SAM Pro Model issues with Normalization

[loberle]

Hi all,

Does anyone know how to troubleshoot software model issues?

In a perfect world, the models would have been created when entering the entitlement, but we already had over 500 models before implementation of SAMP. When we implemented (2018), we had to make the product name not required due to the amount that was not in the library at that time. We are slowly trying to update models as we go to use the functionality but run into odd issues.

Also, I am not a ServiceNow Admin, but an Asset Manager. It is difficult to relay my issues to our admin team and how to fix them when I can't figure out if it is wrong nor have the insight of how the coding works.

In the cmdb_softwar_product_model table, I have a software model that does not have any products assigned to the Publisher. 

in the Software Products table (samp_sw_product) I can see that the product exists and is assigned to the Publisher

In the company table (core_company_list) I have multiple publishers.

Questions:

Why do I have multiple Normalized companies?

How do I decide which one I should select when entering Models? There will be a need to create some models without entitlements.

How do you check to see if Normalization is working?

Are other companies running into issues moving from Sam to SAMP? We never get any traction. We continue to run into discrepancies that I do not know how to fix.

Any help would be appreciated!

Lisa

[Alex Panzarella]

First problem I see is you're using a field called "name" where there shouldn't be. As a first step, have the admin bring your software model fields to out of box. The software model fields are all referenced fields so not having out of box will cause problems with compliance, normalization, and entitlements.

Also, ask your ServiceNow admin access to a sandbox so you can play around to see what admins can see and do.

[loberle]

The name field is a pre-SAMP field that we have that is used in many workflows. We will need it until we can re-do the automation for our software request process.  It was required when we implemented the SAMP because the product didn't exist for 95% of our software models. We couldn't create custom products for everything at the time and keep up with work. The name field is also like our user-friendly name that is public to our end users. 

[Joe Ryder]

Hi Lisa. First, I bet we could have a coffee session and go over all the issues in software models for different publishers and the traps we've both seen in approaches to making software modeling "work". It's a constant struggle.

First, I strongly recommend turning on the content service (Software Asset > Content Service Setup). If these are not turned on, you do not get new and updated PPNs, Software Products, and Publishers. This will alleviate your issue with products not being found for many situations.

I also strongly encourage you to remove any customizations to the Software Model. It was probably done with good intentions, but it breaks a lot of the automatic processes in the background that were intended by ServiceNow.

When loading Entitlements, you have two options: use a Publisher Part Number or use the Product/Version/Edition/Language criteria to do a match to a Software Model through DMAPs. The problem with not making "Product" mandatory when you don't have a PPN is that you basically can't map it to a Software Model at all. When there is no PPN, and no product (samp_sw_product), then one or the other need to be created. That can be done two ways: 1) send in a HI ticket to Now Support to create the PPN in a content service update, or 2) create a custom PPN or custom product that is then fed back to ServiceNow through the content service sharing function (automatic).

There are benefits of doing either. If you are looking to make sure the new product is clearly built as a supported product profile in ServiceNow, you might want to go through the HI ticket process, which takes time to build and release. If it is an internal app, a very special SKU not available to the public, or you have an urgent reason to add the product, creating a custom product is possible. I would recommend NOT creating custom companies that will be publishers because the normalization and product rollup fixes can break, like you are seeing, even with the "Normalization Data Services" plugin that attempts to normalize companies. It's much better to use existing company names or have ServiceNow build a company profile in the content service. This includes situations where the publisher changes for the same product: best to have ServiceNow correct the identification structure and push that in the content service.

Hope that helps! Post any clarifications you need. Please mark as helpful if I've been helpful. If you want to network on shared struggles with normalization, I'm on LinkedIn as well (https://www.linkedin.com/in/logikryder/).

[Daniel Slocum]

Hi Lisa,

The product not appearing issue you have identified is an issue with Normalization Data Services. It is not related to Discovery Model normalization, which is a feature in SAM.

In the San Diego release, an additional step was added to the NDS Guided Setup that in most cases resolves issues with data mismatches. If your organization is not on the San Diego release, you will need to undertake some manual steps to get data in synch. If you are on San Diego, you should start with executing the "Normalize Software Asset Management" step in the NDS Guided Setup to see if it resolves your issue. I've added a screenshot of the step and what it will update in your instance below.

If you are not on the San Diego release, you will want to work with your System Administrator to identify just one record from any groups of duplicates within the Company (core_company) table to use as normalized. Then you'll want to make sure that those are the records referenced by the "manufacturer" attribute on the Software Publisher table (samp_sw_publisher).  Once you've completed that clean-up, you won't have issues with the product value being empty on the SW Model table.

Alex suggested that you revert the Model table to out-of-box settings.  I did see your response regarding the Name field.  I'd agree that if it is critical to your business that you use it in the short term. However, I do want to echo what Alex was driving at.  If you've reverted to the out-of-box forms/features and then added in the Name attribute you should be good to go.  If you've not approached it that way, you might be missing key features important to your successful use of the product.