Question around Dynamic CI Groups

[tphillips]

Going thru and starting to setup Dynamic CI Groups to be used with our CSDM Implementation.  Two Questions:

1. As I am learning about Dynamic CI Groups, it is my understanding that these Groups can be used for Incident, Problem and Change, correct?
2. If we assign a Dynamic CI Groups to a Change Request, how do we report/track the individual CIs that make up the Dynamic CI Group at the time of the Change Request given that the Group can change?

Am I on the correct track or not?

Thank you, 

Tom

[Daniel Borkowi1 · Accepted solution]

Hi @tphillips, yes you can use Dynamic CI Groups as  Configuration Item in Incidents, Problems and Task. As you mentioned this type of CI is fluent an is alone not a good fit esp. for Change Management. BUT there is a OOTB function which automatically adds all member at the current time to affected CIs related List of Change Request - when this is in state new. This list will not change later and documents all CIs at the time when Change Request is approved.

Greets
Daniel

Please mark reply as Helpful/Correct, if applicable. Thanks!

[Ken Rempe]

Hi Daniel, what is the "there is a OOTB function " you mention above.   is it UI action, BR, etc

Thanks, Ken

[Daniel Borkowi1]

Hi @Ken Rempe, it's not a UI Action. If you add a Dynamic CI Group in the Configuration Item field within Change it will result in adding all grouped CIs into Affected CIs related list.

The BRs should be the last 2 in the screenshot.

There must be a sys property set: gs.getProperty("change.conflict.mode") === "advanced" 

Greets
Daniel

Please mark reply as Helpful/Correct, if applicable. Thanks!

[mcconnellsj]

Thanks Daniel.  Our customer is requesting similar behaviour but going the other direction.  For example, a CI is part of a Dynamic CI group / query based app service.  If a change is raised for one of those "leaf" CIs, how can affected CIs and affected services be populated to show the possible impact of the change?  Change requests for specific CIs (servers, database whatever) is more likely than the group as a whole.