starting with reporting first will result in better measures, better decisions, and better value.

Do your reports measure up? Do you need reporting that drives good decision-making and tells the right story? Contact Tedder Consulting today for an no-obligation chat about how to tune-up your reporting and measuring!