Here's an alternative to the example from K19 for Servicenow ITSM CSDM. The key differences are:
- Treating Servicenow as a single "Business Application".
- Representing Midserver as only an "Application"
I'd love to hear feedback on drawbacks of this approach, or reasons that it deviates from CSDM principles. My rationale for changing is simplifying APM and the management of Business Applications.
I am leaning toward modeling this in the same way, and for similar reasons. I just completed the Discovery Fundamentals class, and in that class we did model the Mid Server as an application, just as you have it shown. I do not know why it would need to be an Application Service.
I am also trying to consider the purchase of multiple ServiceNow modules, let's say ITSM and ITBM. They are both licensed very differently, have very different capabilities, and can be purchased independent of each other. However, the entry point to the PRD instance is always going to be the same. BUT, the groups we have supporting these modules may be different. I believe the model below is as simple as I can get and still support APM and Software Asset Management, as well as Incident and Change routing/assignments.
- Route Incidents for support using assignment rules based on the Impacted Service Offering on the Incident when the Impacted Configuration Item = ServiceNow (Service Offering is required on an incident in our environment)
- Route Changes for Approval using assignment rules based on the Service Offering on the Change when the Configuration Item being changed is ServiceNow, or prompt the user to indicate the change approval group when creating the change.
I would love an feedback on this as well!
