I admit I don\u2019t remember much from the English literature classes I\u2019ve taken, but somehow the quote from Shakespeare\u2019s play,\u00a0Romeo and Juliet, has always stayed at the top of my mind. \u201cWhat's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.\u201d\nWorking in an IT environment where things are constantly evolving, and frameworks or new software pop up like mushrooms, I believe that the way we name solutions and tools sometimes matters more than we realize. Let me explain, taking \u201centerprise service management\u201d as an example.\nEnterprise service management\u00a0vs. ITSM\nService management principles have evolved beyond just IT processes, as was their primary purpose in the past. Where other departments, such as HR and facilities, have always offered services, they were not so used to using frameworks or principles to manage that service delivery whereas in IT, that has been the case. We\u2019ve started to see adoption of ITSM concepts or ITIL at other departments throughout organizations. Thus, the name \u201centerprise service management\u201d was born.\nThe concept of enterprise service management was more of an evolution than a revolution, as a lot of the processes touch not only IT but also various other departments, as well. Let me give you an example: onboarding. To follow up the onboarding process, IT departments add tasks and approvals into their ITSM tool that must be performed by non-IT employees.\nThis natural evolution shows in the adoption rates of enterprise service management. Even though these rates depend very much per organization, the data clearly shows that enterprise service management is growing. In my recent presentation at the Fusion conference (an ITSM conference organized by ITSMF and HDI) in November 2017, about half of the audience indicated to having at least something going on regarding ESM. From my personal experience working with clients, at least 50 percent of implementations touch at least some points of ESM.\nIn the implementation of ESM, the key factor is collaboration on different levels through four stages. The starting point, or\u00a0stage 0, is a silo approach, where nothing is shared between departments. Every department is internally focused.\u00a0Stage 1 is moving to a shared tool, usually combined with aligning terminology for processes across the organization. Remember, an incident for IT is quite normal, whereas facilities and HR call in the troops when they hear that word \u2013 \u201cincident.\u201d There is a clear collaboration, as different departments need to align not just terminology but also the way the tool is being implemented. A clear ROI reason for companies to do this is the savings on the tool side.\nStage 2 of the ESM growth path is to have a shared service desk: Having one shared front office for customers. This can take on many forms both digitally and physically: Having a shared portal, a shared phone number, for instance. At my firm (TOPdesk), we actually created a space where service desk employees from IT, HR, facilities and finance actually sit together. In this stage, collaboration is more intensive as extra agreements on redirecting work to each other have to be made. According to a recent SDI study, around 55 percent of service desks receive on average between 3 percent and 12 percent of calls that are meant for another service desk. Working in one solution, sharing a front office and having these redirecting agreements really improves efficiency.\nIn\u00a0stage 3, collaboration takes on yet another level as processes also are shared. This is the stage where the different service departments draw a common process for service delivery. For example, we no longer talk about one tool for multiple departments, but one tool and one shared process for the service department. Usually this stage starts with the more \u201cnatural\u201d shared processes, such as onboarding. In this stage you will typically see a shared service catalog or what might be referred to as a \u201cservice app store\u201d being implemented.\nESM vs. shared service management\nAgain, the key factor is collaboration or sharing, whether that means processes, tools or even departments. So why use the term \u201centerprise service management\u201d rather than something that might be more appropriate, like \u201cshared service management?\u201d Doesn\u2019t the definition of \u201cshared services\u201d cover it all?\nThat definition is:\n\u201cThe provision of a service by one part of an organization or group, where that service had previously been found in more than one part of the organization or group. Thus, the funding and resourcing of the service is shared and the providing department effectively becomes an internal service provider.\u201d\nIn my experience with implementations of changes within organizations, whether it\u2019s HR or IT related (for instance, a company reorganization, a merger, tool implementations, etc.), how you name things matters significantly when trying to convince people and have them on board for change. Every word has a connotation and there are various studies on the impact of words and on how positive words can stimulate the motivational centers of the brain (ref Dr. Andrew Newberg, a neuroscientist at Thomas Jefferson University, and Mark Robert Waldman, a communications expert, have written together the book,\u00a0Words Can Change Your Brain).\nWhere \u201centerprise service management\u201d covers the idea of having a service management solution for the entire enterprise, using the term \u201cshared service management\u201d \u2013 while actually implementing ESM \u2013 might help get everyone on board a little easier.\nSo, we\u2019re back to Shakespeare\u2019s rose. Even if a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, the connotation you may have with that other name might scare you away and stop you from finding out how sweet the rose actually smells.