Why Companies Should Reevaluate Their ITSM Strategy Now

Few other software programs map as many business-critical processes as an IT service management platform does. Tickets, service processes, workflows, asset data, knowledge bases, and documentation converge here. Now, imagine your organization losing access to all these areas, not due to a cyberattack but due to a political decision made somewhere in the world.

The Berlin IT Service Center's collaboration with ServiceNow to develop a central ITSM platform for the nationwide Justice Cloud highlights the significance of modern service management solutions for government and businesses. However, with Chancellor Merz himself calling for greater digital sovereignty, companies and public institutions must ask themselves an important question: How dependent do they want to be on individual technology providers in the future?

This question does not arise because international software providers deliver poor products. In fact, quite the contrary is true: ServiceNow, Atlassian, BMC, Ivanti, and Freshworks have had a decisive impact on the ITSM market in recent years and offer powerful, mature platforms.

The broader context, however, has changed. When the U.S. imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court in The Hague, many realized how quickly digital dependencies can have practical consequences. Suddenly, the focus shifted from a platform's technical security to who ultimately controls access, data, and digital services. With access to more advanced language models disabled for non-U.S. citizens, history is repeating itself.

The term "vendor lock-in" is not new. For years, companies have been aware of this problem: Those who tightly integrate their processes, interfaces, and data sets with a particular platform cannot easily switch to a new provider. However, geopolitical shifts are leading to a change in perspective.

For a long time, the focus was on costs, migration efforts, and contract terms. Now, however, managing risk within their supply chains is becoming increasingly important, as are issues of digital sovereignty. Many organizations want to decide where their systems are operated, who has access to their data, and which legal framework governs their critical processes. Consequently, cloud-first strategies are also being scrutinized more closely. For many companies, these strategies are economically attractive and make sense. However, others—particularly government agencies, operators of critical infrastructure, and heavily regulated industries—are now taking a more critical view of the dependencies involved.

The Cloud Act has become a symbol of this issue because it allows the U.S. government to access data stored on EU servers by U.S. companies, creating a clear risk factor. This raises several questions: In case of doubt, who retains control over data, processes, and digital services? How vulnerable are our business processes? This is particularly relevant in service management, where numerous indispensable processes converge for a company’s day-to-day operations. The more central a platform becomes, the more carefully one should consider whom one becomes dependent on and under what conditions.

However, the current debate should not be interpreted as a fundamental critique of established vendors. ServiceNow has significantly shaped the enterprise service management market, setting standards in many areas due to its widespread adoption. In particular, Atlassian has driven the integration of IT operations and software development with Jira. Other vendors, such as BMC, Ivanti, and Freshworks, also offer robust solutions with clear areas of focus. Many companies have chosen these platforms for good reason.

Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly important to consider the strategic options companies will want in the future and how flexibly they can respond to changing requirements. This is why many CIOs and other decision-makers are now looking for open-source alternatives.

For a long time, open-source solutions were primarily viewed as a cost-effective "Plan B" for smaller organizations. This perception no longer reflects reality. Today, a wide range of professional open-source solutions for IT service management (ITSM) and enterprise service management are being used by companies, public institutions, and IT service providers.

Established solutions include Znuny, Zammad, GLPI, KIX, Otobo, iTop, and other specialized programs. Different areas of focus have emerged. Some platforms focus on ticket management and streamlined support processes. Others excel in asset or configuration management.

These trends demonstrate that open source is no longer solely defined by licensing costs. Transparency, security, adaptability, open standards, and reducing technological dependencies are becoming increasingly important.

In recent years, it has become important for companies to cover as many processes as possible within their ITSM platform and to take a holistic approach. Rarely do they look for "just" a ticketing system. In demand are platforms that seamlessly integrate service management, asset management, process automation, and reporting. Added to this are mobile use cases, self-service options, and integration with existing enterprise applications.

Against this backdrop, interest is growing in solutions that bring together these different requirements within a single platform while offering enough flexibility for customization. Of course, there must be a choice between cloud and on-premises operation. For example, Atlassian has decided to discontinue all Jira Data Center products starting in March 2029. Due to the pricing model, the cloud is essentially required, but I consider the decision to eliminate the on-premises option entirely to be questionable.

This is why transparent data structures and flexible operating models are becoming increasingly important. In my view, striking the right balance will be crucial in the future. Companies need powerful tools, but they also want to avoid becoming overly dependent on individual technology providers. Therefore, digital sovereignty does not mean self-sufficiency. Above all, it means retaining options. That is why, for years, we at KIX have pursued an approach that combines open standards, flexible operating models, and the greatest possible independence from proprietary structures.

The discussion about digital sovereignty is often framed as a comparison of technologies. But there’s more to it than that. Not every organization needs maximum independence. Not every company has to rely on open source. And not every cloud solution is automatically problematic. However, every organization should know which technologies it depends on—and what consequences these dependencies could have in an emergency. That’s risk management.

The most important question, therefore, is how much control companies want to retain over their data, processes, and future options for action. Digital sovereignty doesn’t begin with data centers, networks, or AI platforms. It begins where companies manage their core service and business processes. That is precisely why it is worth examining your own ITSM strategy today not only from technical and economic perspectives, but also in terms of long-term operational flexibility. After all, the most important characteristic of a platform should be the freedom to decide its own future.

Stay in control!

Maintain full control of your data and processes. Let's work together to explore how to successfully transition to an open-source, digitally sovereign alternative.

• Make an appointment now