IT Service Management as an Operational Governance Framework for Healthcare Systems: A Policy Analysis of Procurement and Service Delivery
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19068554Keywords:
Health systems governance, IT Service Management, Healthcare operations, Procurement systems, Service delivery, Operational efficiency, Health system resilienceAbstract
Operational inefficiencies in healthcare systems remain a major and under-addressed determinant of system performance, cost, and patient outcomes. Global evidence suggests that up to 20–40% of health expenditure is lost due to inefficiencies, including poor procurement practices, fragmented workflows, and weak coordination mechanisms [6,23]. In parallel, stockouts of essential medicines affect 30–50% of healthcare facilities in many low- and middle-income countries, highlighting systemic failures in operational processes that directly compromise service delivery [9,13].
Despite extensive focus on financing, workforce capacity, and access to services, current health system frameworks provide limited guidance on how internal operational workflows should be structured, governed, and monitored. This creates a critical policy gap between system-level objectives and their execution in routine healthcare operations.
This study presents a policy analysis and conceptual framework, examining the applicability of IT Service Management (ITSM), grounded in the ITIL framework, as an operational governance approach for healthcare systems. Drawing on cross-sectoral evidence from service management, health systems research, and procurement literature, the analysis maps ITSM practices to healthcare workflows and develops a service-oriented model for managing operational processes.
The findings suggest that ITSM can function as a governance translation layer, aligning clinical demand, administrative workflows, and digital systems into a structured service architecture. By introducing standardized request mechanisms, incident-based management of disruptions, and measurable service-level performance, ITSM enables healthcare organizations to improve coordination, transparency, and accountability. Evidence from service environments indicates that such approaches can reduce operational delays by 20–30%, with potential implications for improving reliability of care delivery [3,29].
This analysis positions ITSM as a policy-relevant governance framework for strengthening healthcare system performance. Its adoption offers a scalable pathway to improving efficiency, service reliability, and system resilience, particularly in resource-constrained settings. However, the framework remains conceptual and requires empirical validation through implementation and evaluation in real-world healthcare environments.
Keywords: Health systems governance; IT Service Management; Healthcare operations; Procurement systems; Service delivery; Operational efficiency; Health system resilience
References
1. AXELOS. ITIL Foundation: ITIL 4 Edition. London: TSO; 2019.
2. PeopleCert. ITIL 4 Foundation guidance. London: PeopleCert; 2023. Available from: https://www.peoplecert.org
3. Pollard C, Cater-Steel A. Justifications, strategies, and critical success factors in successful ITIL implementations. Inf Syst Manag. 2009;26(2):164–175. doi:10.1080/10580530902797511
4. Marrone M, Kolbe LM. Impact of IT service management frameworks on IT organizations. Bus Inf Syst Eng. 2011;3(1):5–18. doi:10.1007/s12599-010-0141-5
5. Johnson M, Patel R. Service management beyond IT: applications in public services. Int J Serv Manag. 2020;12(2):45–60.
6. World Health Organization. Everybody’s business: strengthening health systems to improve health outcomes. Geneva: WHO; 2007. Available from: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/43918
7. World Health Organization. Monitoring the building blocks of health systems. Geneva: WHO; 2010. Available from: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/258734
8. World Health Organization. Maintaining essential health services during COVID-19. Geneva: WHO; 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int
9. World Health Organization. Guidelines on country pharmaceutical pricing policies. Geneva: WHO; 2020.
10. World Health Organization. Essential medicines. Geneva: WHO; 2024. Available from: https://www.who.int
11. World Bank. Improving health supply chains. Washington DC: World Bank; 2022. Available from: https://www.worldbank.org
12. World Bank. Procurement of health sector goods. Washington DC: World Bank; 2006.
13. Yadav P. Health product supply chains in developing countries. Health Syst Reform. 2015;1(2):142–154. doi:10.4161/23288604.2014.968005
14. McKone-Sweet K, Hamilton P, Willis SB. The ailing healthcare supply chain. Harv Bus Rev. 2005;83(10):56–66.
15. Schneller ES, Smeltzer LR. Strategic management of the healthcare supply chain. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2006.
16. Christopher M. Logistics and supply chain management. 5th ed. London: Pearson; 2016.
17. Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T. Complexity science and healthcare. BMJ. 2001;323:625–628. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7313.625
18. Kruk ME, Ling EJ, Bitton A, et al. Building resilient health systems. Lancet. 2017;390:1910–1912. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32341-4
19. Blanchet K, Nam SL, Ramalingam B, Pozo-Martin F. Governance and resilience. BMJ Glob Health. 2017;2:e000364. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000364
20. Atlassian. Jira Service Management overview. Sydney: Atlassian; 2023. Available from: https://www.atlassian.com
21. Maglio PP, Spohrer J. Fundamentals of service science. J Acad Mark Sci. 2008;36:18–20. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0058-9
22. Vargo SL, Lusch RF. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J Mark. 2004;68(1):1–17. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
23. OECD. Tackling wasteful spending on health. Paris: OECD; 2017. doi:10.1787/9789264266414-en
24. European Commission. Health systems performance assessment. Brussels: EC; 2020.
25. Porter ME. What is value in healthcare? N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2477–2481. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1011024
26. World Health Organization. Global strategy on digital health 2020–2025. Geneva: WHO; 2020.
27. OECD. Digital transformation of health systems. Paris: OECD; 2021.
28. Buntin MB, Burke MF, Hoaglin MC, Blumenthal D. The benefits of health IT. Health Aff. 2011;30(3):464–471. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0178
29. Dobrzykowski DD, Tarafdar M. IT-enabled supply chains in healthcare. J Oper Manag. 2015;36:92–103. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.09.001
30. Agarwal R, Gao G, DesRoches C, Jha AK. Health IT impact research. Inf Syst Res. 2010;21(4):796–809. doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0337
31. Donabedian A. Evaluating quality of care. Milbank Q. 2005;83(4):691–729. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x
32. WHO. Procurement and supply management toolkit. Geneva: WHO; 2021.
33. USAID. DELIVER Project: supply chain management. Washington DC; 2011.
34. UNICEF. Supply chain strengthening strategy. New York: UNICEF; 2019.
35. Seddon J. Systems thinking in healthcare. BMJ. 2008;337:a1267. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1267
36. Braithwaite J, Churruca K, Ellis LA, et al. Complexity in healthcare. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e020209. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020209
37. ISO. ISO/IEC 20000 IT service management. Geneva: ISO; 2018.
38. ISO. ISO 9001 quality management systems. Geneva: ISO; 2015.
39. Peters DH. The application of systems thinking in health. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:51. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-12-51
40. Frenk J. The global health system. Lancet. 2010;376:1923–1958. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61200-8
41. De Savigny D, Adam T. Systems thinking for health systems strengthening. Geneva: WHO; 2009.
42. Sheikh K, Sriram V, Rouffy B, et al. Governance roles in health systems. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(1):13–25. doi:10.1093/heapol/czu002
43. Saltman RB, Ferroussier-Davis O. Governance in health systems. Eur J Public Health. 2000;10(3):153–157. doi:10.1093/eurpub/10.3.153
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Otari Machaladze

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.
You are free to: share and adapt the work for any purpose, even commercially.
Conditions: provide appropriate credit to the authors and the Georgian Medical Journal (GMJ), link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made. Do not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the licence permits.
Licence: creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 · Legal code: creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Third-party material. Images or other content credited to a third party are not covered by CC BY 4.0; permission must be obtained from the rights holder for reuse beyond statutory exceptions.
Authors' rights. Authors retain copyright. First publication rights are granted to GMJ.
Data and code. Where provided, datasets or code may carry their own licences; please follow the licence stated in the article or repository record.




















