| Thank you Shawn for your reply. My concern is, and this is what I have heard from BMC, when designing your Product categories, you need to think ahead to the design of the CMDB as well. It's all interrelated and affects reporting, trending analysis etc. I find it very difficult to design my Product categories and place all of the Non-Asset items in an 'OTHER' category, only to find out 2 years down the road our CMDB is messed up and mostly useless. Was this information from BMC a ploy to sell more Professional Services? I just hope to look enough ahead of the road to see the brick wall coming at me, that's all. Thanks again, Kevin P. ** Part
of the problem is that there are no good answers to your questions. By default,
we put things in the BMC_ComputerSystem class, unless it fits in somewhere
else. So a Blackberry technically is a computer, just a tiny one. So is a
calculator. Stuff
that doesn’t have a class and isn’t anything remotely close to being a computer
goes in as “equipment”. I’m
wary of creating new classes unless there is a demonstrable need for it that is
so strong we can’t live without it. My users already hate that they have
nothing in Asset Management to be able to search across the different classes
(e.g. how do you find, in ITSM, all Assets located on the third floor of a
certain building? The data exists, but there is no screen for users to pull
that type of information.) New classes make the system harder to use. In fact,
rather than creating a bunch of new classes, we’ve hidden some of the OOB
classes to make the system easier to navigate. Shawn
Pierson |
__Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___
