Audit Issues - Install status vs hardware status

GChat
Tera Expert

3 weeks ago

I'm having an issue explaining in layman terms why service now chose to apply hardware status of stolen out of the box for missing/absent assets in asset/cmdb.

 

I have supplied the breakdown of how asset state and substate relate to hardware status but I cant fully explain why we use Absent/stolen for missing assets that aren't actually stolen.

 

As mentioned, this came direct from integration out of the box so hopefully you can help define why.

 

Thanks

 

0 Helpfuls
  • 388 Views
3 REPLIES 3

Kieran Anson
Kilo Patron

3 weeks ago

Hi,

Potentially misunderstanding your concern, but you have multiple options for a missing device which seem. If this is to do with mapping between legacy and lifecycle fields, have these been altered?

 

msedge_zEC6prs8Jb.png

 

msedge_1008Ocxo1Q.png

 

0 Helpfuls

GChat
Tera Expert
In response to Kieran Anson

3 weeks ago

Hi Kieran,

 

I might be asking it wrong sorry.

 

So when we have items is listed as absent or missing the hardware status defaults to stolen. This was apparently an OOTB design so I was hoping someone might know why that would be the case so I can explain to audit that we don't in fact have 2k assets that were stolen - they are just not being discovered anymore due to various reasons i.e. not returned or updated correctly in CMDB.

 

I'm trying to find an explanation so I can avoid changing the default discovery rules.

 

Thanks

0 Helpfuls

Kieran Anson
Kilo Patron
In response to GChat

3 weeks ago

Do you have a screenshot of what you're referring to? Trying to work out if this is a CMDB or Asset management view with the mention of discovery. Is this ITOM Discovery?

0 Helpfuls