Service Instance... Why Is It Called That?

[Robert Campbell]

Isn't it supposed to represent an instance of the business application?

Why not make it simple and definitive "Application Instance"?

[Robert Campbell]

I follow that. What I don't follow is if it is meant to represent an "instantiation or deployment of an application" why wouldn't you call it an application instance? In my opinion they seem to be wanting to use a bunch of different types of "services" and they want to keep them all at this level (one level under a business application is some type of service) and they are stretching to do so when realistically, it should have application instances (instance of an application where it can be auto/tagged/etc), service instances (instance of of a service such as landscaping/parking/cleaning/etc), facility services (which although not fitting our scenario was pushed for us to use but seems to align with service instances). Maybe this level should be instances and services?

Actually, is it suggested that this tier under business applications should be services as in a service of an application rather than the application as a whole?

It has been my experience that this level should represent the application as a whole and if you want to break the application down to its services, you would do that one level under that so you would have

• Business Application
  • Application Instance (prod, dev, test/location a, location b/version a, version b/etc)
    • Application Service (if you want to break your application out into the different services it provides)
      • Infrastructure that pertains specifically to this service and not other services unless it's shared infrastructure
    • Infrastructure (if not breaking down by service)

So in this new ServiceNow structure it could be 

• Business Application
  • Instance (Application/Service)
    • Function (Application/Service)
      • Infrastructure
    • Infrastructure (If no function used)

I was just trying to understand why the move from application service to service instance and more specifically why the choice of "service instance" rather than "application instance" or both because I see that could've also been an option. It seems like they're trying to force fit service in this space.