A post by our guest editor, John Worthington.

After nearly fifty years in IT, I sometimes wonder if the weight I carry isn’t experience — it’s baggage.

Decades of “process-first” initiatives, endless levels (L1–L5), flowcharts, and frameworks have shaped how we think about service management. That history isn’t wasted, but it has left many of us struggling with a fundamental question:

👉 Are we really running on a management system, or just cobbling together pieces of process frameworks and calling it an operating model?

The Operating Model Dilemma

The phrase “operating model” has been claimed by just about everyone: business schools, consulting firms, TOGAF, and a dozen competing definitions on Wikipedia.

Sometimes it means structure. Sometimes governance. Sometimes a target state. Useful? Yes. Clear? Not always.

As Jan van Bon, architect of the USM method, likes to point out:

“Even the sheer existence of global standards is a sign of the overwhelming chaos we’ve created. Just try searching ISO for ‘process,’ ‘service,’ or ‘management’ — the results are a mess.”

The truth is, operating models often describe how an organization is arranged — but not how it consistently executes. They can tell you who sits on the Architecture Board, but not how incidents, changes, or requests actually flow in daily life.

And so, operating models become another layer of process baggage we carry forward.

How IT4IT Fits In

To be fair, there are serious attempts to define operating models for IT.

Take IT4IT. The Open Group describes it as:

“A standard reference architecture and operating model for IT that describes the essential components needed to run IT as a business.”

IT4IT is valuable — it provides a vendor-neutral reference architecture and a value-chain based operating model that helps IT organizations structure themselves more like other business domains.

But here’s the distinction:

  • IT4IT is a reference architecture. It lays out what should be in place to manage IT as a business.
  • USM is a management system. It provides the method — five non-redundant processes and eight workflows — that any service domain (IT, HR, Finance, Facilities, etc.) can actually use to execute consistently.

That difference matters. Operating models like IT4IT describe the blueprint. Management systems like USM supply the execution engine that makes it real.

Why USM Is Different

This is where the Unified Service Management (USM) method offers a third way.

USM is not another operating model, nor another framework. It is a management system — a method.

  • An operating model describes structure and intent.
  • A management system provides the architecture and method by which services are actually managed and improved.

With USM, every service organization — IT, HR, Facilities, Finance, you name it — can rely on the same universal backbone:

  • 5 non-redundant processes (Agree, Change, Recover, Operate, Improve)
  • 8 standard workflows (covering all customer-provider interactions)

As I wrote in Rolling Uphill:

“Unified service management requires a stable, underlying process model. Simplifying processes is an ongoing prerequisite to simplified automation.”

That’s not theory — it’s systems thinking applied in practice.

Why This Matters in 2025

The enterprise landscape today is fragmented.

We have ITIL, COBIT, TOGAF, APQC, DevOps, SAFe, Lean, XLA, and countless others. Each offers useful guidance. But without a unifying management system, organizations end up with what I call a practice zoo — a menagerie of overlapping models, none of which fully integrate.

USM doesn’t replace those practices. It harmonizes them. It acts as the execution engine behind the frameworks, providing one grammar of service management to tie it all together.

As Ken Wendle wrote in The VALUE Formula:

“Execution is the ultimate differentiator.”

That’s the real gap USM closes.

A Personal Note

When I look back at my own career — much of it in middle management, rolling that improvement ball uphill — I realize why this distinction matters so much to me.

I’ve seen organizations confuse process frameworks with management systems. I’ve watched operating model decks get filed away while frontline teams struggle to execute the basics.

And I’ve lived through decades of “shiny new objects” that promised to simplify service management but only added complexity.

As Peter Drucker reminded us:

“Results are always outside the organization.”

The USM method makes this real by ensuring that every provider — whether internal departments or external partners — is recursively aligned through the same customer-provider interaction model. At every level of the enterprise, the focus shifts back to the customer, so value creation is never lost in internal complexity.

That’s why USM feels different. It doesn’t ask you to throw away your frameworks, tools, or hard-won lessons. It gives you a universal method to execute, simplify, and unify.

Closing Thought

Would you call IT4IT an operating model? A reference architecture? A management system? A framework? Depending on which baggage you carry, you might argue any of those.

But USM sidesteps the definitional quagmire. Some mistake USM’s precision with definitions as academic nitpicking. In reality, it’s the opposite: without clear, shared terms, no management system can work. The point isn’t to debate endlessly, but to create the clarity needed so every provider — inside or outside the enterprise — can stay recursively aligned and keep execution focused on the customer.

That, to me, is the heart of service management. And the reason USM deserves a closer look.

👉 Question for you: When you hear “operating model,” what comes to mind first — structure, governance, or execution?

--/--

If you enjoyed John's post and it made you think about improving your own organization, please check out his USM Professional profile and his personal website, or better: contact John for a free consultation.
John has posted this blog earlier in his USM method News LinkedIN newsletter. If you want to read his posts when they're published - subscribe to John's channel.