Hey Norm:
I think that the value in getting a feed lies mostly in what you do with it, not just in getting the data in. Of course there is value in a basic integration where you just avoid having to populate it into the CMDB by hand. There is increased value however when take your integration a little further. SMS, Tivoli, etc all can be configured to inventory software as well as hardware. You could very easily use SMS to enhance software license management, or to monitor critical systems for software changes. You could use the hardware and software data for closed loop change management, you could use the user information the SMS collects to associate people to assets. The sky is really the limit in terms of how you can leverage the data. That said, you have to be based on some sort of foundation and the basic software and hardware information that you can discover from SMS is the foundation of that ability to explore. If you don't start from somewhere it can be tough to really take things to the next level. Now, that said, if you are looking at Asset Management practices it is a different story. You seem to be focusing your thinking there, with you example of tracking assets for theft identification purposes. With respect to formal asset management I don't believe that 'discovered' data should ever be a primary source. You really need to focus on assets where you can show the financial history there. Maybe you us data from the CMDB to validate life, but you can't do financial asset management from a system like SMS. Regards, Adam Pederson Mobile: +1 925 895 9500 Email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CS/SCCE Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 7:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Real-World Value of SMS & CMDB Hi everyone: I wanted to discuss the practicality issues of using SMS to populate the CMDB. I understand all (or virtually all) of the theory, but now I want to discuss the real-world practicality of it. By my estimation, the only real-world value I see in using SMS to populate the CMDB is that it saves someone from having to pound the keyboard to get system information into it. That's it. I've heard some folks talk about using SMS to identify deltas within the hardware inventory. That is, on Day 1, Dell Workstation 1 was discovered by SMS. On Day 9, Dell Workstation 1 is missing. That's a delta. An inventory manager can then be notified of that delta so that he can go figure out if Dell Workstation 1 got up and "walked away." But the way SMS is configured at most large sites, this would not work. In some configurations, items do not get removed from the SMS database until their machine account in the Active Directory is removed AND the machine fails to respond to polls for X amount of time. This does the enterprise no good in preventing, say, theft, as a thief does not request that the computer's machine account be removed from the Active Directory before he steals it! Theft prevention and loss prevention are two of the justifications in the total cost of ownership calculation, according to ITIL. But SMS alone won't get you there. You need something like RFID to truly identify instances of missing hardware. So what does SMS get you other than not having to pound a keyboard? Thoughts? Norm __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
