The Hidden Risk in ITSM: When Cooperation Replaces Collaboration

In IT service management (ITSM), organizations often assume that cooperation between teams is sufficient to deliver value. However, cooperation, defined as working alongside each other within defined boundaries, differs fundamentally from collaboration, which requires shared goals, joint ownership, and integrated decision-making.

This article explores the risks of relying on cooperation instead of true collaboration through three real-world cases:

1. ITSM tool implementation in a transport company
2. Service owner role design in a banking institution
3. ERP deployment across manufacturing plants.

These examples demonstrate that the absence of collaboration not only creates operational inefficiencies but also ultimately prevents the realization of expected business benefits.

Introduction

Modern ITSM frameworks emphasize value co-creation, end-to-end service thinking, and cross-functional integration. Yet many organizations remain structured around silos, where teams cooperate but do not truly collaborate.

Cooperation typically involves:

• Defined roles and responsibilities
• Sequential workflows
• Limited interaction beyond handoffs

Collaboration, by contrast, requires:

• Shared objectives and outcomes
• Continuous interaction
• Joint accountability for value delivery

While cooperation enables the delivery of outputs, only collaboration ensures the realization of intended business value. The gap between these two modes of working introduces systemic risks that directly impact benefit realization.

Risk 1: Non-emerging value streams

Case: ITSM tool implementation in a major transport company (France)

The implementation of an ITSM tool aimed to standardize processes and improve service delivery. The initiative successfully digitized and formalized existing processes, revealing strong process maturity.

However, it exposed a fundamental limitation: the absence of true value streams.

Teams cooperated effectively:

• Processes were clearly defined and documented
• Interfaces between teams were formalized
• The tool enforced compliance and consistency

Yet collaboration was missing:

• No shared understanding of end-to-end value
• No ownership of the full service lifecycle
• Optimization remained local to each function

As a result, the organization achieved process excellence without value stream integration.

Consequences: benefits not realized

• End-to-end service optimization did not materialize. Processes were efficient individually but not as a whole.
• Customer experience improvements remained limited. Gains were not visible across the full customer journey.
• Automation potential was underexploited. Teams integration prevented meaningful workflow orchestration.
• Data-driven decision-making was fragmented. Metrics existed at the process level, but not at the value stream level.

Synthesis:

The organization expected value acceleration through digitalization, but achieved only process formalization, due to the absence of collaboration.

Risk 2: Inefficient handoffs

Case: Service Owner role in a major bank (France)

A banking institution introduced the service owner role to ensure end-to-end accountability across services. The role was designed to be inherently cross-functional.

Despite a clear design:

• Teams continued operating within silos
• Authority of the service owner remained limited
• Decision-making stayed within functional boundaries

Cooperation was present:

• Processes were followed
• Handoffs were executed formally

But collaboration was lacking:

• No shared ownership of service outcomes
• Limited alignment of priorities across departments
• Conflicts were escalated rather than resolved collectively

Consequences: benefits not realized

• True end-to-end accountability did not emerge. The service owner acted as a coordinator rather than an owner.
• Reduction in lead times was not achieved. Handoffs remained bottlenecks.
• Service quality improvements were inconsistent. Quality depended on silo performance
• Cross-functional prioritization failed. Local priorities overrode service-level optimization.

Synthesis:

The organization aimed for integrated service management, but achieved only role formalization, due to insufficient collaboration.

Risk 3: Strategic misalignment

Case: ERP implementation across two manufacturing plants

A manufacturing group implemented an ERP system with the strategic objective of enabling production flexibility between two plants.

At the group level:

• The goal required standardization and alignment

At the plant level:

• Each site prioritized its own needs
• Local optimization dominated decision-making

Cooperation existed:

• Both plants contributed to the implementation
• Requirements were gathered and implemented

However, collaboration was absent:

• No shared ownership of the strategic objective
• Limited willingness to compromise
• Governance did not enforce alignment

Consequences: benefits not realized

• Production flexibility was not achieved. Goods could not be manufactured interchangeably between plants.
• Economies of scale were reduced. Diverging configurations increased complexity.
• Operational resilience remained limited. Production could not be shifted in response to disruptions.
• Long-term IT costs increased. Variants within the ERP system introduced inefficiencies.

Synthesis:

The organization targeted strategic agility, but delivered locally optimized constraints due to a lack of collaboration.

Synthesis of risks and impact on value realization

Across the three cases, a consistent pattern emerges:

Risk type	Root cause	Operational outcome	Benefits not realized
Non-emerging value streams	No shared end-to-end ownership	Fragmented processes	No service optimization
Inefficient handoffs	Functional silos	Delays and rework	No efficiency gains
Strategic misalignment	Local vs global priorities	Diverging solutions	No strategic benefits

Cooperation enables output delivery. Collaboration enables benefit realization.

From Cooperation to Collaboration

To ensure the realization of expected benefits, organizations must shift toward collaboration:

• Establish shared outcomes: align all stakeholders around customer value and business outcomes.
• Enable cross-functional ownership: empower roles with real authority across silos.
• Design for value streams: manage and optimize end-to-end flows rather than isolated processes.
• Align governance with strategy: ensure local decisions support global objectives.

Conclusion

The three cases demonstrate that the primary risk in ITSM is not failure to execute, but failure to realize value.

When organizations rely on cooperation instead of collaboration:

• Processes exist, but value streams do not
• Roles exist, but ownership does not
• Systems exist, but strategy is not fulfilled

Ultimately:

No collaboration → No shared ownership → No end-to-end optimization → No realization of expected benefits.

Organizations that want to succeed in ITSM must move beyond coordinated silos and adopt collaborative, value-driven operating models.