Best Practice for Managing Asset State \ CI Status

Robin Hearne · ‎03-11-2017

I have a question for all you process experts out there. Before I begin, this isn't about what you could do, this is about what is the best thing to do from a process and tool perspective. I always try to be guided by what ServiceNow provides out-the-box and try to understand how the product was intended to be used before making any changes.

We are planning our Asset and Config Management deployment and are trying to make a decision on how to manage Asset state \ CI status. The primary consideration is how the desktop support techs will update the record(s) to show when the asset\CI is in use, in maintenance, returned to a stock room etc.

The OTB experience is that the Status field isn't even exposed on the CI form, which leads me to think that the intended use is to manage it there and let the mapping feature take care of updating the CI status. Also, previous ServiceNow documentation states "As a best practice, ServiceNow, Inc. recommends updating status on the asset form" (although this is from 2015 and this doesn't seem to be included in the latest documentation).

However....

This somewhat contradicts ISO\ITIL "best practice" which recommends that IMAC is part of the Configuration Management process, rather than the Asset Management process. Also, the ITIL role only has read permission to the Asset record, so the desktop support techs would need the 'asset' role, which is arguably inappropriate given that they aren't really involved in the Asset Management process (just Configuration Management). From a tool perspective, in order to manage IMAC in Configuration Management would require a number of changes on the CI form, such as adding the Status, plus exposing other fields such as Location, Stock rooms etc. Which whilst simple to do, still suggest to me that this isn't how ServiceNow was intended to be used.

I'm leaning towards managing Asset State and either assign the Asset role or add an ACL to allow ITIL users to update the Asset State, Location etc, but I'd welcome other options before making a decision.

bsweetser - Hoping you might be able to give your opinion on this?

Thanks in advance.

Robin

Community Alums · ‎03-21-2017

Hi Robin,

Depending on the approach used to drive the change of State, yes, you could have a pop-up to capture the required information, similar to the Consuming of a Consumable. It really depends on the process you are looking to drive, though. You can always consider other methods to capture the information. For example, if you launch a process to retire a piece of hardware, that process may include a step to return the hardware to a stockroom to be prepared for disposal. Rather than prompting for the Stockroom, you might leverage Location information from the user record to automate the selection of the closest drop off or disposal Stockroom. When you identify how you want to begin the process, consider the information you need and how you can get that information. If it is possible to get that information through some automated means, even better.

Ben

View solution in original post

diego9 · ‎08-09-2017

Hi everyone,

I have a question regarding the issue of life if the equipment or the workstation was loaded manually and then for the addition of information coming from Nexthink this should go from for example "in stock" to "Active" state, this process is automatic or should an IT user (ITIL ROLE) move the machine manually?

I ask because in the company we have ServiceNow with the Nexthink module installed and we see that if we add a team manually to the stock romm then when is informed by Nexthink this is Doubles leaving two pc ´s on the list, one in in Stock and the other "Active" in CMDB.

What is the recommendation to follow in these cases?

Damhoej · ‎08-10-2017

You should look at your business proces and decide where in that proces you will create an asset and CI.

In my point of view an asset should be created upon the arrival of the asset. Some will then automatically create a CI.

The main issue is to decide what data are "key data" in other words which data fields are unique and master for the others.

You could use Asset Tag as an unique identifier, and connect Asset Tag with a serial number. In that way you secure that you always has an unique identifier, eventhough there should be 2 similar serial numbers (two different manufacturers).

You can then use the CI name field for identifing the purpose/use og the CI.

Nexthink or other discovery tools should only be used for validation of assets (in an ideal world), and if the tool find a CI without an asset (and the CI should have an asset) then use verification.

Mary T · ‎08-27-2019

I recently received the requirement to implement an option for asset allocation /de-allocation inside some catalog tasks. The approach explained in this thread (UI Policy) was the first design that came to mind BUT... they added the requirement that the task can't be closed without the allocation / de-allocation to take place. Any ideas on how to go about that? Also, will there be a linkage between the RITM or TASK to the asset update?