| **
James There are about 40 ITIL certified toolsets
on the market, each of which will have its own CMDB which is ITIL certified and
based on ‘ITIL best practices’. They will all have very
different structures. Remedy’s Atrium CMDB is not THE CMDB, it is
an example of a CMDB – there are many others, and some of them will be
better, and certainly easier to manage. What level of detail needs to be stored
for CI records depends upon the organization’s requirements – the only
requirement from an ITIL perspective is that the CI record identifies the
infrastructure element uniquely. For some organizations that might be 10
attributes in a single table/’class’, for others it might be 100s
of differing attributes in many tables or even in several federated databases. David Sanders Remedy Solution Architect ========================== ARS List Award Winner
2005 Best 3rd party Remedy
Application tel +44 1494 468980 mobile +44 7710 377761 email [EMAIL PROTECTED] web http://www.westoverconsulting.co.uk From: Action Request
System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: David:
________________________________
From:
Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
David Sanders ** James
That is
not true. ITIL does not say anything about how you should structure your
CMDB or classify your CIs. ITIL defines terminology, suggests roles and gives
general guidance on best-practice for certain processes, like who can modify CI
records, approval processes, etc. It also infers certain functional
requirements, like being able to relate CIs to RFCs etc. It does not dictate a
table structure for the CMDB, any classification system for CIs or what level
of granularity you need to adopt when defining your CIs.
Regards
David
Sanders Remedy
Solution Architect ==========================
ARS List
Award Winner 2005 Best 3rd
party Remedy Application
tel +44
1494 468980 mobile
+44 7710 377761 email
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
web http://www.westoverconsulting.co.uk
<http://www.westoverconsulting.co.uk/>
________________________________
From:
Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
McKenzie, James J C-E LCMC HQISEC/L3 Sent:
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:41 PM
Kevin: You can
go to one class, but that will not be ITIL complaint and may make matters
worse. James
McKenzie -----Original
Message----- We are
rolling out ITSM 7.x in 5 weeks and the last major hurdle we have in our UAT is
CMDB. The feedback from our users and management is the 68 classes are
too confusing and they want to simplify. I recommended getting the list
to 10-15 classes, they went the extreme and said they want one class that
stores everything; services, assets, documents, etc. Has
anyone gone to this extreme of just using one class. Any advantages and
disadvantages, lessons learned, etc. I think it would be hard to identify
all the attributes to accomodate everything in one class. The
driving force behind this is Management feels users will not relate/manage
CTI's because noone will know what to classify it as ... Also reporting would
be a nightmare with data in multiple forms. Management feels our
Categorization is structured well enough to pull reports based on it from one
form (class). TIA Kevin |
Title: RE: CMDB Classes
- Re: CMDB Classes McKenzie, James J C-E LCMC HQISEC/L3
- Crystal 11 Kemes, Lisa
- Re: Crystal 11 Don McClure
- Re: Crystal 11 Kemes, Lisa
- Re: Crystal 11 Don McClure
- Re: CMDB Classes David Sanders
- Re: CMDB Classes McKenzie, James J C-E LCMC HQISEC/L3
- Re: CMDB Classes David Sanders
- Re: CMDB Classes McKenzie, James J C-E LCMC HQISEC/L3
- Re: CMDB Classes David Sanders
- Re: CMDB Classes Robert Molenda
- Re: CMDB Classes David Sanders
- Re: CMDB Classes McKenzie, James J C-E LCMC HQISEC/L3
- Re: CMDB Classes Chris Rom
- Re: CMDB Classes Guillaume Rheault
- Re: CMDB Classes Watson, Matthew (Melbourne)
- Re: CMDB Classes McKenzie, James J C-E LCMC HQISEC/L3

