Relating Infrastructure CI's to Technical Service Offerings

[mhives]

I'm looking for a little help regarding how to map Configuration Items to Technical Service Offerings.

In the CSDM 2.0 Whitepaper it looks like we should use the “Manages:Managed By” relationship type, but I can see other relationship types mentioned in Orlando documentation and also in this forum.  My assumption is that for some of the cases below to work, the correct relationship type must be used.

Cases/Questions:

Users (both end users and "agents") might choose either the specific Infrastructure CI or the Service Offering

Choosing a Service Offering in Incident should filter the list that pops up for Affected CI's

When choosing an Infrastructure CI in and Incident that is related to a Service Offering, does the CI automatically pick up the commitments related to the Service Offering? Does the Service Offering field get automatically populated?

Does an incident on an Infrastructure CI create an outage for the related Service Offering? and therefore impact the Service Offerings availability?

If anyone has any insight, or can point me in the right direction I would really appreciate the help.

[Alec Hanson]

Hi, It would be interesting to know the other relationship types you have seen mentioned in the documentation or this forum for CIs to Technical Service Offerings, can you point these out at all?

I can see that CI to CI types will be different, but understand why the "Manages::Managed By" type is used for CI to Technical Service Offerings

[Mary Vanatta]

Alec,

Can you please provide a snip of the documentation you are seeing where it shows the "Manages::Managed By" relationship type in relation to CI to Technical Service Offerings? 

I think SN is very clear that these are the suggested relationships per CSDM 2.0.

[Alec Hanson]

Hi Mary,

It was actual an Example of the CSDM operation from Knowledge19 that I was looking at which is also within SN-WhitePaper-CSDM-022019

The important thing however is probably more the use of a Relationship rather than a Reference - as per you followup comment.

[Mary Vanatta]

Relationships are not to be used for routing for support and approvals.  

The primary goal of relationships is to show CI dependencies (think dependency map).
References are best used for reporting, and routing. 

Relationships are useful in IT Ops tools such as Event Management to depict if a CI has an alert, then the relationships are available in a dependency map to see what other CI's or services are affected. 

Relationships are generally more challenging to report on because so many database tables might have to be referenced. 

Not using the assigned relationships above has the potential of breaking other Applications like Event Mgmt, SPM and APM. 

The use of Service Offerings roll up to Service Portfolio Management - the tool used for SLA,Availability, Commitments, Outages. 

[mhives]

Thanks @Mary Vanatta !  So am I crazy to think that if I want the best of both worlds, I need to have both a relationship and reference? and would that be a good or bad idea?