- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
3 weeks ago
The business CSDM folks have suggested they were told that naming the Technical Service Management and Service Offering could have the same names. On the cmdb deduplication tasks we are now getting tasks that show duplicate CI values for Business Service (multiples on this table) and duplicates across Technology Management Service /Service Offering, and Business Service / Service Offerings.
Should we look at changing the IRE rule or should the names be unique like the IRE suggests. (My stance would be the names should be unique or have unique attributes like the rest of the CMDB, but I am getting pushback from the business)
if the IRE rule change is necessary, what should the IRE rule be changed to?
The main rule for Business Service is Name, we have tried other combinations such as taxonomy node/name, taxonomy node by itself, and name/parent. However, any of these combinations restricts the ability to update any existing services saying that the IRE rule is enforced.
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
3 weeks ago
Hi @cwring
That’s not correct. A service should not refer to a product or manufacturer/vendor name as it is a group of service offerings that could each have different vendors, and if you change vendors you’d have to rename the service.
Service Offerings should have a “friendly” name which requesters will recognise.
A typical example could be a service named “Videoconferencing” or maybe “online collaboration”. The Service Offerings would be Teams, Zoom and any hardwired systems in meeting rooms etc.
This is why I believe customers should be building out their potential portfolio of business and technical services as early as possible, and not leaving it to the fly stage. By building out the portfolio taxonomy layers it starts to become much easier to work out both Service and Service Offering names.
In addition there is a business rule OOTB on the service table enforcing unique names across all service tables (Business, Technology Management and Service Instance - offhand I can’t remember whether this includes Service Offering as well). I assume your instance has been customised. I would definitely enforce unique names or it will cause a lot of confusion.
I hops this helps!
Mat
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
3 weeks ago
Hi @cwring
That’s not correct. A service should not refer to a product or manufacturer/vendor name as it is a group of service offerings that could each have different vendors, and if you change vendors you’d have to rename the service.
Service Offerings should have a “friendly” name which requesters will recognise.
A typical example could be a service named “Videoconferencing” or maybe “online collaboration”. The Service Offerings would be Teams, Zoom and any hardwired systems in meeting rooms etc.
This is why I believe customers should be building out their potential portfolio of business and technical services as early as possible, and not leaving it to the fly stage. By building out the portfolio taxonomy layers it starts to become much easier to work out both Service and Service Offering names.
In addition there is a business rule OOTB on the service table enforcing unique names across all service tables (Business, Technology Management and Service Instance - offhand I can’t remember whether this includes Service Offering as well). I assume your instance has been customised. I would definitely enforce unique names or it will cause a lot of confusion.
I hops this helps!
Mat
