relationships between location table, bulding table, floor and room table

[nattapholu]

Hi guys,

I'm working on reference tables starting off with location, it will be in hierarchy so we make use of the 'parent' field. top level that we define is building, then next level down is host modules (data center, data room, PoP site, Closet, etc) and the lowest level is space name. does this mean I should crate records in location table and maintain hierarchy in there only?

I'm asking this because I saw tables called building, room and floor in the facility management. Are they just for facility purpose? What I tried was I created a City in Location table, then a building in the location table, use the city as parent location for the buliding I created. Then I look into an hw asset record, tried to update the locaiont but it only showed me the city I created, not to the bulding I put in bulding table. So I guess ServiceNow can't show hierarchy across the tables?

Thanks in advance.

[Community Alums]

Nattaphol,

Did you create the building in the Location table or the Building table included with Facilities Management? You state Location (" What I tried was I created a City in Location table, then a building in the location table, use the city as parent location for the buliding I created.").

If you used the Location table, you should see the building as an option in the Location field of the Asset record.

If you did use Building, the Location field will not read the Building table. You would need to reference the Building table.

Ben

[nattapholu]

Hi Ben,

thanks for replying, I actually tried both approaches

1. in location table, I created a new field for location type with a closed list of building, data center, data room, POP, Closet, etc. then I create records and select types and put them in hierarchy, it works perfectly.

2 now I created a building in building table and hoping that from asset.location field, it will see the building values but no luck.

so if I reference the field to building table, I will see floor and rooms that associated to buildings but i won't see upper levels that buildings are associated to? Am I right?

thanks

Nattaphol

[Community Alums]

Nattaphol,

The asset.location field just points to the Location table. It has no concept of pulling detail further up. The Building, Floor, etc. tables are just used for Facilities Management today. You need to build out the Location table to be as specific as you want it to identify where assets are and see items in the hierarchy, as you saw in 1 above.

If you wanted to do something with the Facilities Management fields, you would need to add these fields to the asset record, and you could set reference qualifiers so that after you select a Location, only Buildings at that location display, and likewise for floor. Just be aware that the more detail you have like this, the higher to cost of maintaining the asset record from a time and complexity standpoint.

I've worked with some customers who created locations right down to the rack in the data center. They may not have been working with Facilities, though.

Ben

[nattapholu]

Thank you Ben, i stick to option 1 then.

Also we also track down to rack level too but we trat racks as assets then associate them to space name (lowest level of the location hierarchy)