CI Class Manager- New CI Type

[Lisa23]

We are in the process of modeling/relating Business Applications, App Services etc. for a Process created within the Mulesoft and Kafka platforms.  We need a CI type such as "Integration Data Flow".  I don't see any CI types in the CI Class manager that appears to work in this scenario so I wanted to reach out to this group to see if anyone has a suggestion.  My interoperability architect did not agree with using the "Business Process table or using the Bot Process CI".   I suggested creating a new CI type “Integration Data Flow” CI in the Business Process table but at the same level as “Automation CI” and then the CI table would be “Integration Data Flow”.  However, my Interoperability Architect came back with this response: 

"I don't know the SNOW data model well enough to have an opinion.  Assume we adopt everything SNOW offers, is there an alternative that's closer to "data flow"?  I naturally resist because it's the wrong layer of TOGAF (the framework that is natural to my work).  In TOGAF, there was always a business process, data flow, and set of applications supporting that data flow.  It's not odd to treat RPA as an actor in the business process (but this probably isn't ideal).  However, a data flow is definitely a different layer with application dependencies (there never was an actor).  If it's better to map that to the business process layer in SNOW, so be it. "

Thank you for any guidance you can provide!

Lisa Stephens-Haskins

Moffitt Cancer Center

[Dr Atul G- LNG]

Hi @Lisa23 

We are in the process of modeling/relating Business Applications, App Services etc. for a Process created within the Mulesoft and Kafka platforms.  We need a CI type such as "Integration Data Flow".  I don't see any CI types in the CI Class manager that appears to work in this scenario so I wanted to reach out to this group to see if anyone has a suggestion.  My interoperability architect did not agree with using the "Business Process table or using the Bot Process CI".   I suggested creating a new CI type “Integration Data Flow” CI in the Business Process table but at the same level as “Automation CI” and then the CI table would be “Integration Data Flow”.  However, my Interoperability Architect came back with this response: 

Atul:  I’m not an expert in this area, but I’d like to follow along with the discussion. What does ‘Interaction Data Flow’ mean to you? Going by the name, it seems like a service or a kind of business service that you offer to customers. If that's the case, you could define it as a Business Service (BS), and the underlying infrastructure supporting it could go into CMDB classes. Alternatively, if it’s a business process, within CSDM, there’s a category for Business Process, and you could create a record there as well. I may be mistaken, but these are my thoughts, which could open up different perspectives."

"I don't know the SNOW data model well enough to have an opinion.  Assume we adopt everything SNOW offers, is there an alternative that's closer to "data flow"?  I naturally resist because it's the wrong layer of TOGAF (the framework that is natural to my work).  In TOGAF, there was always a business process, data flow, and set of applications supporting that data flow.  It's not odd to treat RPA as an actor in the business process (but this probably isn't ideal).  However, a data flow is definitely a different layer with application dependencies (there never was an actor).  If it's better to map that to the business process layer in SNOW, so be it. "

Atul: It is not SNOW, it is SN or ServiceNow.

Adding CSDM expert  @John Zhang1 

[Lisa23]

Hi Atul, 

Thank you for your useful insight.  The Data Flow integration is a process where data flows from/to Kafka topics and Mulesoft APIs, delivering an action and interacting with Applications of the source data.  For example, Staff Location to pCare, depends on three defined APIs, one Kafka Topic and depends on one Application Service and is used by another Application Service.  I will be meeting with my interoperability architect next week to discuss the possibility of using Business Service vs. creating a custom CI.  Please note that I already investigated the use of the Business Process CI however my Architect did not feel that was the correct representation of the model based on his expertise of the TOGAF framework.  I will update with the outcome of the meeting to keep you informed of our decision.  

Also thank you for your input, I'm aware ServiceNow is not SNOW, however many team members in IT here at Moffitt continue to refer to our ServiceNow instance as such, that message above was a copy from my architect who referred to it as SNOW:)!

Kind regards,

Lisa Stephens-Haskins

Moffitt Cancer Center

[Dr Atul G- LNG]

Hi @Lisa23 

I agree some times a few terms did not fit with the framework but it is still better to use the OOTB system. I will wait for your update.

[Scott Halverson]

Digital Integration Management would likely fit the use case you have.  Check out this video where the Enterprise Architect product success teams walks through this application.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNNVIaX6gcU