IT Service Management as an Operational Governance Framework for Healthcare Systems: A Policy Analysis of Procurement and Service Delivery

Authors

  • Otari Machaladze Faculty of Informatics and Control Systems, Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19068554

Keywords:

Health systems governance, IT Service Management, Healthcare operations, Procurement systems, Service delivery, Operational efficiency, Health system resilience

Abstract

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

03/17/2026

How to Cite

Machaladze, O. (2026). IT Service Management as an Operational Governance Framework for Healthcare Systems: A Policy Analysis of Procurement and Service Delivery. Georgian Medical Journal, 1(1), 82–98. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19068554

Issue

Section

Editorial & Policy Forum

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.