ITSM tools are designed to simplify service delivery. They provide structure, visibility, automation, and control, particularly in complex environments where consistency and scale matter.

Yet in many organisations, these platforms gradually become a source of friction rather than enablement. Not because the tools themselves are flawed, but because they have been shaped too closely around short-term needs.

Over-customisation is rarely intentional. It emerges incrementally, driven by sensible decisions made under pressure. Over time those decisions accumulate into long-term support pain that quietly undermines service quality, scalability, and resilience.

Why Customisation Feels Like the Right Answer

During implementation or optimisation of an ITSM platform, teams are under immediate pressure to deliver value. Stakeholders want the tool to reflect existing processes. Service teams want fewer clicks and clearer workflows. Leadership wants rapid adoption and visible progress.

Customisation often appears to be the most pragmatic solution. A few additional fields, a tailored workflow, or a bespoke automation can make the tool feel aligned with how the organisation already operates.

In the short term, these changes can deliver real benefits. User resistance decreases. Processes feel familiar. Early wins build confidence in the platform.

The risk is that customisation becomes the default response to every new requirement without pausing to question whether the underlying process itself should be challenged.

What Over-Customisation Looks Like in Practice

Over-customisation is not about configuration alone. Modern ITSM platforms are designed to be configured.

The problem begins when configuration crosses into heavy modification, particularly when it diverges from vendor-supported functionality or embeds complexity directly into the tool.

Common indicators include:

• Highly bespoke workflows with complex logic
• Large numbers of mandatory custom fields
• Scripts and integrations maintained by a small number of specialists
• Business rules hard-coded rather than governed through process
• Data models that vary by service or customer

At this point, the tool is no longer supporting the service model, it is defining it.

The Long-Term Pain That Follows

Upgrades Become Risk Events
One of the earliest warning signs is upgrade anxiety. Vendor releases that should be routine become significant exercises, requiring extensive testing to ensure custom logic still works.

As upgrades are delayed, organisations fall behind on security patches, performance improvements, and new capabilities. Over time, the cost of staying current outweighs the perceived benefit of the original customisation.

Support Becomes Fragile
Highly customised platforms rely on deep, often undocumented knowledge. When the individuals who built or maintain that logic move on, the support model becomes fragile.

Incidents involving the tool itself take longer to resolve, confidence erodes, and what was meant to increase control instead introduces operational risk.

Reporting Loses Credibility
Custom fields and workflows frequently undermine reporting. Data becomes inconsistent, categorisation varies, and metrics lose comparability across services or customers.

As a result, reporting moves outside the platform into spreadsheets and manual reconciliation, reducing the tool’s value as a system of record.

The Managed Services Impact

In managed services environments, these issues are amplified.

Over-customised ITSM tools make it harder to onboard new customers, reuse operating models, and scale efficiently. Exceptions accumulate and become permanent, increasing cost-to-serve without being visible in commercial models.

Delivery teams feel constrained. Tooling teams become bottlenecks. Leadership sees diminishing returns from what should be a strategic investment.

When Customisation Starts to Undermine Service Quality

Ironically, excessive customisation often recreates the behaviours ITSM tools are intended to prevent.

Analysts focus on completing forms rather than resolving issues. Workarounds reappear outside the system. Trust in the platform declines, and data quality deteriorates further as engagement drops.

At this stage, the tool is still in use, but no longer central to effective service management.

A More Sustainable Approach to ITSM Tooling

Avoiding over-customisation does not mean avoiding configuration altogether. It requires a more deliberate, outcome-focused approach.

Effective organisations start with standard capabilities and design for the most common scenarios rather than the most complex. They challenge legacy processes before embedding them into the tool and limit custom logic to areas that deliver clear, measurable value.

When customisation is necessary, it is governed, documented, and reviewed regularly. Tooling decisions are aligned to service outcomes rather than historical habits or individual preferences.

Practical Decision Checklist: Before You Customise Your ITSM Tool

Before approving any customisation, it is worth slowing down and asking a disciplined set of questions.

1. What problem are we actually solving?
Is this addressing a genuine service outcome, or simply user discomfort? Are we fixing a process issue or embedding a workaround?

2. Is this a common need or an edge case?
Does this apply broadly, or are we designing the core platform around the exception?

3. Is configuration sufficient?
Can this be achieved using native, vendor-supported capabilities? Will it survive a standard upgrade?

4. Who will own this in 12–24 months?
Is the knowledge documented and transferable? What happens if the original implementer leaves?

5. How does this affect reporting and data quality?
Will consistency be reduced? Will metrics remain meaningful and comparable?

6. What is the cost of not customising?
Can teams adapt through guidance or training rather than system change? Is the issue temporary or structural?

7. How will this be reviewed or removed?
Is there an exit strategy, or is this likely to become permanent technical and operational debt?

Used consistently, this checklist shifts the conversation from “can we customise this?” to “should we?”

Practical Warning Signs to Watch For

Leaders should take notice when:

• Platform upgrades are consistently delayed
• Changes require specialist intervention
• New team members struggle to learn the tool
• Reporting relies heavily on spreadsheets outside the platform
• Phrases like “we can’t change that, it’s hard-coded” become common

These are indicators that the tool has become too tightly coupled to past decisions.

Conclusion: Tools Should Enable Service, Not Become the Service

ITSM tools are powerful enablers when they support clear processes, informed judgement, and consistent outcomes.

Customisation can accelerate early success, but unmanaged customisation accumulates debt. The long-term cost is not always visible, but it is always paid, through reduced agility, increased support effort, and constrained growth.

The most resilient service organisations treat customisation as a strategic choice, not a default. They recognise that long-term service health depends not on how closely a tool mirrors today’s processes, but on how well it can evolve with tomorrow’s needs.

For more insights and expert guidance, explore ITIL-aligned ITSM tools and PeopleCert ITIL certifications.