SCCM integration and cmdb_ci_computer

[treidfrb]

We are on Quebec and will be upgrading to San Diego this year.  We have been running the SCCM 2012 v2 integration since New York, and will be upgrading this integration when we upgrade to San Diego. 

It has been a constant complaint by two key stakeholder groups, that reporting workstations using cmdb_ci_computer is difficult, since this is a parent table to cmdb_ci_server in CMDB.  This requires a lot of filtration before starting to create a report, to remove servers from the output.

I have been directed by our account team to use SGC as the certified way to integrate SCCM and NOW and remain compliant.  I checked the documentation for this, and this continues to use cmdb_ci_computer table for workstation discovery.

Service Graph connector for Microsoft SCCM (3.0.6) | ServiceNow Docs

Is there something I am missing in the strategy as to why a class that is a parent of several sub classes would be used for workstations?  Our CMDB team would like to use a strategy like this, but we are also trying to stay OOTB as much as possible.

High-usage classes in CMDB Hierarchy

HARDWARE > COMPUTER                                                                                       (Workstation Class) (cmdb_ci_computer still used in San Diego)

HARDWARE > COMPUTER > SERVER > WINDOWS SERVER                             (Windows Server Class)

HARDWARE > COMPUTER > SERVER > LINUX SERVER                                      (Linux Server Class)

HARDWARE > COMPUTER > WORKSTATION                                                       (Workstation Class, proposed)

HARDWARE > COMPUTER > WORKSTATION > DESKTOP                                  (Workstation Class, proposed)

HARDWARE > COMPUTER > WORKSTATION > LAPTOP                                    (Workstation Class, proposed)

Thank you for reading, appreciate any perspective on this that you may have.

Tim

[emir]

cmdb_ci_computer

can you explain why it is hard to differentiate between what is in the computer table vs servers?

[treidfrb]

Hi Emir,

Thank you for the reply.  I passed this issue along from my colleague who runs CMDB.  I wanted to gauge the response of the community on this issue, and I am talking to my account team.  I actually have the same position you are inferring, that this reporting is not difficult, but it is different from reporting on sub classes under cmdb_ci_server and cmdb_ci_netgear, and generally speaking does not reflect the same hierarchy as the servers and netgear tables.  If we have such a term as taxonomy, should there not be proper consistency and rules regarding this structure, and should there be separation between these classes of workstations and infrastructure devices in CMDB?  Just because you CAN filter out servers from the workstation table, is this the proper structure of the CMDB? 

I'll leave this open a little longer and report back on what I hear from an SME that my account team has provided.

Regards

Tim

[treidfrb · Accepted solution]

I have done due diligence on this question I received from our CMDB manager.

We will stay with OOTB workstation table as cmdb_ci_computer and submit an enhancement request.

Thanks to Emir for his response.

Tim