9 On Dec 12, 2013 5:39 PM, "Janie Sprenger" <jrsrem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ** > Does anyone have a definition for what "lifecycle" means in reference to > the CMDB attributes that were put into AST:Attributes in 8.1? > > I understand that the BMC.AM fields are considered Lifecycle attributes > and non BMC.AM attributes tend to fall under Configuration Management. I > am wondering how BMC decides what falls under Asset Mgmt and what falls > under Config Mgmt. > > I'm finding it difficult for users to consistently understand the > difference between fields that fall under Asset Management and > Configuration Management when the GUI they work in is Asset Management. > Understandably, fields have a purpose in either practice, but if all the > fields fall under one screen, should users need to know the difference? > > Presumably the impact is relatively lessened for the end user when all of > their activities are performed from Asset forms and their experience is > seemless regardless of field origin. However, some features tend to > highlight the difference, such as Audits, where in 8.1 the users will need > to know that if they are looking for Status audits, they should check the > Lifecycle audit because it's no longer in the CMDB Audit, and so on and so > forth. I've also found that having to rework every AIE import to AI to > accommodate attributes in both the core forms and attributes form has been > long and time consuming. > > I had thought that an easy way to describe Lifecycle information is to say > that attributes included in the lifecycle activity phases have the > possibility of change during that lifecycle; however, that doesn't really > hold up since Part Number falls under lifecycle but I certainly wouldn't > say that attribute should change. And it seems the location information > isn't in AST:Attributes yet. In addition, it seems that any Asset > Management attribute wouldn't really hold up to the change definition when > considering things like Purchase Cost, etc. > > So, then I thought, if the definition behind the BMC.AM fields is that > the fields are not discovered through Discovery tools then they must fall > into the Configuration Management realm. But then how can one justifiably > say that the AssetLifecycleStatus should be an Asset Attribute. Wouldn't > this field need to be a Configuration attribute available to the core data > model for integration and reconciliation between datasets. What if the > 'Status' of the CI is no longer on line and has reached the threshold where > the organization considers that the item is End of Life - stolen or > otherwise. Since the field has moved to AST:Attributes, is no one updating > their discovery datasets with the status anymore. Also, I was under the > impression that one of the powerhouse selling points about Discovery tools > (whether BMC or otherwise) was to minimize interruption by creating > Incidents based on down CIs - ?? what now?? > > So, I'm really just trying to find a 'rule' so to speak so that a user can > test that rule to identify any given attribute. > > Does anyone have any ideas on that? > > Thanks, > Janie > > > > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
