Questions about laying out CSDM Layers
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
01-08-2025 11:48 AM
We are attempting to migrate our data into the OOB CSDM and I'm getting stumped on how to proceed.
We have two possible layouts in our environment that I'm attempting to address.
Situation 1 seems to be fairly straightforward, but I wanted to get confirmation I'm looking at this the right way.
We have Business Application AppX
From there, we put in additional Business Application Layers as children called AppXUI, AppXDB, AppXWeb
From there, we add the Application Service AppXUI-Prod, AppXUI-Dev, etc.
For situation 1, am I going about it the right way?
Now situation 2, is a little more muddy.
I want the same layout, however, I also want to be able to see everything under a specific Customer.
How would I address having Business Application AppY, but making sure I also can see ContosoAppYUI, ContosoAppYDB (and their environments) without making duplicate entries of AppYUI-Prod, AppYUI-Dev for every customer that has their own environment?
Is this possible or am I completely off in how I'm looking at this?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
01-09-2025 08:09 AM - edited 01-09-2025 08:09 AM
No the approach 1 would be
BusinessApp AppX
ApplicationService AppX-Prod
ApplicationService AppX-Dev
You then use one of the Servicemapping Methods to assign AppXUI, AppXDB, AppXWeb to your corresponding Application Service
Customers would use ServiceOfferings, not BusinessApplication and you assign the Application Service to the right ServiceOffering (that has the customer also assigned to it).
For Scenario 1 there is a lot of good examples available from ServiceNow in CSDM Examples
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
01-15-2025 10:15 AM
Thank you for the response. For your reply, I'm going to focus on Scenario 1 (Multi-Tenant) to be able to mark as a solution when completed. Based on what you wrote, I would be making:
Business Application (cmdb_ci_business_app) - AppX
Application Service (cmdb_ci_service_auto) - AppX-Prod
Application Service (Service Mapping - cmdb_ci_service_discovered_list) - AppXDB-Prod
Is this correct? If so, now I'm confused where, if and where Technology and Business Service and Service Offerings go. (cmdb_ci_service_technical, cmdb_ci_service_business, and service_offering_list)
I do apologize if the questions seem dumb. This really is my first foray into CSDM vs just maintaining CMDB.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
01-09-2025 09:01 AM
Business Application parenting another Business Application we do not see so much. It doesn't function in some EA functionalities like TPM. It can be done if both have a downstream Application Service to track the software/hardware models.
Alternative is that the parent is the Business Application Host and the Business Application Components are referenced to that host.
The number of Application Services below as different deployments reflect the real deployments.
If that is a shared instance for PROD for multiple customers it will be 1. If all customers have their own deployment then there will be multiple Application Services accordingly.
BR,
Barry
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
01-15-2025 10:26 AM
Thank you for the response. For your reply, I'm going to focus on Scenario 2 (Single-Tenant) to be able to mark as a solution when completed.
Based on what you wrote, I would be making
Business Application Platform Host (cmdb_ci_business_app) - AppY
Business Application Platform Application (cmdb_ci_business_app) - AppYDB
Application Service (cmdb_ci_service_auto) - AppY-Customer
Technical Service (cmdb_ci_service_technical) - AppYDB-Customer
Technical Service Offering (service_offering) - AppYDB-Customer-Prod
Is this correct?