Last Updated on 9. July 2025 by mgm-marketing

In the fifth CIO Debates podcast, Olaf Terhorst and Nils Gralfs from mgm consulting partners discuss the tension between adaptive IT processes and fixed process frameworks (such as ITIL, SIAM, etc.). The central question: Are flexible, situationally adapted processes an agility booster or do they increase the risk for governance and quality?

Weighing up the pros and cons, they highlight the advantages and disadvantages of structure versus freedom – always in the context of IT organisation, innovation, efficiency and compliance.

Listen to the podcast and join the discussion

In the debate: Olaf Terhorst, Partner at mgm consulting partners, and Nils Gralfs, Senior Manager at mgm consulting partners
Moderator: Karsten Kneese, Marketing Manager, mgm
Length: 33 minutes

Key arguments in favour of adaptive processes:

• Agility & time-to-value: Teams can respond more quickly and flexibly to requirements, technologies and market changes, which promotes innovation and customer value.
• Needs-based processes: Processes can be individually adapted to specific products, customers or team requirements; no ‘one size fits all’ processes.
• Avoidance of bureaucracy: Fewer rigid rules and meetings, no paralysing bureaucracy, less ‘scheme F’.
• Use of automation: Modern tools can map processes technically, allowing governance to be integrated efficiently.
• Enabling personal responsibility: Teams are empowered to act independently and in a user-centric manner.

Key arguments in favour of process frameworks:

• Uniform language and understanding: Frameworks create a common vocabulary (e.g. ‘incident’, ‘change’), which promotes cross-functional collaboration and understanding.
• Security, quality & compliance: Standards are necessary for auditability, regulatory requirements and consistent quality (especially in critical industries).
• Efficiency & scalability: Recurring and established processes enable efficiency and comparable results – uncontrolled growth leads to inefficiency and difficult integration.
• Prevention of shadow IT: Too much freedom can lead to individual isolated solutions, tool proliferation and a lack of integration (‘tomorrow’s legacy’).
• Reliable governance: Centralised rules facilitate the management of risks and responsibilities, especially in large or regulated organisations.

Key discussion points and agreement/conclusion:

• Neither pure freedom nor total control brings the optimal benefit. Principles (‘guidelines instead of chains’) are necessary, but with clearly defined freedom for teams.
• Frameworks should be understood as a flexible framework, not as a rigid corset.
• The central task is to establish a common language and binding control points (‘gateways’) and to enable teams to be flexible in designing processes within this framework.
• The balance between standardisation (for integration, compliance, quality) and flexibility (for innovation, speed, customer benefit) must be continuously reviewed and adjusted.

Let’s work together to find out how we can make your IT transformation a success. We look forward to hearing from you.