Technical Service vs Service Offering

[Moe9]

Hello,

Is it a MUST to map Technical Services (TS) to Technical Service Offerings (TSO) and THEN map them to Application Services (AS)? Is it possible to have TS mapped directly to an AS (i.e. not have a TSO)? Any pitfalls with taking this approach?

[Paul Santaniell]

I'm taking a different view of how this is done. I've decided to treat technical services as purely support services. In addition, I include IT services that are technical in nature as Business Services. So, in this scenario, the Ardoq Technical Capabilities could map to Business Capabilities etc... I'm not finding too many problems with this approach. We can leverage Service Portfolios to differentiate business services that serve IT or are more technical in nature. 

[Barry Kant]

hi Moe, 
both are taxonomy structures. 
Business Capabilities seem to be reserved for pure business but more companies do also model the technical capabilities in inside this table. The technical capabilities then can link to business apps in a similar way. 
Business Capability table represents the capabilities needed by the company. 
Technical services represents the IT services portfolio, or in an old-school way it shows the support model from IT (internal/external) to manage the IT delivered solutions.
Where a capability is owned by a certain business unit , the technical services are related to supporting groups (support org). 
Having a peak what Ardoq is I would map it to business capabilities as well as it is (in a separate tree). 
BR,
Barry

[Moe9]

Interesting approach.... Now let me run this by you (just brainstorming here).... What if I were to create a 'new' class called Technical Capability, i.e. [u_cmdb_ci_technical_capability], and make the relationship model similar to the Business Capability structure (see pic) as it is in the class manager (ServiceNow) to accommodate & differentiate the Ardoq transition - Could you foresee  issues down the line with this approach (e.g. regular patches, releases, etc)?

[SteveMacWWT]

@Moe9 It is not a good idea to try and add your own class into the CSDM data model. While it can be done, you are setting yourself up for issues down the road. 

When it comes to Business Applications and Business Capabilities, it is better to think of them as just ‘Applications’ and ‘Application Capabilities’. i.e. ignore the word ‘Business’ in those. I know ServiceNow is planning to update the names of some of the CSDM classes; I suspect that this one will be renamed as part of that.

Just as you would include ServiceNow ITSM as a Business Application, you would include the capabilities of ServiceNow ITSM as Business Capabilities, even though these are technical capabilities that the tool provides.