Understanding the USM definition of a service has completely reshaped how I think about service delivery and, I’d argue, improved it. For years, ITIL has dominated conversations about what a service is, offering definitions like “a means of delivering value to customers by facilitating outcomes”. But having worked with both frameworks, I’ve come to prefer the USM model for its clarity, structure, and operational usefulness.
The USM Definition of a Service. A Supported Facility
What sets USM apart is its simple yet powerful framing, a service is a supported facility. That’s it. It sidesteps the circular reasoning often found in other frameworks (where “service delivery” is defined as “the delivery of services”). Instead, it breaks a service down into discrete building blocks, the facility itself, the support provided, and the interaction between customer and provider. Simple right?
In USM, the facility is a combination of goods and actions made available to the customer. It’s what the customer uses. The support is what the provider delivers while the customer uses that facility. Together, these two elements form a service. If either is missing, the definition doesn’t hold and that’s the strength of this model. it’s clear and testable.
Why the USM Definition Works
One of the key strengths of USM’s approach is that it focuses on use, not delivery. A service isn’t delivered once and forgotten, it’s continuously made available and supported. This matches real-world expectations. Customers rely on consistency, uptime, and reliable support. They don’t care whether you’ve delivered a service, they care whether they can use it now and whether it will keep working tomorrow.
The USM model also aligns neatly with modern service-dominant (S-D) logic, where value is co-created. It recognises that customers bring their own resources, and that interaction is essential. Without use, there is no value. And in this light, support isn’t a bolt-on, it’s an integral part of the service.
Comparing USM and ITIL in Practice
In ITIL, services often get bundled into value chains and abstract definitions that may make sense strategically but fall short in day-to-day operations. You might know that you’re facilitating outcomes, but what exactly are you maintaining? Supporting? Measuring?
With USM’s service-as-a-facility model, you get a concrete object of management. You can define the facility, the support, the interface, and the agreements in place. It becomes easier to manage service portfolios, assess impact, and align responsibilities.
Where This Helps Most
Having been involved in mapping and structuring service portfolios using both frameworks, I’ve found USM’s model particularly effective when.
- Building out services from scratch
- Aligning business and IT perspectives
- Creating training content for support teams
- Auditing service consistency and ownership
It’s much easier to ask, “What is the facility?” and “Who supports it?” than to unravel abstract value chains or trace service-to-outcome mappings.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the USM definition of a service brings practical advantages. It’s simple without being simplistic. It avoids jargon. And most importantly, it provides a reusable building-block structure that helps organisations design and manage services with confidence.
🔗 Further Information.