USM method: Point vs Counterpoint

Being both a USM groupie as well as committed to continual improvement, I thought I’d look at the case against the USM method. Besides, I STILL LIKE ITIL!

Arguments against the USM method might center around several points. I'll suggest a few counterpoints to consider.

POINT: Perception of Over-Simplicity

Critics might argue that the USM method, in its quest for simplicity, oversimplifies service management. They might contend that complex, large-scale organizations require more detailed and tailored frameworks, like ITIL, which offer comprehensive guidance across a wide range of service management activities.

COUNTERPOINT: Simplicity is necessary

While USM simplifies service management, this is intentional and necessary in a landscape where complexity often leads to inefficiency and confusion. USM’s approach distills service management down to its essentials, making it accessible and adaptable to any context. This simplicity doesn't equate to inadequacy but rather ensures that the fundamentals are strong and universally applicable, providing a solid foundation on which more complex practices can be built if needed.

Point: Lack of Prescriptive Guidance

While USM's flexibility is seen as a strength, some might view its lack of prescriptive detail as a weakness. Organizations that are used to more directive frameworks like ITIL might find USM's approach too broad, lacking the specific "how-to" guidance needed to implement changes effectively.

COUNTERPOINT: One-Size-Does-Not-Fit-All

The flexibility offered by USM is a feature, not a flaw. Instead of being tied to rigid, one-size-fits-all processes, organizations using USM can adapt the method to their specific needs, culture, and existing practices. This empowers organizations to innovate and evolve their service management practices in ways that are best suited to their unique circumstances, rather than being constrained by prescriptive guidelines.

POINT: Limited Adoption and Recognition

Compared to practice guidance like ITIL, the USM method is less widely adopted and recognized. Critics could argue that this limits its credibility and the availability of resources, training, and community support that more established frameworks offer.

COUNTERPOINT: Leaders Learn to Unlearn

While USM may not yet have the widespread recognition of frameworks like ITIL, its value lies in its universal applicability and simplicity. As more organizations seek ways to simplify and unify their service management practices across the enterprise, USM’s adoption is likely to grow. Early adopters of USM may find themselves at the forefront of a shift toward more streamlined and effective service management.

POINT: Perceived Redundancy

Some might see USM as redundant, particularly if they believe existing frameworks like ITIL, COBIT, or ISO 20000 already cover the necessary aspects of service management. They might argue that USM doesn’t offer anything fundamentally new or different that justifies switching from or supplementing these established methods. 

COUNTERPOINT: Unifying Service Management

USM is not redundant but rather complementary to existing frameworks like ITIL. It fills a critical gap by offering a simplified, universal and unified system that can integrate various practice frameworks and standards. While other frameworks may cover specific aspects of service management, USM provides a cohesive structure that brings these elements together, ensuring consistency and alignment across the entire enterprise.

POINT: Scalability Concerns

In large, complex organizations, the simplicity of USM might be seen as a drawback when trying to scale service management practices across diverse departments or geographies. Critics might argue that USM’s universal approach might not adequately address the nuanced needs of different parts of a large organization.

COUNTERPOINT: Simple IS Scalable!

USM’s simplicity actually enhances scalability. By focusing on universal principles that apply across different service areas and organizational structures, USM provides a consistent framework that can be scaled up or down as needed. This makes it easier to manage service management across large, complex organizations, as it avoids the pitfalls of overly complicated processes that can hinder scalability.

POINT: Integration with Existing Frameworks

While USM is designed to complement other standards and frameworks, some might argue that integrating USM with existing methods like ITIL, Agile, or DevOps could create confusion or overlap, leading to inefficiencies.

COUNTERPOINT: USM is NOT a Framework!

USM is designed to be integrated with other methods and standards, not to replace them. Its universal management architecture can serve as a foundation upon which detailed practice guidance, reference frameworks, or standards can be applied. Rather than creating confusion, USM simplifies the overarching service management system, making it easier to implement and integrate multiple practices in a coherent way.

POINT: Resistance to Change

Organizations heavily invested in ITIL or similar frameworks may resist adopting USM, viewing it as an unnecessary change or an additional layer of complexity. The cost and effort of transitioning to a new method might outweigh perceived benefits, particularly if the existing framework is already working well for them.

COUNTERPOINT: Learn to Unlearn!

Resistance to change is a common challenge with any new methodology, but the benefits of USM—such as reduced complexity, increased flexibility, and applicability across all service areas—far outweigh the initial discomfort of adopting a new approach. Organizations that embrace USM can streamline their service management processes, leading to long-term gains in efficiency, effectiveness, and agility.

POINT: Focus on Universality

Critics might argue that the emphasis on universality could dilute the effectiveness of USM in specialized areas, such as IT-specific service management, where more focused frameworks like ITIL might offer better results.

COUNTERPOINT: Service Management is Everyone’s Job!

USM’s focus on universality does not dilute its effectiveness; rather, it enhances its applicability across diverse service environments. By providing a flexible, foundational structure, USM allows organizations to tailor their service management practices to meet specific needs while maintaining consistency and coherence across the enterprise. This universality is precisely what makes USM so powerful, as it can be adapted to any context, regardless of the industry or service type.

While these criticisms of the USM method are understandable, they often stem from a misunderstanding of USM's purpose and design. The USM method is intentionally simple to provide a universal framework that can be adapted across any service context, rather than being limited to IT or another specific domain.

Its lack of prescriptive guidance isn't a weakness but rather a strength, allowing organizations to tailor their service management system to their unique needs without being constrained by overly detailed directives. The simplicity of USM makes it scalable and flexible, ideal for organizations seeking to unify service management across diverse areas without getting bogged down in unnecessary complexity.

Moreover, concerns about USM’s limited recognition or perceived redundancy often miss the point that USM is not competing with existing frameworks but rather complementing them. It’s designed to work alongside methods like ITIL, filling in gaps by providing a universal structure that’s applicable across the entire enterprise, not just within IT.

The real issue may be that many professionals do not fully understand that USM is not practice-oriented; it’s a method that focuses on creating a simplified, consistent service management system that can integrate various practices and standards. This is precisely what’s needed today, as enterprises face increasing complexity and the need for agility.

The challenge, then, is not that USM is lacking but that there’s a need to 'unlearn' entrenched practices and mindsets that equate complexity with effectiveness. In this light, USM’s simplicity isn’t a limitation—it’s a vital tool for the future of service management.

"The hardest part of the learn, unlearn, relearn approach is unlearn. Most people are familiar with learning, but unlearning is often a new concept. It is more than forgetting something you learned some time ago, like how to speak French. It is about making space for new ideas and perspectives. To do that, you must let go of ingrained ways of thinking and operating to make way for relearning."

Ferris, Karen. Be REMARKABLE!: Learn to Unlearn: The New Leadership Mindset (p. 14). Karen Ferris. Kindle Edition.

Take the time to understand the USM method.

Check out the WIKI. Buy the book or subscribe to the online publication. Contact me for a FREE Workshop. Check out the Rolling Uphill YouTube Channel. Ask question over at the USM Public Forum.

USM is supported by the non-profit SURVUZ Foundation and so is very affordable!

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.