When comparing physical and logical lifecycles, it seems to be that the first is about managing product instances and the second more about product design. If we talk about the lifecycle of software in particular there should be a clear distinction between the software product design, the specific release of the software, vs the instances discovered (installed software). When managing software there are 3 levels.
Portfolio level
Release level
Instance level
At portfolio level a software product has no lifecycle state at all IMHO. If for instance release N-1 is no longer operational, release N is operational, where release N+1 is under development, what is the status at portfolio level? Therefore it seems to me that different concepts seems to be mixed up.
@Fred Jonkhart, I see and agree with your point. TRM recognized the need to differentiate a vendor's support lifecycle from an organization's lifecycle of use for that same product. I admire ServiceNow's intention to consolidate Lifecycles, but I have not thought through it enough to determine pros and cons. In my TRM example, having the same lifecycle for both vendor support and organizational lifecycle seems counterproductive. I also wonder how the lifecycles could rollup. Could a business application's lifecycle stage and status be a rollup of the lifecycle stage/status of its SDLC components? Perhaps, but currently, SDLC components only have an Install Status dropdown not lifecycle stage/status. This is related, I think, to @Fred Jonkhart's comments about the portfolio/logical/conceptual level possibly not having a lifecycle stage/status at all.
Hey @John Spirko, just re-watching this and wanted to ask a couple of questions
With the new LCSS Sync approach, is the intention that the LCSS fields will be set and maintained independently of the legacy fields if there is no asset record associated to the CI? It seems like if I have a computer CI with an Asset record, the legacy field sync between CI and Asset will drive the LCSS fields, but if I have a Business App or App Service CI that does not have an asset, the legacy fields and LCSS fields have no mechanism to remain in sync any more; so is it ServiceNow's intent for customers to migrate to directly maintaining the LCSS attributes for those CIs?
Is there a target date for when a we might hear the proposed approach for handling Virtual CIs? At the end of the recording, I believe Scott mentioned it's in the pipeline; just looking for an estimate for to put into a roadmap.
Hello @John Spirko , can you @ Mark and/or Scott on the question raised by @Adz1 . I'm reposting it here:
With the new LCSS Sync approach, is the intention that the LCSS fields will be set and maintained independently of the legacy fields if there is no asset record associated to the CI? It seems like if I have a computer CI with an Asset record, the legacy field sync between CI and Asset will drive the LCSS fields, but if I have a Business App or App Service CI that does not have an asset, the legacy fields and LCSS fields have no mechanism to remain in sync any more; so is it ServiceNow's intent for customers to migrate to directly maintaining the LCSS attributes for those CIs?
Hello, i have the same question raised by Adz1, is there an answer for this?
With the new LCSS Sync approach, is the intention that the LCSS fields will be set and maintained independently of the legacy fields if there is no asset record associated to the CI? It seems like if I have a computer CI with an Asset record, the legacy field sync between CI and Asset will drive the LCSS fields, but if I have a Business App or App Service CI that does not have an asset, the legacy fields and LCSS fields have no mechanism to remain in sync any more; so is it ServiceNow's intent for customers to migrate to directly maintaining the LCSS attributes for those CIs?
The slides speak to CSDM 5.0 and what is coming with Lifecycles. However it appears that the CSDM life cycles are available in Xanadu and does not require you to align to CSDM 5.0? Reason I ask is that I get push back on this because they are seeing 5.0 and backing off because we are just aligning to 4.0.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
