Service Portfolio - Relationship Between Business Services, DPM, & APM

[Zach Allen1]

Hi,

This is a multiple-topic usecase/question so I hope this is the right place for it.

During testing, in our sub-prod environments and PDI on the Utah upgrade, I have noticed some behavior that has caused some confusion.

We are in the middle of pivoting to a more OOTB CSDM by creating Capabilities, Business & Technical Services, and Business Applications.

When creating a service via the Service Builder under Service Portfolio:

 

I noticed that these services are stored automatically on both cmdb_ci_service.do (parent) AND cmdb_ci_servcice_business.do (child) with the Class and Service Classification both listed as Business Service (in this example):

During the Service Building process, you can select a Capability that the Business Service provides (OOTB CI relationship):

From here, in Digital Portfolio (DPM), I can see the newly created service under my taxonomy.

However, when I navigate to the Capability Map in APM, these Services that are related to the Capability are not visible:

 

My expectation would be that Services created in the Service Builder and relationships made during that process would show in subsequent modules/processes like the Capability Map under APM and even the EA Workspace.

Questions:

1. Even though Services are stored on the cmdb_ci_service.do table and cmdb_ci_service_business.do is the child, how come the Capability Map is not able to detect that relationship? This is very valuable for rationalization efforts to understand what business services are providing various business capabilities.

2. On the Enterprise Architecture Workspace, under Business Capability Hierarchy, is there a way to bring Business Services into this view? Business Applications can be related, so I was hoping Services would be an option as well.

Hope this question(s) makes sense. I appreciate any insight anyone can provide!

[CMDB Whisperer]

I don't have the full answer to the APM portion of this but one thing I want to correct here is that the service is not automatically entered in both tables, per se.  The attributes are distributed across both tables.  They aren't separate objects.  Whenever a table extends a parent table, the object is always physically present in both tables.  If I find a computer called MyComputer in the cmdb_ci_computer table.  I will find the same exact computer record in the cmdb_ci_hardware table.  The two are one in the same object.  It's just that as a piece of Hardware you can find all of MyComputer's hardware related attributes in the parent table as well.  The entire platform works this way.  So it is not quite accurate to say that the object is stored in both tables, or at least it is not particularly helpful to think of it that way.

That said, I was able to confirm your findings and I don't have an explanation for why this is happening.  It seems to be a bug.  I would report this to Now Support.

[Zach Allen1]

@CMDB Whisperer Thank you for the response. That is very helpful and helps me better connect to the cascading between tables a bit more. I will go ahead and submit a case to see what can be done.