Why HAM Pro Still Struggles to Land and What Can Be Done About It

Why This Matters (Problem Statement)

You’d think hardware asset management would be straightforward by now. Most organisations have years of practice tracking assets, yet once you introduce automation, lifecycle workflows, and integration with the CMDB, things quickly unravel. Serial numbers don’t align, ownership data is incomplete, reconciliation becomes unpredictable, and blame often falls on the tool itself.

The business wants audit-ready data. The platform team wants a stable CMDB. The process owner just wants to sleep at night. Instead, everyone is stuck dealing with inaccurate imports, missing approvals, or unexpected behaviour from a reconciliation engine they barely understand.

This research asks the obvious question: why is HAM Pro still hard to land, and what does it actually take to do it well?

Research Questions

• What makes the difference between a successful and a failed HAM Pro deployment?

• How are organisations sequencing HAM alongside CMDB or procurement processes?

• What patterns show up when reconciliation fails to deliver expected results?

• Where are value expectations misaligned with operational reality?

• What hidden dependencies or roles are frequently overlooked?

• What does successful stakeholder alignment look like when implementing HAM?

• How can organisations move from spreadsheet-based tracking to a trusted system of record?

• What patterns emerge when working with outsourced suppliers to create a single source of truth?

• Who owns what, and how are those responsibilities clarified across IT, procurement, and finance?

• What adoption strategies help people trust and use the data they see?

• What happens when success metrics are vague, or different teams define success differently?

Scope & Boundaries
In scope: IT hardware lifecycle management, HAM Pro module, CMDB integration, reconciliation challenges, supplier engagement, process adoption, stakeholder alignment
Out of scope: Software asset management, mobile device management platforms, procurement tooling not integrated with ServiceNow

Methodology
We will gather interview insights, implementation artefacts, supplier reports, governance documentation, and user feedback. Each input will be coded for patterns around sequencing, data quality, role clarity, and business alignment. Data will be analysed across stakeholder groups, including platform leads, asset managers, supplier managers, and finance stakeholders. We will also surface process gaps, adoption blockers, and negotiation pain points with third parties.

How to Contribute
If you’ve implemented or attempted HAM Pro, we want to hear what worked, what didn’t, and what you wish you knew earlier. If you’ve wrestled with spreadsheet chaos, misaligned supplier reports, or stakeholder confusion during a HAM rollout, your story can help others avoid the same pitfalls. Submit artefacts, share your lessons learned, or take part in a one-to-one interview. All can be anonymised. Contact me via LinkedIn: Laila Edge | LinkedIn

Anticipated Outputs and What Good Looks Like

• A step-by-step visual of how to move from spreadsheets to a shared source of truth

• Adoption playbook for aligning procurement, finance, support, and suppliers

• Models for negotiating supplier responsibilities and aligning report formats

• Common failure modes and how to course-correct

• Practical success metrics that are measurable, agreed across teams, and aligned with business outcomes

• Role map showing who needs to be involved at each stage of the asset lifecycle

Status & Timeline
Status: Open for contributions
Expected synthesis: November 2025

Insights That Help You Deliver

Independent insights, real-world case studies, and lessons from ServiceNow implementations. Practical, research-backed content to help you build readiness, align stakeholders, and drive adoption.

Email sent once a week. We care about your data in our privacy policy.