Process Alignment vs. Practice Integration: Part 1 - ITIL 4

In Part 1 of this series on Process Alignment vs. Practice Integration we'll look at ITIL 4. For general information on the series, see the introduction.

ITIL 4’s Approach to Practice Integration

ITIL 4 represents a significant shift from previous versions by moving away from rigid, process-centric models. Instead, it adopts a more flexible, value-centric approach that prioritizes collaboration, adaptability, and the seamless integration of best practices. The goal is to enable organizations to co-create value with stakeholders by optimizing value streams rather than focusing solely on individual processes.

At the heart of ITIL 4 are its guiding principles, which provide a philosophical foundation for service management practices. These principles are not prescriptive but offer a framework for thinking and decision-making that organizations can apply across their value streams.

The idea is that by applying ITIL 4’s guiding principles, organizations can create a flexible, integrated service management system that leverages the strengths of multiple frameworks without becoming bogged down in complexity.

ITIL 4: Process Alignment or Practice Integration?

ITIL 4’s approach to practice integration can be seen as a form of process alignment rather than true integration because, at its core, it still emphasizes adjusting and synchronizing different processes to fit together cohesively.

Emphasis on Aligning Practices to Processes

In ITIL 4, practices are essentially collections of activities often mapped to processes like Incident Management, Change Enablement, and Service Request Management.

While the framework promotes flexibility and modularity, organizations are still expected to align these practices to their overall service value chain and operational model. This results in an emphasis on harmonizing the flow of these activities and ensuring they "fit" within an overarching process architecture.

To use ITIL 4 effectively, organizations often need to structure their service management workflows in a way that ensures different practices don’t clash with each other. This requires creating touchpoints and dependencies between practices that lead to aligned processes rather than a truly integrated system. The need to adjust and synchronize these processes often creates complexity and operational inefficiency.

Limited True Process Integration

True integration involves merging different practices seamlessly into a unified system where the activities are naturally embedded and interact without friction. In ITIL 4, practices remain as modular sets of guidance, meaning they aren’t fully integrated into a core process model. Organizations must still align these practices manually, often creating interfaces and interdependencies that add to the administrative overhead.

For example, if an organization implements both Incident Management and Change Enablement, ITIL 4 provides guidance on how these practices should interact. However, the responsibility falls on the organization to align these processes effectively, often requiring complex governance structures to manage interactions and dependencies. This isn’t true integration; it’s a strategic effort to align separate elements to work together smoothly.

Risk of Overlapping and Redundancy

When trying to align different practices, organizations can run into issues like overlapping responsibilities and redundant activities. ITIL 4’s approach often requires organizations to re-engineer or customize their processes to align with the framework's best practices, which can lead to inefficiency. The effort to align these practices across different value streams creates a web of processes that need constant oversight and adjustment.

Imagine an organization using ITIL 4’s Problem Management, Incident Management, and Change Enablement practices. While these are intended to work together, ensuring that they align perfectly often results in duplicated activities, such as similar investigation procedures occurring in both Problem and Incident Management. The integration is more about aligning these activities to avoid conflicts rather than achieving a seamless flow.

Lack of a Unified Core Process Model

ITIL 4 lacks a universal core process model that can standardize how practices interact across the board. Instead, it relies on organizations to customize and align their processes to the framework's guidance. This is fundamentally different from a method like USM, which provides a stable, consistent process architecture where practices can be integrated without altering the core processes.

USM’s approach allows practices to be tailored at the procedural or work instruction level, ensuring that they fit naturally into a unified process structure. USM’s five core processes remain stable and serve as a foundation, allowing for seamless integration of practices without the need for complex process alignment.

Guiding Principles Encourage Alignment, Not Integration

ITIL 4’s guiding principles, like “Think and Work Holistically” and “Start Where You Are,” encourage organizations to take a holistic view of their service management system. However, these principles often lead to strategic alignment rather than true integration. Organizations are encouraged to adapt and align their practices to achieve coherence, but this still involves a process of mapping and harmonizing separate elements.

The guiding principles promote a flexible and iterative approach, but they don’t inherently simplify the underlying complexity of managing multiple practices. Instead, organizations are left to align these practices to work together, which can still result in inefficiencies and governance challenges.

Practice Integration with the USM method

?While ITIL 4 does promote practice integration in theory, in practice, it often results in a form of process alignment. The need to align different ITIL practices within a service value system leads to complex interdependencies and administrative overhead.

USM simplifies service management by offering five core processes and eight standard workflows. Instead of aligning processes to ITIL’s model, USM integrates ITIL practices at a procedural level, preserving clarity and efficiency.

True integration, as achieved in the USM method, provides a more efficient and effective approach by embedding practices within a unified, stable process model, eliminating the need for constant realignment and governance.

Keep an eye on this series to see what's next...COBIT? Lean IT and DevOps? Technology Business Management (TBM)? Service Integration and Management (SIAM)? Stay tuned!

For more information, check out the USM Wiki , the eBook How to make a success of ITIL? 4 with USM , or contact me to arrange a free consultation.