LeanIX, TBM and CSDM

[Harrie Emily Ri]

I've come across an interesting finding. We are attempting to implement CSDM and use LeanIX for Enterprise Architecture, portfolio management etc., 

The standard integration mapping between LeanIX and ServiceNow CSDM suggests that LeanIX Tech Categories map to Product Model Categories. 

Cf., ServiceNow: The model category configuration determines if the ServiceNow platform creates an asset from a CI, and, if so, what class of asset. Asset classes in the base system are Hardware, Software License, and Consumable. You can associate a model category to many models and a model to many model categories. For example, a specific model of a computer can be a Computer and a Server (Source).

The IT Components expand to an even greater level of granularity based on the Tech Categories. However, there is a misalignment between LeanIX, TBM and CSDM:

In LeanIX Tech Categories are recommended to be categorized following TBM Service Taxonomy Layers – however, in the mapping between TBM and CSDM – the Service Taxonomy is aligned with Services (Technology and Business), hence the mapping from Tech Categories (based on TBM) to ServiceNow CSDM Product Models is not straightforward. 

E.g.,

In LeanIX:

• IT Component: .NET Framework 4.8
• Tech Category: Delivery -> Development -> Design & Development

In ServiceNow:

• Product Model: .NET Framework 4.8
• Product Model Category: Software (stores the record in cmdb_software_product_model)
• Tech Category -> Product Model Category: discrepancy between Design & Development & Software.

IT Components should correctly so be categorized in LeanIX by their Technology Function (TBM Technology Category) but in ServiceNow they map to generic cmdb_model_categories like Software, Hardware etc.,

In the current case where LeanIX IT Components are correctly categorized by Tech Categories following TBM – it would require some kind of tagging to enable Tech Categories to map to Product Model Categories.

My recommendation: 

Tech Categories are assigned a tag in LeanIX that indicates the ServiceNow CSDM Product Model or alternatively that the sub-categories are used. However, this may become cumbersome - and should it be to Model categories or Classes that define these? E.g., we have sub-categories like: Service, SaaS, PaaS, IaaS, Hardware, Software. 

Has anyone else come across this discrepancy and have recommendations on how to map from LeanIX to CSDM for IT Components and Tech Categories? (what would be needed in the Model Categories e.g.,). 

[Mathew Hillyard]

Hi @Harrie Emily Ri 

Good question! Model Category, is used for all types of models, not just applications. I also don’t believe that is the purpose for the Model Category table - it’s more about syncing assets and CIs and deciding whether to create one automatically when it’s opposite record is created (e.g. create an asset when a CI is created).

I would look to the categorisation fields available on the Business Application table, such as Architecture type, Application type, Technology stack, and perhaps Platform. The baseline choices in these fields are far from comprehensive so you will need to add your own choice values to whatever standard you prefer. These fields are in the Global scope so you don’t need an Enterprise Architecture subscription to use them.

I hope this helps!

Mat

[Harrie Emily Ri]

Hi Mat, 

Absolutely - it's not just about Applications, quite the contrary. My question is about ensuring a coherent mapping between LeanIX's Tech Components and Product Models. 

E.g., Standard mapping suggest that IT Components map to either Software or Hardware Product Models cf., Fact Sheet Mapping Between ServiceNow and SAP LeanIX | SAP Help Portal - and that Tech Categories map to Product Models. But since Tech Categories are structured based on TBM Service taxonomy, this simply isn't the case - or at least it's not an intuitive and correct mapping, e.g., Database is not a Product Model, however, Oracle DB 19 is. In which case if following the standard mapping, an IT Component (Oracle DB 19) would end up as Product Model 'Database' rather than the actual Product Model in itself (Oracle DB 19). It might be an over-interpretation of the standard mapping, but nevertheless confusing to suggest mapping Tech Categories (TBM-Service taxonomy layer) to Product Models, which more correctly would be to Model Categories. 

So my suggestion would be to create a Sub-category in LeanIX which aligns to Product Model Categories for coherent mapping as currently there is nothing in LeanIX which indicate if an IT Component is Software, Hardware, Application, Service Model etc., Or map to Model Categories. 

Business Applications are mapped differently (see link) - hence, IT Components correctly represents Product Models that should be used for Model ID reference for discovery and lifecycle management etc., 

[Mathew Hillyard]

Hi @Harrie Emily Ri 
I see what you mean. The tech category example you gave above - Tech Delivery -> Development -> Design & Development - these are definitely not Model Categories. I wonder whether the data is in the wrong place in your LeanIX implementation? I wouldn’t describe Design & Development as a tech category, I’d expect to see something tech related like Server or Software. These look like nested Business Capabilities to me.

I hope this helps!

Mat