vs. ITSM change management
You already have an approval process.
It just doesn't know what a patch is.
This is the least comfortable comparison for us, so it is worth starting honestly: if your change module is functioning and staffed, a good part of what we do could be built inside it. The question is how much work that is, and who maintains it two years from now.
What this category is genuinely good at
What a change module is genuinely good at
This is a whole organisational substrate we would not attempt to reproduce.
Approvals and approval chains
Approval chains, change advisory boards, delegation, exceptions. Decades of maturity.
One record per change
Every change in the organisation in one place, linked to incidents, requests and assets.
Policy that is actually enforced
Permitted windows, freeze periods, risk classes — real enforcement, not just display.
Already paid for and adopted
The system exists, people know it, and management reads its reports.
Where the handoff breaks
The change is recorded after every decision has been made.
Coordination happens outside the system
By the time a change ticket is opened, the date was agreed on the phone. The ticket documents a decision; it does not help you reach one.
No link to vulnerabilities
The module does not know which CVE this patch closes, how many hosts are affected, or why it is more urgent than the change next to it.
Dependencies are as good as the CMDB
The dependency graph is exactly as good as the manual maintenance behind it. In most organisations it is stale, and nobody is sure by how much.
An asset record is not a patch inventory
It knows who owns the host. It does not know when that host was last patched or when it is next due.
What Regulaxy adds
The part that happens before the ticket is opened.
From vulnerability to proposal
Grouped by patch, ranked by business impact, with a window proposed — before anybody writes a change description.
A live inventory from three sources
One row per host with last-patched date, cadence and next due. Read from your own systems rather than maintained by hand.
Dependencies from real traffic
Who talks to whom, as it happens on the network. Not as it was recorded once.
And the ticket still gets opened
Regulaxy can open a ticket in your ITSM and update it when the window changes. The organisational record stays where it is.
Same job, two tools
This table has more rows where the ITSM wins than any other on the site.
| The job | Change module | Regulaxy |
|---|---|---|
| The organisational change record | The system of record, linked to incidents and requests. | Does not claim to be. Can open and update a ticket. |
| Complex approval chains | Boards, delegation, exceptions, escalation. | System-owner approval. Simple, and no substitute for a CAB. |
| Policy enforcement | Permitted windows and freezes, enforced. | Shows what is booked and flags conflicts. Enforces no policy. |
| From vulnerability to patch | Out of scope. | A register whose grain is the patch, with every host it touches. |
| Priority | A manual risk class on a form. | A score from business criticality, exposure and patch age, with its terms. |
| System dependencies | The CMDB — as good as its manual maintenance. | Read from actual host-to-host traffic. |
| Patch inventory | An asset record, usually without a last-patched date. | Last patched, cadence and next due, per host. |
| Calendar invite to the owner | Usually an in-system notification or a mail. | Two ICS invites with the right organiser, and an SMS beforehand. |
When you would not need Regulaxy
This is the category where "use what you already have" is the right answer most often. In these cases, do not buy us:
- When your change module is genuinely staffed and genuinely used for security patching — not only for large changes.
- When your CMDB is maintained and you trust its dependency graph enough to make a window decision from it.
- When you have a development team on the platform and a budget. Most of what we do can be built there; it is a project rather than a button, but it is possible.
- When the monthly change volume is small enough that the change board can genuinely discuss each one on its merits.
- When organisational resistance to another system exceeds the pain of the current process. In that case the purchase fails at adoption even if the product fits.
A simple test: open the last five change tickets related to security patching. If the date in the ticket was agreed on the phone before the ticket was opened, the handoff we are describing exists in your organisation.
We'd like to see five tickets.
Not to replace your system — to see what happened before they were opened, and whether it is written down anywhere.