Relations between Service and Service offering

[Rob Mollee]

I'm currently working on a Service Model for our Customers, but I have encountered a difference between CSDM 2.0 and a previous presentation used in Knowledge 19. In CSDM 2.0 Whitepaper, there is a reference between the Service Offering and the Technical and/or Business Service; In  the CSDM Intro presentation used on Knowledge19, however, there is still a Contains::Contained by Relation between Business/Technical Service and the Service offering. 

Has this insight changed with CSDM 2.0? Or more specifically, should we define the Suggested Relationship between Service and Service offering?

[Stig Brandt1]

As I write in my answer I have both a parent/child and ci relationship, nothing prevents your from that, I have done this for years, but maybe you are looking for ServiceNow to put it in some kind of model(CSDM), that is of course fine.

[Rob Mollee]

Hi Eric, Stig, 

Yes!

I'm indeed looking or a model, so we can use it in a future-proof way!

[Alec Hanson]

@CasperJT I note in a response above you mention the use of the 'Map related items' feature and the diagram you showed seemed to work.

I have tried this out and it sort of works in that if you look at the dependency map from the service then it shows the service offerings:

However if I start the dependency view from the service offering it does not work upstream to the Service

To me this makes it not very useful as you want to be able to see upstream to understand the impacts within a Service of indeed the portfolio.

Has anyone else come across this? 

[CasperJT]

Hi Alec,

Just checked this myself and it would appear this is the way it works (currently on New York Patch 7a).

You could add a flow so that, when you change the parent field the CMDB also inserts/updates/deletes a relationship between the parent and the child.

Trigger when record is created or updated where parent changes

Lookup CI Relations where child is the updated record, type is depends on::used by and parent class is service.

If found delete the record and end

If now found, then create a relationship record where child is the updated record, type is depends on::used by and parent is the referenced service.

I did something similar for a custom field on the Application Service table referencing Business Application as we do not want multiple Business Applications referencing the same Application Service.

Br.

Casper