Adding new Fields to CMDB_CI or using Database view

[JPing]

Hello All, 

My Business would like to know the Business Criticality and Risk of all CIs. These values are determined from the associated Business Application.  Looking at the tables in the CMDB it look like the only table that has these Field out of box is the Business Application table. This makes sense. 

So my question is... would it make more sense to add Business Criticality and Risk fields on all other CMDB tables and then use  jobs/business rules that will cascade the Business Application values to all associated Service Instances and then further to all the CIs in the ServiceMap? Or would it make more sense to just create a database view joining CIs to Services Instances (via ServiceMaps) to Business application (via CI relationships). 

What is the performance trade offs?

How would each solution add to my database size?

Thanks in advance.

[Dr Atul G- LNG]

Hi @JPing 

Use a database view — it will be easier to carry and maintain. Creating a new field will become a customization, and you’ll end up storing the same information in two places, so I wouldn’t recommend that.”

[MaxMixali]

Base on my experience it's better to to add Business Criticality and Risk fields on all other CMDB tables, because you do not take in consideration to manage future update by hands

[JPing]

@MaxMixali - I don't fully understand the section - " because you do not take in consideration to manage future update by hands".  Can you provide an example of how adding the fields to all CMDB table prevent managing future update by hand? Or any experience where a view was not optimal? I want understand all perspectives and see if I'm anything in my recommendation. 

If i took the option of adding fields to all cmdb tables -  I plan to create automations to cascade the values either by business rules or scheduled jobs scripts. 

Thanks.