Why is it modeled like that? This question often comes up in CSDM workshops. This series of small articles will dive into some specific modeling practices related to not just CSDM but also Service Mapping.
Whenever talking about the CSDM model, the infrastructure part quickly becomes a natural discussion. However, you may notice that there is the possibility to have offerings which do not connect to infrastructure. Whats that about? Well, dive into that topic with me. Welcome to "Why is it modeled like that?".
The model
The CSDM model overall when it comes to the service offering discussion is usually pretty straight forward. Well, up until the discussion reaches this weird stage of the graphic:
And yes, this is CSDM 4.0. This specific part is indeed missing from the CSDM 5.0 graphic. Also, you may notice, that this is not present as a Business Offering equivalent. So what then is it useful for, if it does not seem to be present in most models anymore.
Well, some services provided by a company are not related to any infrastructure. Weird, but this exact solution is needed for one main use-case:
Workplace Services.
I will cover client devices in a different article down the road - after all this is a topic on it's own. However, this is perfect for TMO (and also BO) where we do not have any underlying infrastructure. In your ITSM processes an enduser must be able to select a TMO/BO for anything they could be impacted upon. And your workplace management is indeed a service you offer. However, this may not result in any direct infrastructure or application service underneath it. So a very simple, yet elaborate workplace modeling may look as simple as this:
And as always, this can become more complex, depending on your use case. Especially as this leads into the direct discussion around what I like to call the Application Instance paradox - maybe also a topic for another time. In essence, the question becomes what to do with Application Instances which don't really reflect a hosted product or instance.
So let's rethink this model a little bit and expand it into the idea of workplace being an business service (also an interesting discussion - also for another time?)
Same, same? Well, now we just made it more complex. We also introduced a new discussion (Is Workplace something you deliver as a business, or is it something your business needs to work?). And we specified how workplace management is delivered (through ServiceNow).
However, our first model is still valid. If an enduser does have an issue with their workplace, they can just link that to the TMO (IMO this also could be a BO based on the same discussion). And this is where we design a service catalog versus "just" designing the infrastructure dependencies. And some parts of your service catalog may not be linked directly to any service delivering entities within your current CMDB. This extends into non-IT, facility-services and other examples.
And that is fine.
The key principle
It is fine, because CSDM must serve you, you don't serve CSDM. If you have services you deliver (offerings) which may not depend on any central application instance, then you don't need to model that part. Remember, CSDM mainly cares about impact-dependencies. And your workplace management could work totally fine - or at least parts of it.
Of course, there is a point to be made that the second model in this article is more accurate. However, it is better to start of simple - defining your service catalog first. And if this leads to instances where you would have to add dummies to the model, don't. Rather complete your catalog without the related application instances. Because before you introduce unnecessary stuff, rather don't introduce it (and don't expect anyone to clean it up later. It won't happen).
If you have any CSDM related example where you want insights on "why is it modeled like that?", feel free to drop a reply and I will look to add it to this series.
