Sankarsan Biswas

They expect transparent responses, resilient recovery, accountable learning, and continued delivery of value. The post uses the NIST Cybersecurity Framework—Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover—and singles out Govern, Detect, Respond, and Recover as especially critical to maintaining operational trust.

The post lays out the six NIST CSF functions, then states that cyber resilience is not just about restoring systems but about restoring trust. It does not name a specific incident, organization, or measured outcome to test the claim.

Read original

The post lists four stakeholder questions: what data is being used, why a decision was made, who has access, and whether consent was properly obtained and respected. Transparency supports explainable AI decisions, visible governance, and confidence in automated operations; consent management supports responsible data usage, regulatory compliance, and respect for user rights.

The post frames the shift from efficient automation to trusted automation.

Read original

In this framing, compliance dashboards inside ITSM tools turn governance requirements from static policies and audit reports into real-time operational intelligence. A trust-enabled dashboard shows control effectiveness and exceptions, policy and regulatory compliance status, risk exposure and mitigation progress, AI governance and ethical-control indicators, audit findings and remediation, and service performance linked to trust outcomes.

The post closes with a three-part claim: compliance becomes visible, governance becomes actionable, and trust becomes measurable. It lists indicators but names no dashboard product or case study.

Read original

The post argues that success is no longer measured only by stability and SLA achievement, but by customer outcomes, adoption, experience, innovation, and rapid adaptation. Biswas writes that this evolution expands ITSM rather than replacing it.

The post makes the distinction concrete with paired questions and parallel statements: a service is delivered; a digital product is continuously improved.

In another post, Biswas traces ITSM's evolution from managing physical infrastructure in isolated data centers to orchestrating cloud-native, AI-enabled, digitally connected ecosystems. The post lists three shifts: technology is no longer the destination—business value is; stability is no longer enough—resilience and adaptability are essential; and delivering services is no longer sufficient—creating meaningful experiences is the real objective.

Read original · Original 2

The management challenge lies in the relationships, dependencies, and risks between them. They tie this to ITIL Version 5 and its emphasis on systems thinking, governance, collaboration, resilience, continual improvement, and value co-creation across the ecosystem.

The post links a series of consequences: a single change can ripple across services; a supplier issue can disrupt customer experience; an AI decision can introduce governance and ethical concerns; a cyber incident can quickly become a business resilience challenge.

Read original

They say the objective was not simply to help readers understand ITIL Version 5 or prepare for certification, but to explain why service management is evolving and what that evolution means for practitioners and organizations in the digital economy. The post credits publisher AVA – An Orange Education Label and technical reviewer Michael Imhoff Nielsen.

Biswas writes that certification provides knowledge, but its real value begins when that knowledge changes how people think, decide, collaborate, and improve.

• They conclude: 'The framework may evolve.
• The purpose remains: creating value through better products, services, experiences, and relationships.'

An earlier post promoted the upcoming book as a way to explore ITSM's history and why modern service management emphasizes agility, governance, automation, digital products, and continual improvement. For a fuller view of the book's contents, ask for a copy.

Read original · Original 2

Biswas announces the release of Ultimate ITIL Version 5 Foundation Certification Guide, saying the objective was not simply to help readers understand ITIL Version 5 or prepare for certification.

• The post says IT service management now covers digital products, complex ecosystems, AI and automation, experiences, governance, risk, sustainability, and evolving expectations of value.
• They write: “The framework may evolve.
• The purpose remains: creating value through better products, services, experiences, and relationships.”
• The post credits AVA – An Orange Education Label and technical reviewer Michael Imhoff Nielsen.

For brands planning a campaign

A thought leadership collaboration on digital trust and ITIL 5 could use the book as a concrete hook: a session or article on why service management is evolving beyond exam preparation. It also anchors certification-adjacent content connecting ITIL 5 to digital trust.

Biswas argues that cyber resilience is measured not by how well an organization prevents disruption but by how well it sustains trust during disruption.

• The post walks through the NIST Cybersecurity Framework functions—Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover—and singles out Govern, Detect, Respond, and Recover as especially critical to operational trust.
• It says stakeholders do not expect organizations to prevent every incident; they expect them to “Respond with transparency,” “Recover with resilience,” “Learn with accountability,” and “Continue delivering value with confidence.”

For brands planning a campaign

An ITSM vendor could build a digital trust campaign around this NIST CSF outline: a practical explainer or webinar on sustaining stakeholder confidence during disruption. It offers a ready-made collaboration structure, with Biswas as the guide.

Biswas writes that AI-driven ITSM cannot sustain trust without transparency, and transparency is impossible without consent awareness.

• The post lists four stakeholder questions: What data is being used?
• Why was a decision made?
• Who has access to the information?
• Was consent properly obtained and respected?
• It says transparency supports explainable AI decisions, visible governance, and confidence in automated operations, while consent management supports responsible data usage, regulatory compliance, and respect for user rights.
• The post frames a shift from “efficient automation” to “trusted automation.”

For brands planning a campaign

An AI governance or ITSM campaign could use this as a discussion frame for responsible automation. A vendor could ask Biswas to lead a piece on transparent, consent-aware AI operations in service management.

Biswas opens with “Trust cannot be managed if it cannot be seen.”

• The post says compliance dashboards inside ITSM tools turn governance requirements from static policies and audit reports into real-time operational intelligence.
• It lists what a trust-enabled dashboard shows: control effectiveness and exceptions; policy and regulatory compliance status; risk exposure and mitigation progress; AI governance and ethical-control indicators; audit findings and remediation; and service performance linked to trust outcomes.
• The closing sequence is “Compliance becomes visible.
• Governance becomes actionable.
• Trust becomes measurable.”

For brands planning a campaign

A dashboard or GRC product could use this as a campaign premise: demonstrate how trust indicators become operational. Biswas can speak to control ownership, evidence-based decisions, and stakeholder transparency.

Biswas contrasts service-centric thinking—“How do we deliver and support this service effectively?”—with digital product-centric thinking—“How do we continuously create value by evolving this product based on customer needs, data, and feedback?”

• The post says a service is delivered while a digital product is continuously improved, and that success is no longer measured only by stability and SLA achievement but by customer outcomes, adoption, experience, innovation, and rapid adaptation.
• It argues this evolution expands ITSM rather than replacing it.

For brands planning a campaign

A campaign on ITIL 5 and digital products could use this mindset shift as its core argument. A vendor could collaborate on practical guidance for governing digital products across their lifecycle.

Biswas says organizations no longer operate in isolated IT environments but in complex digital ecosystems where cloud platforms, AI, third-party providers, APIs, IoT, cybersecurity, regulations, and business partners are deeply interconnected.

• The challenge is managing the relationships, dependencies, and risks between them: a single change can ripple across services, a supplier issue can disrupt customer experience, an AI decision can introduce governance concerns, and a cyber incident can become a business resilience challenge.
• The post says ITIL Version 5 extends service management beyond operational processes into systems thinking, governance, collaboration, resilience, continual improvement, and value co-creation.

For brands planning a campaign

An ecosystem governance campaign could use this as a framing piece. A vendor could sponsor a discussion on managing interconnected risk and value co-creation across partners, platforms, and AI.

Biswas traces ITSM’s evolution from managing physical infrastructure in isolated data centers to orchestrating cloud-native, AI-enabled, digitally connected ecosystems.

• The post lists three shifts: technology is no longer the destination—business value is; stability is no longer enough—resilience and adaptability are essential; delivering services is no longer sufficient—creating meaningful experiences is the real objective.
• They say the upcoming Ultimate ITIL Version 5 Foundation Certification Guide explores this evolution to help readers understand not only what ITSM has become but why it evolved.

For brands planning a campaign

A thought leadership series on the evolution of ITSM could use this as its opening historical frame, then connect it to digital trust and ITIL 5.

In this framing, the management problem lies not in individual technologies but in the relationships, dependencies, and risks between them: one change ripples across services, a supplier issue reaches the customer, an AI decision raises governance questions, and a cyber incident becomes a resilience problem. They tie this to ITIL Version 5 and its emphasis on systems thinking, governance, collaboration, resilience, continual improvement, and value co-creation.

States a claim, walks through a framework's components in short marked lists, and ends on a general principle rather than a client example.

For brands planning a campaign

Good fit for thought leadership positioning an ITSM or service-management platform as the coordination and governance layer across an ecosystem, rather than a ticketing tool. A brief can ask Biswas to argue why ecosystem-level management changes buying criteria.

Examples: Source 1

Service-centric thinking asks how to deliver and support a service effectively; product-centric thinking asks how to keep creating value by evolving the product based on customer needs, data, and feedback.

• They return to the point that a service is delivered while a digital product is continuously improved, and that success is measured by customer outcomes, adoption, experience, and innovation—not stability and SLA achievement alone.
• They also trace ITSM's wider evolution from reactive support of physical infrastructure to orchestrating cloud-native, AI-enabled environments, noting that this evolution expands ITSM rather than replacing it.

Builds an argument through paired contrasts and parallel sentence structures, then closes by asking readers directly about their organization's strategy or vision.

For brands planning a campaign

A vendor selling product-centric ITSM, service design, or product-operations tooling can supply the comparison and let Biswas put the question to practitioner readers. Useful for engagement-oriented posts where the call to action is a self-assessment, not a demo.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Using the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, they explain the Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover functions and single out Govern, Detect, Respond, and Recover as most critical to operational trust. Stakeholders, they say, do not expect organizations to prevent every incident; they expect transparent response, resilient recovery, accountable learning, and continued delivery.

Takes an established external framework, reframes its purpose around stakeholder trust, then narrows to the functions that support that reframing.

The post names no incident, organization, or measured outcome to substantiate the trust claim. Ask for an example or evidence if the campaign requires one.

For brands planning a campaign

A cybersecurity, resilience, or GRC vendor can brief a collaboration around NIST CSF alignment and incident-communication practice. The trust framing suits executive-audience content more than technical implementation content.

Examples: Source 1

One argues that AI-driven ITSM cannot sustain trust without transparency and consent awareness, listing the questions stakeholders ask: what data is used, why a decision was made, who has access, and whether consent was obtained and respected.

• The other focuses on compliance dashboards inside ITSM tools, which Biswas says turn governance from static policies and audit reports into real-time visibility of control effectiveness, regulatory status, risk exposure, AI governance indicators, audit findings, and service performance linked to trust outcomes.
• The recurring conclusion: compliance becomes visible, governance becomes actionable, and trust becomes measurable.

Frames each topic as a problem statement, lists what visibility or transparency provides, then resolves into a short three-part summary line.

For brands planning a campaign

Strong opening for a governance, compliance, or AI-ethics angle aimed at IT and risk leaders: a vendor can sponsor content on what trustworthy automation and measurable governance indicators look like in practice.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

They describe its intent as more than exam preparation: helping readers understand why service management is evolving and what that means for practitioners and organizations in the digital economy, and treating certification as knowledge that pays off only when it changes how people think, decide, collaborate, and improve.

Announcement post restating the book's argument, crediting the publisher and technical reviewer, and ending with a purpose statement rather than a sales pitch.

For brands planning a campaign

Establishes credibility for training, certification, and practitioner-education collaborations, and positions Biswas as an interview or webinar voice on ITIL 5 adoption.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The posts are short, mostly conceptual, and grouped under consistent topic hashtags covering ITIL 5, ITSM, digital trust, AI governance, digital products, and resilience.

Short LinkedIn posts pairing a framework summary with parallel-structure conclusions and a reader-facing question.

The posts here are short. Biswas's posts do not say whether Biswas has deeper expertise, speaking or training work, or client engagements, so a brand should not treat this as a full picture of Biswas's output. No sponsored or partner content appears in the posts here, which does not rule out commercial formats.

For brands planning a campaign

The format suits co-authored or prompted thought-leadership posts where a brand supplies the framework or data points and Biswas supplies the reframing and practitioner question. Ask for samples before commissioning long-form analysis, technical walkthroughs, or implementation case studies.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5 · Source 6 · Source 7

In the release announcement, they thank AVA for bringing the work to readers and describe the book as a certification companion and practical reference for service management professionals.

View example

Both write from inside service management and argue that ITSM work should be judged by outcomes beyond the operational metric itself.

Callinan's posts draw on specific first-person programmes and measured results, including a 58% First Call Closure rate and an embedded business-advocate model for pharma IT demand. Biswas stays at the framework level, writing for practitioners deciding what service management should become; Callinan writes about running a service desk and their own availability to employers and recruiters.

Read original · Original 2

Both reframe a familiar subject around a single uncomfortable claim: Sofer's 'you can't secure what you can't see' and Biswas's 'cyber resilience is not measured by how well you prevent disruption'.

Sofer argues from security and identity evidence, citing a survey of 718 IT professionals, delegated OAuth grants, and an inventory reconciliation exercise, then points readers to a vendor blog. Biswas argues from framework structure and principle, names no data or organisation, and makes governance rather than exposure the organising idea.

Read original · Original 2

Both write explanatory LinkedIn posts that help readers brief others rather than report a personal result.

Mehta writes about board-level corporate governance in India, including independent directors and the resident director role under the Companies Act, 2013. The subject matter does not overlap with Biswas's ITSM, ITIL 5, and digital trust writing, making Mehta a follow for governance themes and explanatory format rather than service management.

Read original · Original 2

Their posts use original survey numbers and named sources: a survey of 718 IT professionals found that only 9.9% of organizations have full visibility into their software ecosystem, and nearly half flagged poor software visibility as a security risk.

• Sofer also gives buyers a concrete diagnostic they can run without budget: pull the application list from the identity provider, pull OAuth grants sorted by scope, pull twelve months of card spend filtered for SaaS, and treat the gap between the three lists as the shadow estate.
• For an ITSM software company whose product relates to discovery, asset inventory, or access governance, that combination of hard data and a replicable exercise is a stronger opening than a framework explainer.
• Sofer also writes for the CISO, CEO, CFO, and CISO as a decision-making group, which suits a campaign aimed above the service desk at buyers who control budget.

The tradeoff is scope.

• Sofer's posts focus on security and software visibility: shadow IT, identity as the new perimeter, AI governance guardrails, and the CISO-CFO alliance around financial cycles.
• They do not engage with ITIL 5 as a framework or digital trust as a service-management outcome—the specific premise of a campaign built around ITIL 5 vocabulary and service management practice.
• If the company wants to anchor the collaboration in those themes, Sofer's angle would need reframing, and the result would read more like a security campaign than a service management one.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Their posts describe a specific intervention: working with Level 2 teams to identify the top two or three repeatable incidents Level 1 could resolve with minimal training and no access changes, then running focused micro-upskilling so Level 1 resolves them immediately.

• The stated result was a 58% first call closure rate, with follow-on gains in customer satisfaction, Level 2 focus, and Level 1 morale and career progression.
• A second post applies the same practitioner detail to a regulated setting, describing embedded business advocates, capacity forecasting, value-driven prioritisation, flexible funding, and transparency as four pillars of IT demand management in life sciences, including GxP and validation expertise.
• For an ITSM software company that wants the collaboration to show how service operations actually change—and reach service desk leaders and IT operations managers rather than governance audiences—Callinan supplies the before-and-after detail that Biswas's framework posts leave at the level of principle.

The tradeoff is thematic range.

• Callinan's posts stay within service operations and demand management: first call resolution, triage, upskilling, and pharma IT alignment.
• They do not address digital trust, AI transparency and consent, compliance dashboards, or NIST-style resilience framing, so they cover only part of a campaign about digital trust.
• Callinan also writes from a regulated life-sciences context, which narrows the relevant audience and makes some examples harder to transfer to general enterprise software buyers.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Their posts address independent directors from diverse professional backgrounds and explain what sales, marketing, operations, finance, legal, and technology directors each contribute to board oversight.

• They also cover resident directors in India as a strategic governance asset rather than a compliance formality, including regulatory filings, local regulator and auditor contact, oversight of board decisions, faster execution, and stakeholder confidence.
• For an ITSM software company whose digital trust message is aimed at boards, audit committees, or compliance functions, Mehta offers an existing governance audience and a framing that treats governance as a value proposition.
• This is the closest alternative if the campaign shifts from thought leadership for practitioners to governance-level credibility.

The tradeoff is a different subject and buyer.

• Mehta's posts cover corporate governance, board composition, and Indian statutory requirements under the Companies Act, 2013.
• They contain no service management, ITIL 5, ITSM tooling, or digital trust content, so a collaboration would not speak to the ITSM software company's core practitioner audience or use the ITIL 5 and digital trust premise.
• It would need a separate governance-focused campaign rather than extend the current one.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2