Software Lifecycle report accuracy

[andynewey]

What is everyones view on the accuracy of the software lifecycle report?  We have come across a cersion and product that completely out of support of the vendor but SAMP is still showing it as valid.

This vendor is large enough for me to expect that the lifecycle status would have been updated.  Also the Software Version is from the late twenty teens so plenty of time for it to be updated. 

Opinions welcome.

[dreinhardt]

Hi @andynewey , 

I agree with you, content team has a view points to improve the quality or various objects 😞 Wondering if any Security/Risk module is having better data … ?!

• You could raise a request and share all details to be included
• you can escalate it by your success manger
• Integrate a thirdparty source

Best, Dennis

[Louis R Ronzitt]

Hi everyone,

The Content Library is a huge asset overall, but the lifecycle dates aren't always updated as quickly or comprehensively as we'd hope, especially for less mainstream editions or when vendors change their support policies retroactively.

Worse, in my experience (and from chatting with others), the data quality has improved over time, but gaps remain, and getting corrections can involve significant back-and-forth with the Content team.

A few things that have helped in similar situations which I believe align with ServiceNow’s Guidance:

• Submit a Content Request: Go through the Content Library Portal (or raise a case) with specific details—publisher, exact product name/version/edition, and links to the vendor's official support page announcing the EOL/EOS dates. The more evidence, the better chance it gets prioritized.

• Escalate if needed: Loop in your ServiceNow account/success manager—they can often push for faster updates.

• Workarounds in the meantime:
  
  
• Create custom lifecycle records manually on the Software Product Lifecycle [sam_sw_product_lifecycle] table for the affected models. These take precedence over Content Service data and won't get overwritten. But then as the Content Team does add the dates, these would have to be swapped out with their dates

• Enable approximated lifecycles if coverage is spotty (system property: com.snc.samp.use_lifecycle_approximation—available since Washington DC release). It uses industry averages to fill in gaps for unsupported products.

• For critical publishers, some orgs supplement with third-party sources (e.g., Flexera, Snow, or vendor APIs) via integrations to override or enrich the data.

It's a magnitude of effort or as I heard someone once coin a phrase “Gargantuan” just on the SAM-P side, but once corrections are in, they benefit everyone using the Content Service.

All in all, ServiceNow needs improvements in this area.  Has anyone who have Opted In had success getting specific lifecycle updates pushed through quickly?  Or found a more reliable third-party feed for EOL data?

Accuracy is needed, but so it's completeness and timeliness.    Thanks for raising this—it's a common topic!