Using the right group field in the CMDB

[Mike McCall]

I've found a lot of posts around making use of the group fields on the Configuration Item [cmdb_ci] table, and I'm also aware that you can create an infinite number of relationships between CIs and Groups.

However, I can't find a recommendation behind the standard group fields available on the base CI table. What would we use each of the three CMDB groups for?

1. Assignment Group
2. Approval Group
3. Support Group

To be honest, I'm mostly confused about Assignment Group and Support Group. By name alone, I can guess the proper use for "Approval Group," but I can't see a difference between "Assignment" and "Support" (and I don't want to make things harder down-the-line because I chose incorrectly at the start).

[M a l c o l m]

In Jakarta, at least, the Normal Change workflow OOB specifies the Support Group field in a CI for the Technical Approval activity.

That can be changed, of course, but it's the default.  

[Laurie Marlowe1]

We use Support Group to identify the Production Support group that addresses incidents.

We created a Development Group field to identify the group responsible for enhancements (non-Production Support).

Both Support and Development Groups reference the sys_user_group table.

Thanks,

Laurie

[mw1307]

Hi All,

Are there any conventions about which group to use to attach a 'Service' (read this as 'solution provided to customers') to a member of the team of 'Service Portfolio Managers' (the people with external customer management responsibility). - i.e. NOT support.

i.e. so that the CDMB can support..... configuring things, to enable these managers of customers, to be able to see the relevant reports, which have automatically been customised, to show the 'services' that the manager is configured as 'pwning' .

(phew)

i.e.   CI has a 'responsible managing party' - maybe that is a better and more generic description.

cheers

M

[Mike McCall]

Since I started the thread, it's probably obvious that I'm not aware of any conventions, hah. However, reading through your use case, I wonder if "Approval Group" might actually work**.

Whether or not there are any default workflows in place for Approval Group, it's probably best to reserve that field for whatever group would/might be reviewing and approving changes to the CI. In this case, would your externally responsible team be the best team to potentially review and approve changes?

**Of course, you could always create a custom group field, but that recommendation would violate the original question in this thread!