Will moving to the CSDM replace the need for Service Mapping patterns?

[dianeplourde]

Now that we will be moving our applications to the Application Service table (shared with Service Mapping maps) will there be a need to continue using patterns to create service maps? It looks like the functionality behind the Application Service table is doing that for us. What is the difference between these maps and a patterned map?

[David104]

No, CSDM is not a replacement for Service Mapping, it's a prescriptive guide for how to create you service topologies. The CSDM is a representation of how your service structures should exist within ServiceNow.

Anything from the Application Service and up are not discoverable and will need to be created. Anything below should ideally be populated by Discovery and/or Service Mapping. You could choose to manually create the lower level CI's and map them to your services to create the service maps, however it is not recommended due to the amount of effort required to keep a reliable, accurate CMDB.

[dianeplourde]

Thanks for the quick response David. We create the lower level CIs with Discovery and manually create a relationship to the higher level CIs ie. CMDB_ci_appl through process. We will be moving CIs from CMDB_ci_appl to CMDB_ci_service_discovered. During testing the manual maps appear to be identical to the service mapping maps. We just were not sure if we are missing anything or any additional functionality that Service Mapping provides. In terms of effort required, do you mean that additional lower level CIs discovered via service mapping will automatically be related to the service (versus having to manually related new lower level CIs)?  I am not a service mapping expert.

[David104 · Accepted solution]

OK, I get it now. You are correct to move the manually created relationships to the cmdb_ci_service_discovered table as the cmdb_ci_appl table is for things like databases, web servers etc.

Creating the relationships manually from the discovered CI's to the cmdb_ci_service_discovered table is a valid way to create the relationships and from a functionality point of view you shouldn't see too much difference. Service Mapping is good in that it will follow the links to ensure that all of the relevant CI's to a service are captured, and you can set a schedule for service mapping to re-run and keep the relationships current. The downside of doing it manually is that there is a whole lot more work required to maintain and validate regularly.

So yes, Service Mapping makes that process a whole lot more efficient and reliable. When running service mapping, there is also a workflow which allows service owners to review the related CI's and provide any feedback before making the services 'operational'. I'm not sure whether that still works if you are not using Service Mapping, but other than that most other functionality should be similar