CSDM v4 to v5 – what’s changed for the Technical and Business domains?

[Sam Webb]

On face value, a lot has changed between CSDM versions 4 and 5 (which was recently published, with practical changes making their way into ServiceNow instances). Mostly, these are terminology changes designed to pave the way for an extension of CSDM toward areas outside of the typical IT domain, such as Telecommunications and Manufacturing. However, there are also Platform changes (such as the extension of Service type tables). Note: These changes are well documented elsewhere so this article does not cover those, but rather intends to help make a bridge between the "old" terminology and the "new" within the scope of the Technical and Business domains.

Application Services

Long a central pillar of the CSDM, Application Services stay in CSDM v5 – but are now referred to as “Service Instances”. This denotes nicely the fact that the common language definition of an Application Service was “an Instance of a Service”. Noteworthy is that “Service Instance” is not limited to IT instances, but this is for another day. The central purpose – a deployed instance of a Service – remains entirely consistent throughout.

Don’t say: Application Service.

Do say: Service Instance.

Technical Services

Technical Services persist – but now they are “Technology Management Services”. There has often been confusion between Technical Services and Application Services – with occasional references to instances as “Technical Application Services”. However, the purpose of the Technical Service has always been to articulate who manages each Technology Offering overall. Hence, a rename to “Technology Management Service” articulates the difference between it and an Application Service (now Service Instance) clearer than previously.

Don’t say: Technical Service.

Do say: Technology Management Service.

Technical Service Offerings

Likely the hardest working, but most underutilised component of the CSDM – Technical Service Offerings articulate the “who” for groups of Cis – typically being used to synchronise Support Group and ownership values to individual Configuration Items via Dynamic CI Groups. However, previously questions have been raised such as “what is the difference between a Business and a Technical Service Offering?”.

While the definition remains “Technical Service Offerings allow users to perform activities or maintain Cis which in turn, allow them to offer Business Service Offerings to users” – Technical Service Offerings are renamed to align to the amended Service structure, becoming “Technology Management Offerings”.

Don’t say: Technical Service Offering.

Do say: Technology Management Offering.

Business Service & Offering

Neither of these entities are amended in CSDM v5, with terminology and intent remaining the same – what do we provide to our users?

[Mattias S_rlin]

The Service Instance is an instance of a Service, but it's not an instance of a Business Service or a Technology Management Service. So what kind of Service is it an instance of? That kind of service we call a Business Application! I feel it is something wrong with the naming of classes.  🙂

[Sam Webb]

I don't make the rules, I just try to decipher the meanings like everyone else! 🤣

[Mathew Hillyard]

Hi @Sam Webb 

If I'm opening a Calculated Application Service, Mapped Application Service, Tag Based Application Service or Dynamic CI Group, I don't think I will be calling them Service Instances. The tables have not been renamed - only the overall parent has. So in this case I think it's Say Application Service when it's an Application Service 🙂

BR
Mat

[Sam Webb]

Mat,

I'm with you in this being an annoying one. Especially when you look at some of the docs, which direct you to "Service Instances" (actually meaning Application Services as it points at cmdb_ci_service_calculated etc and uses the app_service_x Roles).

At this point I'd assume the intent is to reinvent Application Service as Service Instance but we're in Phase 1.0 or something. How simple... I'll still update the above though - thanks for the valid input!

Sam