There’s a phrase that many IT leaders have heard at least once during negotiations for an ITSM platform: “It makes sense to include it in the bundle now, because sooner or later you’ll need it.”

It all sounds reasonable: a prudent choice, a form of foresight, a smart way to get a better discount. And, in some cases, it genuinely can be. But very often, a problem lurks beneath the surface: the organization ends up purchasing features it doesn’t have the capacity, maturity, or time to implement. The result is well known: within a few years, a significant portion of the purchased features remain unused or only marginally used.

According to Gartner estimates, by the end of 2026 I&O leaders will spend approximately $2 billion on unused ITSM platform features — double the figure from 2021. Other market analyses, also referring to the evolution of the ITSM sector, further highlight how a large majority of IT buyers tend to spend more than necessary on tools that are too broad relative to the actual maturity of their organization.

The point, therefore, is not just how much you pay for an ITSM platform, but how much value you actually extract from the features purchased.This is where overspending in ITSM originates: excessive spending not only relative to the license price, but relative to the value actually extracted from the platform. This is the topic we will focus on in this article, where we will offer practical advice on how to handle this framework and negotiate more advantageous contracts.

The ITSM paradox: more features, less value

The true purpose of an ITSM platform should be — ultimately — to simplify work for everyone: making processes visible, accelerating request management, improving the service desk, supporting incident, problem, change, knowledge, asset, and service level management. But when the platform becomes too broad relative to the organization’s maturity, the risk is the opposite: teams pay for a potential they cannot transform into value, and which risks getting bogged down in an excess of complexity.

This happens especially when purchases are driven by an ideal roadmap. During the selection phase, the buyer envisions an ambitious evolution: advanced automation, AI, evolved self-service, a complete CMDB, cross-department workflows, extensive integrations, predictive reporting, and so on. All correct and desirable… but then reality sets in. The IT team is already under pressure. Processes are not yet uniform. Data is incomplete. Priorities change. The staff dedicated to the project is limited. Some modules require complex configurations. Integrations take longer than expected. Business units don’t immediately adopt the new workflows. So, what was purchased to “prepare for the future” ends up parked in the contract or worse, creates confusion in the present.

The real cost is not just the license

Pay close attention to this point! When discussing ITSM spending, the first item examined is almost always the license cost. But the Total Cost of Ownership is much broader. It includes implementation, configuration, consulting, administration, training, integrations, maintenance, upgrades, customizations, governance, internal support, data management, and organizational changes. An unused feature, therefore, does not only cost because it is included in the contract. It also costs because it increases the overall complexity of the environment. It may require administration, generate confusion in role management, complicate the user experience, and slow down future decisions.

The point is simple and unsparing: TCO grows not only when a platform is heavily used, but also when it is poorly purchased. And this is where simplification and right-sizing become financial strategies, not just operational ones.

How to conduct a feature usage audit

Let’s move on to the practical and operational part. The first step to reducing overspending on ITSM is — quite simply — looking at the data. Not perceptions or roadmap promises. An effective audit should start with a complete mapping of the purchased features. Active modules, modules included but not configured, add-ons, automations, integrations, AI capabilities, portals, reporting tools, asset management functions, ESM features, connectors, and workflow builders. In practice, for each feature, the following questions must be answered:

• Has it been implemented?
• Is it used regularly?
• By how many users or teams?
• What process does it support?
• What metric does it improve?
• What cost does it reduce?
• Is it needed today or only hypothetically useful in the future?
• Does it require skills the team does not possess?
• Has it generated measurable value in the last 12 months?
• Can it be replaced by a simpler configuration?

The ultimate goal is to distinguish three categories: critical features, underused but recoverable features, and unnecessary features. The first must be protected and optimized. The second requires a concrete adoption plan. The third must enter the contractual conversation.

Value-aligned licensing: buying in phases

Once this fundamental preliminary step has been taken, the path toward reducing overspending on ITSM must then aim for a value-aligned licensing strategy. Where to start? From a very simple principle: pay for what you can implement, measure, and scale.

This does not mean giving up on growth. It means building it in phases. The first phase should cover essential processes: incident management, request management, knowledge management, service catalog, SLAs, basic reporting, high-volume automations. This is where the operational foundation is built.

The second phase can include more mature capabilities: cross-department workflows, extensive integrations, more advanced asset and configuration management, end-to-end automations, and evolved self-service.

The third phase can introduce AI, agents, predictive models, sophisticated orchestrations, and Enterprise Service Management logic extended to other business functions. The advantage of this gradual approach is twofold. On one hand, it reduces the risk of paying for premature features. On the other, it allows value to be demonstrated progressively, strengthening the business case for subsequent investments.

In this direction, a cloud-based IT service management software solution must offer room for growth without forcing the organization to immediately purchase everything it might use one day. This is exactly the criterion on which EasyVista’s solutions are built (for more details, see here).

Negotiating contractual flexibility

Let’s begin to draw conclusions from what we have uncovered so far. With one additional awareness to put on the table: many organizations discover overspending on ITSM only when the contract is already locked in. This is why flexibility must be negotiated beforehand. How to proceed? Every organization, of course, has its own constraints and characteristics.

But — in general — during a new negotiation, IT leaders should explicitly ask for:

• the ability to add modules over time without penalties;
• the right to reduce or reallocate unused licenses;
• annual usage reviews;
• modular and transparent pricing;
• ramp-up clauses tied to actual adoption;
• the ability to convert unused spend into professional services or adoption support;
• a clear exit from unimplemented components;
• limits on integration and customization costs.

A modern ITSM contract should recognize that digital maturity grows over time. Not everything is implemented in the first year. Not all priorities remain the same. Not all planned features turn out to be truly necessary.

Contractual flexibility is the real critical point, because it protects the organization from one of the main causes of overspending on ITSM: turning an optimistic forecast into a multi-year fixed cost.

A practical framework for deciding what to keep

Before closing, here is a four-question framework that brings together everything we have seen about the audit and new negotiations. A sort of basic vademecum for IT leaders with the goal of reducing overspending on ITSM.

The first question: does this feature support an already mature process or one that is yet to be defined? If the process is not mature, the priority might be to work on the process before paying for advanced features.

The second: do we have the resources to implement it in the next 12 months? If the answer is no, the feature should be deferred, not included “just in case.” The third question: which metric will this implementation improve? If there is no clear metric, value will be difficult to demonstrate. The fourth: can we add it later without losing flexibility? If yes, there is no reason to pay today for uncertain future use.

Conclusion: the future of ITSM is not bigger, it’s more aligned

For years, many organizations have associated ITSM maturity with the breadth of the platform purchased. More modules, more features, more possibilities. Today, this logic is showing its limits.

True maturity does not consist of paying for everything. It consists of knowing what is needed, when it is needed, with what level of adoption, and with what impact on the business.

Overspending on ITSM arises when the aspirational roadmap takes the place of operational reality. It is corrected by bringing processes, data, implementation capacity, contractual flexibility, and value measurement back to the center.

FAQ

What does overspending on ITSM mean?

Overspending on ITSM means spending more than necessary on an ITSM platform, especially when a significant portion of the purchased features remain unused or produce little value relative to the cost incurred.

How do you negotiate more flexible ITSM contracts?

It is useful to ask for modular pricing, annual usage reviews, the ability to add or remove modules, reallocation of unused licenses, ramp-up clauses, and transparent terms on integrations, customizations, and professional services.

Why can right-sizing improve ROI?

Right-sizing concentrates budget and resources on features that are truly used and measurable. It reduces recurring costs, complexity, technical debt, and dependence on external consultants, making it simpler to demonstrate the value of the ITSM platform.