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.”

[Dr Atul G- LNG]

Hi @JPing 

Did you miss my reply? As a BPC, I would recommend avoiding the customization. If you create a new field, it may cause upgrade issues and could even add extra cost. We already have these two fields, so what’s the purpose of creating the same fields again in other tables? If it’s just about viewing the data, you can use a database view — it’s easier to maintain

[MaxMixali]

For sure if this information can stored in the std cmdb it’s better

[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