Clients often ask me how as an external consultant I can get up to speed quickly on their ITSM issues, CMDB mess, or cost allocation challenges when their internal teams have lived with the problems for years. The truth is, it comes down to using a disciplined way of tackling issues that avoids getting lost in the details too early.
I rely on a straightforward framework that keeps things focused and moving forward. It works well in IT service management and Technology Business Management because these areas involve tangled data, conflicting stakeholder views, and long-standing customisations that resist change.
First, Restate the Problem Clearly
Everything starts with turning vague complaints into a precise question. Instead of accepting “our CMDB is inaccurate” at face value, I push to define what that really means. Which parts of the data matter most for incident impact or cost reporting? Who relies on it, and what decisions suffer when it’s wrong?
This step alone saves weeks. Internal teams sometimes skip it because they’re too close to the issues. By reframing, from “fix the CMDB” to “improve data accuracy for application services to reduce major incident downtime by 30%” the scope becomes manageable and measurable.
Build an Early Hypothesis
I don’t wait for perfect data before forming a view. Early on, based on initial workshops and a quick look at the instance, I propose a leading hypothesis. For a TBM project dragging on, it might be that most delays stem from inconsistent service mappings rather than tool limitations or finance team buy-in.
This guess directs where to dig next. It prevents scattered analysis across every possible cause. If data supports the hypothesis, we double down. If not, we pivot quickly to the next likely explanation. Over years, this approach has cut diagnostic time significantly compared to exhaustive reviews.
Break It Down MECE Style
Once the hypothesis exists, I split the work into streams that avoid overlap and leave no gaps, what we consultants call mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive, or MECE.
In a CSDM adoption project, streams might cover current-state assessment, target model design, data migration planning, governance setup, and change management. Each stream gets clear ownership, deliverables, and timelines. No duplicated effort on relationships across streams, and nothing critical falls between them.
This structure lets progress happen in parallel. Clients see momentum early, which builds confidence when projects feel overwhelming.
Why This Serves Clients Better
Internal teams excel at deep platform knowledge and relationships. Yet large initiatives often stall from competing priorities or lack of neutral facilitation. An external perspective combined with this structured method brings objectivity and pace.
Clients avoid boiling the ocean. They get targeted recommendations backed by evidence, not endless options. Risks surface early, and buy-in grows as stakeholders see logical progress.
Experience across dozens of ServiceNow environments shows this way delivers cleaner outcomes with less rework. It aligns well with frameworks like CSDM or TBM taxonomies, which demand the same disciplined thinking.
If you’re interested in bringing this structured approach to your own IT, ITSM or TBM challenges, whether that’s aligning CSDM, cleaning up a service catalogue, accelerating a cost transparency project, or simply getting an objective view on where to focus next, feel free to reach out.
You can get in touch directly via the contact form at https://itservicemgmt.com/connect for an initial conversation or to book a discovery call. I keep things straightforward and focused on practical outcomes.
FAQ Questions
How do you form a hypothesis when you’re new to a client’s environment?
I spend the first few days in workshops and reviewing key reports or instance data. Patterns emerge quickly in ITSM/TBM work because common issues recur across organisations. The hypothesis is educated, not random, and we test it rigorously.
Does this approach work for smaller, tactical fixes as well as big projects?
Yes, though the formality scales down. Even for a service catalogue cleanup, I define the specific pain, hypothesise the main causes, and break validation into clear streams. It prevents scope creep.
What if the hypothesis turns out wrong?
That happens often, and it’s valuable. Disproving a leading theory early eliminates dead ends and sharpens focus on what remains. The structure makes pivoting straightforward without losing momentum.
How do you ensure MECE breakdowns when stakeholders disagree on categories?
I facilitate sessions to map their views against best practices like CSDM domains or TBM taxonomy. Neutral references help resolve debates, and we iterate until everyone agrees there’s no overlap or gaps.
Further Information
https://www.myconsultingoffer.org/case-study-interview-prep/pyramid-principle/