CI Relationships - Parent or Child?

[gaidem]

I'm really having a hard time agreeing with the out of the box influence for relationships. To help explain, let me create a very simple example where A is on B. When you remove A, B is affected, but when you remove B, A is not affected.

The way the descriptors are written among many other things, it seems that A in this example would be the child. Maybe it's just me, but my logic is saying that A should be the parent. Also on the BSM, out of the box, the arrow points from the parent and to the child. Maybe I'm missing the greater value of this, but I would think that when selecting a CI, you would like to see the impact based on the way the arrow is pointed.

So is A or B the parent?

[#2]

I agree and had the same experience presenting BSM views. The only thing I focus on now is that the Child Depends on the parent and if removed becomes an Orphan. A parent can have many children while the child should only belong to one parent. We have a lot redundancy so I could say we have Parent A and Parent B supporting Child C. Maybe that is more confusion.

[sarat5]

I am having the same issue with the backwards-seeming logic of the built in parent-child relationships. In particular when I am viewing a child incident I cannot see any indication that it is a child incident nor what parent it is connected to. This is a very important thing to know when managing parent/child incidents. The company I am working with at the moment is not using the parent/child relationship connectors because of this. Please help!