Not Ready for The CMDB

Level 1 — IT is Project and Portfolio Focused but Operationally Challenged. Good processes and controls exist to evaluate, control and execute projects in order to ensure on time, on scope and on budget delivery of initiatives. However, once those projects arrive in production the controls evaporate. In this model little to no concern is given to the processes which need to receive and support the project deliverable once it is live. For this organization Configuration Management makes sense while the project is being developed but not a concern once the project is closed since the attention of management is now focused on the next big initiative. Alternatively to the controls and processes evaporating it is also possible to see each project defining and deploying its own support processes for each major project. The result of this approach is that there are many redundant and unconnected processes and tools since they are project specific. Level 2 — IT Realizes that Availability and Reliability of Technology is Tied to Business Success At this point IT governance focus is shared between project execution and the management of an IT technology environment. Domain or IT Platform owners are established and multiple business cases are developed and approved to purchase domain focused monitoring tools. Each domain acquires its own technology to monitor their own assets from a variety of different vendors. If configuration information is managed about the technology components it is typically represented by inventory lists maintained by each functional group to the level of integrity required by that group. At this point of maturity basic support functions and processes such as a Service Desk and Change Management have begun to be implemented but are struggling with compliance. Level 3 — IT Realizes that Technology Components Don't Live in Mythical Isolation It is only when an IT organization realizes that availability and reliability have to be looked at from and end to end solution or in ITSM words a service view that the need for a Service orientation and the CMDB begins to become an issue. It is also at this point that the organization is even ready to support the development and implementation of processes that are required to keep a central source of data up to date. My Thoughts Troy "He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife." ~Douglas Adams

Like this article? Like

View Comments (3)

Comments

Hi Troy!

I personally find your articles very insightful and refreshing. Thank you! Having a lot of trust in ITIL framework and being an ITIL disciple in our organisation I am trying to offer my “two cents” in getting my company up to the level of cultural readiness for CMDB.
At my “spate time” I’ve given some thoughts about a CMDB “model”, which would be positioned somewhere in between ITIL CMDB framework and a “stand alone” configuration management tool (think about OSI model for an analogy). This model, in my humble opinion, may bridge the gap and conquer the scepticism (as mentioned in your blog) that separates ITIL CMDB idea from its actual implementatioin.
Not sure if I am the first one to attempt this, but nevertheless, I am filing it in search for a patent grin
If it strikes any chord with you or anybody else reading this comment, I’d love to take this subject further and participate in relevant discussions.

Thank you for your time!
Gleb

Gleb Lisikh | April 11, 2007 at 5:50pm

Hello Gleb

Good luck on your CMDB patent, from my posts you will quickly understand that I believe the Service Catalog and the supporting CMDB is central to Service Management. The Tip and the Tail so to speak, or perhaps more correctly the heart.

One thought I would ask you to consider is that the CMDB has no benefit unto itself and should not exist in isolation to other tools. It and the information it manages exists only to support every other IT Management process involved in Service Delivery.

For this reason it cannot live in isolation but needs to be able to connect to, integrate with and provide seamless data access to all other IT tools. In short it must be part of a greater system or be open enough for all tools to source data from without constraint.

Troy

Troy DuMoulin, VP Research & Development | April 12, 2007 at 12:01pm

Troy,
Are you reading my mind? smile
That’s exactly what I am shooting at - an open skeleton (or a core) that does not deliver anything by itself at all, but allows for normally disperate tools, dBs and processes to talk to each other in a manner that would orient them in one direction - service delivery. Such skeleton along with attached dBs specific to particular processes will form a CMDB that may live up to ITIL idea.
Thanks for the prompt response and your thoughts!
I’ll keep you posted on the progress of my endeavour if you don’t mind. smile
Any other thoughts are highly appreciated!

Cheers,
Gleb

Gleb | April 12, 2007 at 2:36pm

Post a comment