Page 1 of 1

Difference between Asset and CI

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:39 am
by steve277
What is the difference between an Asset and a CI ?

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:45 am
by UKVIKING
NO LINKS

Are you asking the question or merely posting spam ?

The rules on this forum is ask a question to get a discussion
No links
No spam

so what is the reason for the post

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:08 am
by steve277
intended to ask a question..! thought the link might be useful

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:23 am
by Diarmid
An asset is something of tangible value

A CI (configuration item) is something that is part of a configuration and that it is useful to identify individually in order to manage that configuration and the uses to which it is put.

It is probable that most, if not all, assets that are in a configuration will be identified as CIs.

It is unlikely that all CIs will be assets in any meaningful way.

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:29 pm
by UKVIKING
The forum does not allow links

ITILADMIN: Please remove link

So other than diarmid' answer to your question

any clarification

NOTE: All of the people on the forum - the knowledgeable ones and the new ones can and do know how to go search for things

Posting someone blog statement (yours?) about some thing in ITIL that has covered more than once between 2006 and now is rather specious

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:47 am
by steve277
Is a workstation an Asset or a CI ?

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:01 am
by UKVIKING
Yes

Is this an exam question ?

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:13 am
by Diarmid
NO!!!!

Come on Steve! Read my first response!!

A workstation is not "an asset or a CI" because there is no exclusivity between the two. It could be both, either or neither equally logically.

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:51 am
by Hariharansrm
Asset is not thing but which has Financial impact and CI which has operational impact. It is as simple as that!!

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:45 am
by Edward_Williams
Everything is CI because everything is connected...part of a configuration.

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:35 am
by Diarmid
Edward_Williams wrote:Everything is CI because everything is connected...part of a configuration.
Well.... no. Things only become CIs if they, or their relationships, are important enough to require to be explicitly managed.

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:38 pm
by Edward_Williams
Diarmid wrote:
Edward_Williams wrote:Everything is CI because everything is connected...part of a configuration.
Well.... no. Things only become CIs if they, or their relationships, are important enough to require to be explicitly managed.
Yes Sir, I was speaking philisophically really. Everything is connected...and also managed. Land is connected to water is connected ot air is connected to people is connected to land is connected to plants is connected to...

If we're speaking in a box...according to ITIL V3...an asset doesn't have a relationship to anything. But CIs do.

Re: Difference between Asset and CI

Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:29 pm
by IF4IT
steve277 wrote:What is the difference between an Asset and a CI ?
Hi Steve,

An "Asset" is something that has intrinsic value to a person or an enterprise.

A "Configuration Item" is an Entity or Thing that you wish to track, that is important to a Configuration.

An Asset is almost always a Configuration Item but a Configuration Item is not always an Asset.

Examples of Assets that are Configuration Items:
- Computers
- Products
- Services
- Licenses
- People
- Facilities
- Patents
- Furniture
- Vehicles
- Etc.

Examples of Configuration Items that aren't necessarily Assets:
- Environments
- Market Segments
- Locations (such as Addresses)
- Professional Disciplines
- Discussion Topics
- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
- Etc.

In a CMDB, an advanced enterprise wants all of the above (and much more) to be tied together in some way, shape, or form.

I hope this helps clarify.

My Best

Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:27 pm
by ClearCase_Guy
I'm working my way through the same confusion, and maybe I'm not looking at things right, but it seems less clear to me than some of these explanations would imply.

I'm in a large network environment. We are tracking the acquisition and maintenance of the network itself. Across the network, I might have a large number of network-attached storage devices. According to the design of the network, each (and every) NAS will consist of a 4-bay HW device, 4 HDD of a certain size, a certain OS and a NAS SW application.

I see assets here: the 4-bay HW device, 4 disk drives, an OS and SW. If a hard disk crashes, I swap it out with a change ticket. My expectation is that the Part Number stays the same, but the Serial Number in my CMDB will need to be updated because my network assets have changed.

Here's where I think I get confused: I see the Configuration Item as being really a virtual thing. It's defined by the architectural design of the network. My CI is the "idea" of the NAS that I just described above. It's an outgrowth of the specifications for network storage capacity. My CI is defined in a document -- sure, it could change if the needs of the network change -- larger HDD, more bays, different OS, whatever. These design changes require that the Configuration Item that is my NAS must be updated. But my CI only changes if my network needs change. On the whole, I think my CI which is a NAS is very stable.

Let's go back to my crashed hard disk. I swapped out the HDD asset, I updated the serial number in the CMDB. To my way of thinking, my CI hasn't changed at all.

Does ITIL actually define a CI in a way which allows this sort of thinking? An aggregate of HW, SW, and/or FW which is a virtual design artifact that bundles specific asset data within a CMDB, but which is not necessarily changed just because an asset is replaced with a matching asset?

I see CIs and Assets are being rather fundamentally different -- and I don't really want a hundred thousand configuration items. I don't think managing an allocated baseline is easy if I go down that road. I want a smaller number of CIs. Now, if I end up with a hundred thousand assets, that's less of a worry for me. My product baseline is inherently dynamic.

Am I missing the boat and abusing vocabulary?