Search
Topics
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Modules
· Home
· Content
· FAQ
· Feedback
· Forums
· Search
· Statistics
· Surveys
· Top
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your_Account

Current Membership

Latest: RosendoRam
New Today: 28
New Yesterday: 58
Overall: 146008

People Online:
Visitors: 55
Members: 1
Total: 56 .

Languages
Select Interface Language:


Major ITIL Portals
For general information and resources, ITIL and ITSM World is the most well known for both ITIL and ITIL Books. A shorter snapshot approach can be found at ITIL Zone

Related Resources
Service related resources
Service Level Agreement
Outsourcing

Note: ITIL is a registered trademark of OGC. This portal is totally independent and is in no way related to them. See our Feedback Page for more information.


The Itil Community Forum: Forums

ITIL :: View topic - CMDB and WIKI. good mix?
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

CMDB and WIKI. good mix?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ITIL Forum Index -> Configuration Management
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mrcasal
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Apr 05, 2005
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:39 am    Post subject: CMDB and WIKI. good mix? Reply with quote

Hi everybody, I'm starting to deploy the Configuration Mgmt in my organization.

We're using Remedy for Incident, Problems and Changes, and we're thinking about building a CMDB over Oracle DB and integrate it with Remedy.

My idea is, use Remedy in order to control workflow and use Oracle Database as CMDB master.

I'm starting to do it, but now I've a new variable.

The IT WIKI is being born into my organization. I'm very happy about it, because I believe that WIKI is a really powerfull tool for knowledge management. Everbody is cooperating, and adding differents things to the WIKI. Develoment teams, analysis teams, operation, service desk ....

I think that it's a really good way in order to manage all this huge amount of information. But I'm not sure about the future relationship betewen WIKI and CMDB.

anybody have any experience about a similar situation?
are the CMDB and IT WIKI going to fight till someone fall down?

My idea is to use CMDB as formal record track, and IT WIKI for general knowledge.

Am I too utopic?
Do you think that is posible to manage this boundarie?

I know that it's very long, I hope not to be very boring

regards
Back to top
View user's profile
rjp
Senior Itiler


Joined: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 255
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Never say never - innovation comes from people just doing what seems like a good idea. (Just remember someone else will be paying for it).

Having said that - caution - CMDBs and Wikis are in one critical sense opposites - Control.

The information going into and out of a CMDB is intended to be very tightly controlled. A Wiki works on the reverse principle in that it needs to be open to all comers to function as intended.

- If you think can get justifiable value, then go for it. Just be aware from the usage-philosophy and management-control point of view a CMDB and a Wiki will be pulling in opposite directions.

WRT to Wiki specifically as a knowledge management tool: Wikis are suppoosed to be 'tolerant' of inaccurate information. The idea is that over time a community of peers with complete access to the articles will ensure that what is a) incorrect, and b) cared about, will get corrected.

However, in an IT organisation there are a few things that may undermine the functioning of a Wiki - and prove costly.

* The community is small. Very small if you consider the levels of specialisation that may go into any one entry.

* No one may really care enough about any article to validate and correct it until a situation arises in which the have a use for it.

* Generally an inaccurate Wiki article does no harm if it's about the history of dance in Norther Africa. But as a knowledge base for an IT department, using an inaccurate Wiki article to inccorectly solve an issue that may, for example, be affecting every desktop in you company, could be extremely costly.

How are you going to QA a tech support wiki so that it doesn't pose a real business risk?
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
mrcasal
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Apr 05, 2005
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm agree with you, WIKI and CMDB could flow into opposite directions.

They are differents, I Kwon and I realise that they've different purpose, but I'm afraid about reach people feelings with this view.

WIKI is easier, and more friendly, it's open and it was born to share knowledge without constrains.

I want both in my organization, but I believe that the challenge is to highlight the different natures of each tool

Everybody must know that IT WIKI is not for incident management, or problem management or change management, WIKI is an usefull tool to share experience, and knowledege but is not the corporate aplication supporting IT process.
how can we get it?

if you have a really friendly and easy tool in order to manage your process, nobody is going to use another tool to post the same information.

if your process aplication is hard, difficult, unfriendly, probably people is going to work over WIKI or another else tool, and they're going to use the corporate tool as an burocracy mandatory.

I think that the trick is, like almost in life, balance.

your aplication that update CMDB by managing your process, must be a good tool, and WIKI must be and adicional and complementary tool in order to make richer the life and the inteligence of the entire organization.

anybody has reach a situation where these couple could live together friendly?
Back to top
View user's profile
itilimp
Senior Itiler


Joined: Jan 20, 2006
Posts: 172
Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

At a slight tangent... which wiki tool are you using? Some of us tried TikiWiki at my place but are having real trouble getting support from some quarters who still prefer to write their notes in MS Word. Although we have a macro to convert documents into Tiki syntax, it is still tedious for screenshots unless you just upload the document. At which point it begs the questions why not just use document management or the HD knowledge base.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
mrcasal
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Apr 05, 2005
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi itilimp, we're testing the tool, currently it's not running into live enviroment.

We're using MediaWIKI, and we've not test uploading an word file to the wiki, I'll write tomorrow in order to tell how you can do it.

With the ordinary installation, you can only upload jpeg files.

now we're investigatin about migration from MySQL to Oracle, we've to do it before to put it into live

regards
Back to top
View user's profile
Guerino1
Senior Itiler


Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Posts: 500
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mrcasal,

I believe that the Wiki and the CMDB are two totally different technologies, as one is for content management and the other for tracking entities, relationships, and depenedencies, throughout their lifecycles in your environment.

You may want to consider that using a Wiki may appear good on the outside but will actually represent a long term risk to your organization, since you're embedding your company's proprietary and core information in a technology that is not standard and supported universally. All Wikis are not created equal. It's not like throwing your data in an MS Word document that you know you can translate to other systems. I think that if you run the details and the risks by your business they may not appreciate them as much as you do the technology.

The other thing we've found with a Wiki is that unless you have a highly agressive and diligent group of people reviewing and managing the content before and long after you put it in, you will get a large quantity of junk in you Wiki, over time. Stale data won't get cleaned up and after a while your wiki will have more problems than it will present value. I'm not saying don't use a Wiki but recommending that you are very careful in how you do so.

As for the CMDB topic, I believe that if you saw a real CMDB you'd understand that it is in no way, shape or form anything like a Wiki, as a Wiki is all about content and links and a CMDB is all about live data and relationships and dependencies between it all.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
_________________
[Edited by Admin to remove link]
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mrcasal
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Apr 05, 2005
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

many thanks for your reply Frank.

I think that is a really usefull reflexion about this topic.
I'm agree with you, when you talk about the care you must have with this kind of tools.

WIKI do not fix at all with an hierarchy, it's made to build knowledge community, and it's not suitable for support any business process.

But I've faith, I believe that this kind of cooperative tools could be very productive and usefull in corporate enviroments.

One thing is clear, you always need a CMDB in order to use it with all your IT process, but I think that you can build a cooperative enviroment where people can share information, experience, docs ... in order to achive better levels of performance on the basis of daily work.

regards and thanks for your replys, it's being really interesting.
Back to top
View user's profile
mrcasal
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Apr 05, 2005
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

itilimp wrote:
At a slight tangent... which wiki tool are you using? Some of us tried TikiWiki at my place but are having real trouble getting support from some quarters who still prefer to write their notes in MS Word. Although we have a macro to convert documents into Tiki syntax, it is still tedious for screenshots unless you just upload the document. At which point it begs the questions why not just use document management or the HD knowledge base.


I've found this

"If you want to upload file types other than .jpg or .ogg, e.g., .pdf, in newer versions of mediawiki, you have to modify the file LocalSettings.php </wiki/LocalSettings.php> by copying the variable and its contents from DefaultSettings.php </wiki/DefaultSettings.php>. Afterward, you can edit it accordingly: $wgFileExtensions = array( 'png', 'jpg', 'jpeg', 'ogg','doc','xls','ppt','mp3','sxc','pdf' );
You may also need to remove this extension from the filetype blacklist (in /includes/DefaultSettings.php <mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Configuration_settings>).
"

I've not test it, I'll keep you inform about it
regards
Back to top
View user's profile
itilimp
Senior Itiler


Joined: Jan 20, 2006
Posts: 172
Location: England

PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, I know a lot of people use Mediawiki. The Tikiwiki already has the functionality for document upload so I don't think we'll be changing to another wiki. More likely they decide to put in something completely different! I was just curious Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
LJohnson
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Apr 26, 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Consider that you are comparing an open technology [wiki] to a canned solution [CMDB].

Your comments would be more relevant if you were comparing wiki to databases.

A database without the definition of data and processes to interact with it is a raw technology in need of purpose.

A wiki without definition and structure is a raw technology in need of purpose.

TWiki recognizes this in their open source environment by coining the term 'Twiki Applications' which are much more than the more widely adopted 'Twiki plugins'. Granted, there are few open source wiki applications - I for one - am drawn to Wiki's and am eager to bring the ITIL definitions of Configuration Management to wiki.

In our organization the 'rigidness' of Remedy and Oracle databases do not lend themselves to rapid adoption of new technologies/processes/procedures. In my opinion, this is because they need to be defined before they are used (populated with data) - and only then can data be extracted and used.

The wiki and yet to be defined 'wiki CM application' would allow for rapid creation of information that can in turn be used to create the definitions for wiki forms for subsequent workflow process data collection. All the while, providing for enterprise wide distribution of knowledge as it is learned/acquired.

In short, CMDB is great for managing defined processes with defined data elements.

Wiki, with an application layer, can act as a CMDB as well.

Wiki, allows for start-up collaboration to aid and assist in defining both process and data elements; until they are mature enough to migrate to either the CMDB or the CMwiki.

Regards
Back to top
View user's profile
mrcasal
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Apr 05, 2005
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi LJohnson, I'm really interesting in your reply

can you tell me where can I find more information related to 'Twiki Applications'

thanks in advance
Back to top
View user's profile
Guerino1
Senior Itiler


Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Posts: 500
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LJohnson wrote:
In our organization the 'rigidness' of Remedy and Oracle databases do not lend themselves to rapid adoption of new technologies/processes/procedures. In my opinion, this is because they need to be defined before they are used (populated with data) - and only then can data be extracted and used.


LJohnson, I have to say that this is a VERY insightful statement. My company has built a platform that takes the "definition" out of the database, specifically to address what you're talking about, so that the solution is very much like a natural combination of a CMDB and a Wiki, mixed together. Very few people we talk to get your point until we show them, in detail, what the problem is. It does click with them after they see it visually. You are the first person I've encountered that understands this problem, outright. I'm impressed.

Quote:
The wiki and yet to be defined 'wiki CM application' would allow for rapid creation of information that can in turn be used to create the definitions for wiki forms for subsequent workflow process data collection. All the while, providing for enterprise wide distribution of knowledge as it is learned/acquired.


This is, in short, what we have created. It's a combined platform that mixes operational process solutions with technology solutions. Operational Solutions include built in provisioning for things like Incident Mgmt, Problem Mgmt, etc., all in one platform. Technology Solutions include built in provisioning for things like Collaboration, CMDB, Corporate Portal, Corporate Intranet, Knownledge Base, Visual and Textual Data Mining, Advanced Reporting, etc.

We realized years ago, when we started out project that the two spaces had to mix. This was long before Wikis were out in the market. However, there is one other requirement that we threw in that you can't cleanly get with a Wiki. All Wikis are different (non-standard) and have no way to cleanly dump all of your corporate content out to standard formats, in the event you have to move away from the Wiki, in the future. This is the risk that most companies, do not want to take or, in many cases, understand clearly. Their data will be embedded in a proprietary system that the can not "undo" easily, if they need to. What we've done in our system is to allow all content, regardless of what trackable entity it is associated with (i.e. Incidents, Problems, Risks, etc.) to be exportable at the click of a button, to any standard format, such as Excel, Word, CSV, etc. We find that our customers prefer this safety feature.

Quote:
In short, CMDB is great for managing defined processes with defined data elements.

Wiki, with an application layer, can act as a CMDB as well.

Wiki, allows for start-up collaboration to aid and assist in defining both process and data elements; until they are mature enough to migrate to either the CMDB or the CMwiki.


Be careful, once people are in a Wiki, they rarely get out...

FYI, I've had a number of new employees, who are not familiar with our own product due to being so new, bring the idea of using a Wiki to me and my leaders. After a quick conversation they easily get the reasons why they should never use one. After a quick tour of our platform, they understand the value of what we've done. They never bring up using a wiki, again. LOL

Anyhow, if you're ever interested in having more conversations on this topic (the combination of the best of a CMDB and a Wiki), please feel free to contact me through any of our company's email addresses, found on our website. I think my email address is also public, on this sight. If you're ever interested, I can show you what we've done to mix the two.


Best of luck,
_________________
[Edited by Admin to remove link]
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ITIL Forum Index -> Configuration Management All times are GMT + 10 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001 phpBB Group
phpBB port v2.1 based on Tom Nitzschner's phpbb2.0.6 upgraded to phpBB 2.0.4 standalone was developed and tested by:
ArtificialIntel, ChatServ, mikem,
sixonetonoffun and Paul Laudanski (aka Zhen-Xjell).

Version 2.1 by Nuke Cops 2003 http://www.nukecops.com

Forums ©

 

Logos/trademarks property of respective owner. Comments property of poster. Rest 2004 Itil Community for Service Management & Foundation Certification. SV
Site source copyright (c)2003, and is Free Software under the GNU / GPL licence. All Rights Are Reserved.