Hi David,

 

I haven't worked with ITSM 7 yet but speaking from customizing other version
of ITSM you can usually create add on functionality fairly unobtrusively.
Basically you develop the circuit form to work almost completely stand alone
and then you have a hand full of Active Links/Filters (maybe a field or two)
that are the hooks in to your custom form.  If your hooks were to break
during an upgrade it shouldn't take much to fix them or rebuild them.  Doing
this also makes the circuit workflow portable, easily used on/with other
forms and the data is not affected during an ITSM upgrade.  It probably
depends on the companies view on customizing by changing ITSM configuration
vs. actual development work.

 

Jason

 

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David K Hill
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:43 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: ITSM Change RFC Design Question

 

** 

I just want to get an opinion of other developer's ideas to see if I am
going down the right path with this design strategy for our RFC (Request for
Change) of the ITSM Change Module.

 

The situation is this:

 

1.      We have requirement to capture additional information that would be
considered important for the request for change of a telephony or network
"Circuit" in a network topology.  That is, a customer would like to "Add",
"Change", or "Remove" items that are deemed as "Circuits" in his network
topology.  A circuit is, for a lack of a better word, a collection of
information describing two endpoints, ownership, support structure,
location, punch down coordinates, costing, configurations etc. 
2.      They would like to have this information included for the review and
approval stages of the RFC.  That is some how available.   (e.g.  Location,
Circuit ID, POC info, support info etc.)  It would just be just another kind
of RFC to submit, review, approve and implement.     
3.      At the same time, we would like to keep the OOB functionality of the
ITSM Change module untouched to allow us upgrades in the future.  (I know
this sound contradictory).
4.      We need the extended data to be available in reports so that RFC
data is available along with the Circuit 

 

Here are some of the scenarios that I am thinking might satisfy the
requirements.

 

1.      Scenario:  Create a separate form that captures the information that
is different from the RFC and do a data driven workflow relationship to
relate the extraneous data on a one to one relationship.  Create work flow
that will capture the information on "Create" and "Modify" of RFC that are
classified in this Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 categorization.  The only
caveat here is that we have to take in consideration of the Upgrades and
preserving our changes in the work flow and forms every time we upgrade the
system.  (ITSM). 

 

2.      Scenario:  Create a CI Class that can be instantiated as a "Circuit"
that captures the special attributes listed above and use it as a Relational
item instead of creating a special form to denote a "Circuit" concept.  I am
thinking if we build/create a class that captures the fields we can use the
Configuration Management components and the other Suites such as AM, PM, IM
etc. out of the boxes with no additional work flow changes.  Do we know of a
CI that is indicative of a "Circuit" per se'?  Looking through the existing
CI, I can see some classes that would come close to the idea of a "Circuit".
I would just need to add the extra info fields.   I am thinking that a
Circuit CI could show a relation ship of all the child devices/components
that are affected.

 

If we could go with Scenario 2 and it's my understanding that everything
would behave natively.   We would derive data driven Work Flow that will
automatically relate the Circuit CI to the RFC at create/modify time.  The
only problem I can see is that I will have to build a special class to
support this kind of CI.  

 

Am I going about this the right way?

 

Thanks for any thought you may have in this.

 

David Hill

Verizon Business

 

__20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in
it___ 


_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"

Reply via email to