Configuration Management

[Eton]

Within the ITIL framework there is a drive for the CMDB to be all things to all people. Yet in practice many CMDB's fail to deliver on their potential due to the over extended remit and the inability of many organisations to correctly manage it. Should not something this critical to service delivery and IT performance be modular and effectively sectioned-off?

Application development is one historical example of IT tacking several years and iterations to get the framework right? Views please

[Guest]

Hi Eton,

yes, the CMDB is supposed to be everything to everyone - and that is the
reason why it can't be properly divided into modules, if you want my point of view. It has to have quite a number of functions right from the start in order to be of some value at all. Maybe you could cut off some more "remote" functions like financial management, but as far as the core functionality is concerned, you have to do it completely and you have to do it right the first time. Otherwise, you deliver a torso that nobody uses and that is worse than not delivering anything at all because the products' reputation will suffer badly. Moreover, the effort for implementing extensions is enormous - as usual.
I'm drawing from two-and-half years experience with introducing a CMDB at an international life sciences company and an internal bank.
Just my two cents ...

Karsten Meyerhoff

[PSMC]

Before you can establish a CMDB you need to address cultural change! Implementing CMDB involves different departments, it doesn't support the business as a whole if it in silo's only - for example only in IT department; or accounting; or Application development. CMDB implies accountability. Also, in parallel with establishing CMDB you need to establish Change Management process, again involving all functions of the business. But, specific departments can establish the CI requirements.
Hope that helps.