Install Status vs Hardware Status on Hardware CIs

[Mike McCall]

I've got a simple question that doesn't seem to have a simple answer: should I have workers use [install_status] or [hardware_status] on my Hardware CIs? (i.e., those CIs that extend the [cmdb_ci_hardware] table)*

To get the discussion started, I'll lay out some factors I'm currently considering:

1. Install Status is available on all CIs, so views, reports, etc. can all be simpler and more consistent. Point for Install!
2. Install Status does not have a Substatus for being more specific (and closer to the choices available to Assets). Point for Hardware!
3. On Hardware CIs, the default "AssetAndCISynchronizer" Script Include (sys_script_include.do?sys_id=9ec37b411b012000e49bfbcd2c071380) does not sync Install Status changes to connected Asset records. Point for Hardware!
4. ...?

*I can't remember who the individual was--I would have contacted him!--but I vividly remember a ServiceNow employee swinging through a past Knowledge session and saying definitively, "Only use Install Status! Hardware Status was a mistake!" However, since uncovering just how deep this "mistake" goes in the system's default setup, I'm not sure it's so simple.

[klf1123]

So is there any value to the Hardware status? It just seems to confuse matters. Also if it has no value then why not remove it and just use the Install status? Though it does not show on the form it can be selected and updated in a view which can cause confusion and potentially have individuals using inaccurate information. I notice there were several we had marked "Retired" in Install Status that were marked "Installed" in the Hardware Status. Why do they not sync?

[Mike McCall]

The post has gotten pretty long, but I think the potential value to Hardware status is:

• a more consistent mapping for Hardware CIs (As of Helsinki, you can review your fancy new Asset-CI status mapping tables to get a better idea.)
• a second level of status granularity

Unfortunately, the sync from CI-to-Asset status sync doesn't then sync back to the other CI status field(s). Here are some updated Helsinki links:

• High-level: Asset and CI management

                  ServiceNow still recommends "...that you drive changes by updating the state on the Asset form."

• More detailed: Asset and CI mapping

                  ServiceNow points out "CI's Install Status and Hardware Status work independently. There is no correlation between them. CI's Hardware Status change does                     not change CI's Install Status and vice versa. To avoid confusion, keeping both status for CMDB CI Hardware is not recommended."

Since initially posting, I do think we've had some challenges with using CI Install Status that may not have resulted from using CI Hardware Status, but the point seems to be just picking one and sticking to it. Good luck!

[Nicolas Breugn1]

Hi,   

Following on this old topic as i was facing the same kind of problematic.  We wanted to unify the different CIs and use / display only the install status and faced the problem of the CI status change not updating the Asset if the ci is of type Hardware.

The following Known Error can be usefull :

https://hi.service-now.com/kb_view.do?sysparm_article=KB0717902

Regards,

Nicolas

[Jim Tower]

we are reviewing our CI Hardware statuses/substatuses and the sync between Asset states/substates. Most of our workflows use the CI Hardware status/substatus. Our field techs only reference the CI tables when looking up or updating a device. 

Is there a recommended best practice of how this should be set up?

Thanks,

Jim