FOI request (FOIR-749540519)

ITSM Total Cost of Ownership

Requested Tue 16 September 2025
Responded Wed 24 September 2025

I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act regarding the running costs of your IT service management system (ITSM) at your organisation.

Specifically, I am requesting information on the following:

1. What ITSM solution are you using? (For example, ServiceNow, Hornbill, Halo, Freshservice, Ivanti, BMC, Xurrent, and so on)

2. Running costs: Please provide the past 18months (since April 2024) costs against the below line items:

a. Implementation (if applicable)

b. Subscription/Licensing

c. Support

d. Professional Services (project work, and so on)

e. Managed Services (where applicable)

f. Approximate Staff costs associated with running the platform

And/Or

g. Number of FTE associated to platform operations (if unable to provide answer to 2f)

This is for market research purposes to inform on total cost of ownership (TCO) of ITSM platforms/solutions across public sector organisations.

---

Response

1. Notice of Refusal

Disclosure of information relating to ICT systems, infrastructure and security constitutes a security risk as it would leave the Council's computer assets more vulnerable to a malicious hacking attack. This means that disclosure would:

• Make the Council more vulnerable to crime (Section 31)

• Risk harming the systems on which the day-to-day business of the Council relies (Section 43)

Section 31 (Law Enforcement)

Section 31(1)(a) states that information is exempt if its disclosure is likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. ICO guidance states that this can be used to protect information on a public authority's systems which would make it more vulnerable to crime. This exemption can be used by a public authority that has no law enforcement function:

• To protect the work of one that does

• To withhold information that would make anyone, including the public authority itself, more vulnerable to crime

The crime in question would be a malicious attack on the Council's computer systems. Since the disclosure of the withheld information would make the Council's systems more vulnerable to such crime, the exemption is engaged.

The exemption is subject to the public interest test. There is an overwhelming public interest in keeping the Council's computer systems secure which would be served by non-disclosure. This outweighs the public interest in accountability and transparency that would be served by disclosure.

Section 43 (Commercial Interests)

Section 43(2) states that information is exempt if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it).

Disclosure of information relating to ICT systems, infrastructure and security puts the council at risk of a malicious hacking attack.

This would compromise the Council's ability to provide its services and carry out 'business-as-usual' should our systems be compromised. Were our systems to be compromise, the cost of a system recovery would be detrimental to the Council's commercial interests.

The exemption is subject to the public interest test. There is an overwhelming public interest in keeping the Council's computer systems secure which would be served by non-disclosure. This outweighs the public interest in accountability and transparency that would be served by disclosure.

2. Notice of Refusal

The information you have requested in relation to No 2 is commercially sensitive and falls under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act – Commercially Sensitive Information - Information prejudicing commercial interests – commercial interest relating to an organisations commercial activity and may include trading activity procurement and relationships with third parties.

The exemption afforded by Section 43 is subject to what is known as the ‘public interest test’. When applying the test in a particular case a public authority is deciding whether the public interest is better served by non-disclosure than by disclosure.

Although the Freedom of Information Act does not define ‘in the public interest’, there is a presumption under Freedom of Information that openness is in the public interest. In applying the public interest test a public authority will take into account the distinction that has been often made by courts between things that are in the public interest, and things that merely interest the public. Where applicants have not identified public interest considerations succinctly or accurately, the public authority has a responsibility under the Act to make their own assessment of the public interest considerations in the particular case.

We have identified the following public interest factors that may be seen as encouraging the disclosure of information:

a) accountability of public spending.

We consider these factors to be of limited relevance in relation to the information in question.

Public interest factors seen as encouraging non-disclosure are, generally, the exemptions themselves. In consideration of this matter we came to the following conclusions:

a) ensuring that companies are able to compete for business fairly.

b) damage to reputation and/or financial interests.

In weighing the factors for and against disclosure we have concluded that the likely benefit to the applicant and the wider public of disclosure is outweighed by the likely prejudice caused by such disclosure and that therefore the public interest is better served by non-disclosure.

For the reasons given above we will not be communicating to you the information you have requested.