ServiceNow is a worldwide IT Service Management platform. It aspires to be more, but ITSM is its core capability. In May 2021, the energy company Shell replaced ServiceNow with (strict) ServiceNow. ServiceNow began as a startup citizen development platform. As it grew to its IPO, it pivoted into a platform with a mix of base "global" applications that were highly configurable that still allowed for citizen development for cottage company applications. As it continues to grow, the scope of its global applications encompasses most of enterprise service management, not just ITSM.
Customization and technical debt. It is not uncommon for ServiceNow customers to have thousands of configurations that conflict with newer ServiceNow releases. The expressiveness (customizeability) of ServiceNow's global applications comes at a price. ServiceNow literature admonishes companies to customize but not configure. The most apt definition of a customization is when a company's configuration of ServiceNow conflicts with a future ServiceNow feature. Thus, each configuration made to a global application becomes technical debt. As we know, all debt accrues interest. When we pay, we pay extra to correct.
This is true of any commercial software. All customization of commercial software is technical debt. Shell's announcement is simply that it paid its technical debt with ServiceNow by pivoting their use of the platform to ServiceNow's base configuration.
Value conflict causes customization. In the presentation "Platforms as a Reflection of Values," Bryan Cantrell talked about how his company Joyent wanted to do things inconsistent with NodeJS' values, and how they tried to change those values. However, Node's values are tightly coupled to Javascript's values, which limited Joyent's ability to shift Node. By the end of the video, he announced that Joyent would pivot its technology stack to a platform more closely aligned to his company's values because it was foolish to try to change Node's. We customize software because we are trying to realign the platform's values to ours.
Changing values changed Shell's ServiceNow adoption. There are many flagship software companies such as Oracle, ServiceNow or Atlassian. Their corporate values are baked into their product offerings. From its founding to today, ServiceNow's values shifted away from the founder's vision of a citizen IT provider to an enterprise service management company. Shell's reimplementation of ServiceNow realigned Shell's company to the new ServiceNow culture. Hundreds of ServiceNow customers have similar journeys of re-implementing ServiceNow to adopt ServiceNow's newer vision over the past four years. We can only speculate whether that re-alignment was consistent with the customer's values.
Customization and technical debt. It is not uncommon for ServiceNow customers to have thousands of configurations that conflict with newer ServiceNow releases. The expressiveness (customizeability) of ServiceNow's global applications comes at a price. ServiceNow literature admonishes companies to customize but not configure. The most apt definition of a customization is when a company's configuration of ServiceNow conflicts with a future ServiceNow feature. Thus, each configuration made to a global application becomes technical debt. As we know, all debt accrues interest. When we pay, we pay extra to correct.
This is true of any commercial software. All customization of commercial software is technical debt. Shell's announcement is simply that it paid its technical debt with ServiceNow by pivoting their use of the platform to ServiceNow's base configuration.
Value conflict causes customization. In the presentation "Platforms as a Reflection of Values," Bryan Cantrell talked about how his company Joyent wanted to do things inconsistent with NodeJS' values, and how they tried to change those values. However, Node's values are tightly coupled to Javascript's values, which limited Joyent's ability to shift Node. By the end of the video, he announced that Joyent would pivot its technology stack to a platform more closely aligned to his company's values because it was foolish to try to change Node's. We customize software because we are trying to realign the platform's values to ours.
Changing values changed Shell's ServiceNow adoption. There are many flagship software companies such as Oracle, ServiceNow or Atlassian. Their corporate values are baked into their product offerings. From its founding to today, ServiceNow's values shifted away from the founder's vision of a citizen IT provider to an enterprise service management company. Shell's reimplementation of ServiceNow realigned Shell's company to the new ServiceNow culture. Hundreds of ServiceNow customers have similar journeys of re-implementing ServiceNow to adopt ServiceNow's newer vision over the past four years. We can only speculate whether that re-alignment was consistent with the customer's values.
Procurement is a reflection of values. If technology (i.e., platforms) reflect values, then procurement of technology is an investment in that technology's values. More specifically, our procurement is an investment in that technology company's values. By procuring, you are not only investing in the technology and how it enables your business. You are also adopting some of its values. Thus, when selecting technology, it helps to understand what values you are adopting in the technology & its company, or refuting in your own. Thus, procurement of technology is a reflection of values. The degree of customization that follows is the cultural conflict that procurement creates.
Are all customizations value-driven? Maybe not. But, many are.
--
Ben
In tenebris solus sto