Governance Frameworks for ServiceNow Platform Sprawl in Large Enterprises
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47941/ejikm.3940Keywords:
Servicenow Governance; Platform Sprawl; Technical Debt; Low-Code Platforms; ITSM; CMDB Health; Upgrade Readiness; Delegated Development; Enterprise Architecture; Governance Maturity ModelAbstract
As ServiceNow adoption deepens within large enterprises, platform sprawl — characterized by uncontrolled customization, scope creep, orphaned configurations, and upgrade resistance — has emerged as a critical operational risk. This paper analyzes the root causes and consequences of ServiceNow platform sprawl and proposes a multi-layered governance framework to manage technical debt, enforce architectural standards, and maintain upgrade readiness. The framework integrates ITIL 4 governance principles, ServiceNow's Delegated Development model, and CMDB health management into a cohesive operating model, and is illustrated through worked governance scenarios drawn from common enterprise patterns. Prior literature on low-code technical debt, federated development governance, and CMDB accuracy suggests that the governance practices this framework operationalizes — architecture review gates, orphaned-artifact ownership, and pre-release upgrade impact assessment — are the practices most plausibly associated with reduced upgrade regression and customization-related defects, though this relationship has not yet been tested against a completed empirical sample and is proposed here as the paper's validation agenda rather than a reported result. The proposed Governance Maturity Model provides a roadmap for platform owners and enterprise architects. This study makes three distinct contributions. To theory, it extends low-code governance literature by operationalizing platform sprawl as a measurable construct (the proposed Platform Sprawl Index) and framing its expected relationship with governance maturity as a testable hypothesis grounded in prior low-code technical debt and CMDB governance research. To practice, it provides ServiceNow platform owners and enterprise architects with a five-level Governance Maturity Model and a set of five governance practices, derived from the literature and illustrated through worked scenarios, that are proposed — not yet demonstrated — to reduce upgrade regression incidents and customization-related defects. To policy, it offers enterprise IT governance leaders a framework for formalizing Delegated Development contracts and artifact lifecycle policies within existing ITIL 4 and COBIT governance structures, enabling organizations to scale ServiceNow adoption without proportional growth in technical debt.
Downloads
References
[1] Bass, L., Weber, I., & Zhu, L. (2015). DevOps: A software architect's perspective. Addison-Wesley.
[2] Bygstad, B. (2017). Generative innovation: A comparison of lightweight and heavyweight IT. Journal of Information Technology, 32(2), 180–193.
[3] COBIT 2019. (2018). Governance and management objectives. ISACA.
[4] Curtis, B., Kellner, M. I., & Over, J. (1992). Process modeling. Communications of the ACM, 35(9), 75–90.
[5] Fowler, M. (2018). Refactoring: Improving the design of existing code (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
[6] Gartner. (2023). Market guide for ServiceNow platform services. Gartner Research.
[7] ISO/IEC 25010. (2011). Systems and software engineering — Systems and software quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE). ISO.
[8] ITIL Foundation. (2019). ITIL 4 foundation (4th ed.). AXELOS.
[9] Lacity, M. C., & Willcocks, L. P. (2016). Robotic process automation at Telefónica O2. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(1), 21–35.
[10] McConnell, S. (2004). Code complete: A practical handbook of software construction (2nd ed.). Microsoft Press.
[11] Nolan, R. L., & McFarlan, F. W. (2005). Information technology and the board of directors. Harvard Business Review, 83(10), 96–106.
[12] Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. C. (2006). Enterprise architecture as strategy. Harvard Business School Press.
[13] Sahay, A., Indamutsa, A., Di Ruscio, D., & Pierantonio, A. (2020). Supporting the understanding and comparison of low-code development platforms. IEEE SEAA, 171–178.
[14] ServiceNow. (2023). Platform governance and upgrade guide. ServiceNow Now Support.
[15] Tallon, P. P., & Pinsonneault, A. (2011). Competing perspectives on the link between strategic information technology alignment and organizational agility. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 463–486.
[16] Techman, M. (2019). CMDB design and implementation best practices. ITSM Press.
[17] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
[18] Weill, P., & Ross, J. W. (2004). IT governance: How top performers manage IT decision rights for superior results. Harvard Business School Press.
[19] Wessel, M., Levina, N., & Schlagwein, D. (2021). Ecosystem governance: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 36(3), 267–291.
[20] Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
[21] Zachman, J. A. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3), 276–292.
[22] Zmud, R. W. (1984). Design alternatives for organizing information systems activities. MIS Quarterly, 8(2), 79–93.
[23] Cater-Steel, A., Toleman, M., & Tan, W. G. (2017). Transforming IT service management — The ITIL impact. In Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Conference on Information Systems.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Abhinav Reddy Pullikallu, Dinesh Kumar Movva, Madhan Kumar Sugasi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
