Why are assets/CI's a 1 to 1 and not 1 to many

[loberle]

So if the asset record holds the financial information and the CI stores the other information, what is the best way to track re-used of equipment.

Example..

ABC123 is the hardware asset created. It has invoice details, contract info, po, and monies spent. This has a 1 to 1 relationship with the "WindowsServerABC"   CI. Which works great at first until it is time to retire that Server CI. So WindowsServerABC is being re-used to be LinuxServerABC. So this server now has a different class and purpose. It still has the same serial number, hardware components, and financial information. So now I have a hardware asset that is tied to a CI that "retired" and a new CI that is not tied to the hardware asset record anymore.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Teri Bobst]

Hi Lisa, I will add my issue so I can follow your post! My problem with the 1 : 1 relationship is with mobile service plans. Initially we import all of our active lines of service from reports from our carriers. The asset/ci is created with the phone number and the device assigned to a user - which is fine. Now, jump forward a year and the user wants to upgrade the device. They will still have the same phone number, but it will be associated with a new piece of hardware.

From my perspective, the line of service would be the asset since this has contractual and financial data associated with it and the devices would be the CI's. Through the years a single line of service may have many different devices associated with it.

I believe this scenario would be an excellent candidate for a one to many relationship between asset and CI.

Hoping for guidance 🙂

Teri

[klf1123]

In this instance the Asset/CI is the phone itself and it is attached to a contract (Service Agreement). The phone number is an attribute of the device. When the phones are upgraded a new CI/Asset is assigned to the contract with the same phone number and person assigned to it. The old phones are marked returned or retired. Incidents for broken phones or issues are attached to the CI. Warranty information regarding the phone is on the Asset etc.

[klf1123]

The CI tracks the operational aspects of the item and the asset the financial. Just because you change the name or the OS on the device does not warrant a different CI. The CI is being linked to Changes and Incidents and it's history should remain intact on the same CI. You would retire it once you are ready to dispose of it not because you are re-purposing for another use. It's history should be tracked for it's lifecycle.  

[loberle]

I understand that the Financial information stays with the Asset. Here is my issue..

"Asset123" has all of the financial information tied to it. It is linked to CI   named "CIABC" that is currently being used. Due to this relationship, I can see the cost and related information for "CIABC" again because it is linked to that "Asset123".

Sometime has gone by and now "CIABC" is going to be decommissioned and   re-purposed for a different reason. So "Asset123" is now tied to a decommissioned CI "CIABC".   I would like to keep all the historic information for "CIABC" again for the reasons that you mentioned above, changes and Incidents..    

A new CI has been created "CIEFG" that should be linked to Asset123 since it is truly the same physical box just repurposed. It can't be linked due to CIABC being tied to the Asset123. So now I have this CI that looks like it isn't tied to an asset.   I could create an asset to associate to it but it really is the Asset123 so I would need to decom that Asset and create a new one with the exact same information tied to "CIEFG".

Does this make sense? Am I missing something in the tool that would allow me to track the CI through its lifecycle but still maintain the integrity of the Asset to CI relationship?

Thanks