Interested in a ServiceNow event built for developers? Registration for now[dev]26 is officially open!

CSDM 5 - Technology Management Services - is this restricted ?

markterringon
Tera Contributor

Hello,

We are moving from CSDM 4 to CSDM 5 Data model and redesigning the TMS Offerings.

We have designed a portfolio of services.

But we have situations where the same piece of software can be an offering for multiple services.

 

For example:    Microsoft SharePoint

This could be an offering under:

- Collaboration

- Knowledge Access

Yet in ServiceNow the Offering is only allowed ONE parent.

 

There is a lot of software that can linked to multiple Services.  But it seems ServiceNow thinks a piece of software can only be defined as one thing...

 

Do we have to accept that SN can only manage one relationship between an Offering and an Service ?

I see this as a big flaw (error).  

 

Has anyone else come across this issue and did you have an acceptable workaround or did you simply align with what we can do in ServiceNow currently ?

 

I also find some of the relationships to be wrong (from a logical viewpoint).   For example "Depends on" is very different than "consumed by".

A TMS Offering Service Instance is "Depended on" by a Service Instance of a Business Application.

This would suggest the Bus App. service instance could not run or operate without the thing that it "depends on". 

Which is very different to a Service Instance "consuming" another.  This is the main relationship type between Service Instances - but it seems wrong and oriented around the technology stack (if part is missing then the app won't run). 

 

If an external Business Service is interacted via an API then this is a subscribed or consumed service.  This is not depended on...   Depended on suggests it is needed to "run" which is not true.

 

Has anyone had any luck on migrating to CSDM 5 ?    This seems one of many issues I am having with their view of what EA is, and how you link everything.

 

Thanks for your help in advance.

 

Kind regards,

Mark

 

0 REPLIES 0