I once heard an IT manager
say… “We do not need Service Asset and Configuration Management”! We have Asset Management and we can add a few
more fields of information for IT in that database.” Is this true?
Would this give the service provider the same value as a Service Asset
and Configuration Management Process and System?
Asset
Management
Most organizations have a
process that tracks and reports the value and ownership of fixed assets
throughout their lifecycle. This process is usually called Fixed Asset
Management or Financial Asset Management. Activities in traditional Asset Management
include such things as documenting the cost of the asset and projected life of
the asset. Other bits of data captured
might be the cost of maintaining the asset.
For the most part this is financial information. Being able to determine the depreciation of
an asset is year over year, Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) and Return on
Investment (ROI) are key. Fixed Asset Management maintains an asset database or register that records financial information
about all of the organization’s assets.
Configuration
Management
For an IT service provider the
Service Asset and Configuration Management process is supported by a data store
that contains information required to ensure a business or service outcome. A key differentiator between the Asset
Register and a Configuration Management System (CMS) is “RELATIONSHIPS”. Each
of the items tracked in order to manage that service are referred to as a
Configuration Item (CI). If I have an
application CI then perhaps I would link that to the server that the
application sits on. The server CI could
be linked to the network that supports the server and so on. We end up with a tiered hierarchical
structure of all CI’s that support the IT service. These relationships from one CI to another
allow the IT service provider to determine impact of components one to another
but most importantly the impact of a component or CI to a service or business
outcome. Change control, version
control, root cause analysis and more are supported by the data and information
contained in the CMS. Other types of
CI’s can be tracked and reported upon such as the service level agreements,
customer contracts, and processes necessary to support a service. These things
cannot be achieved via traditional Asset Management alone. How your organization’s CMS is created and the
level of detail for each configuration and CI captured will be dependent on
requirements for business outcomes and consumer productivity. When considering the design and architecture
for a Configuration Management System it is critical to not think of your CMS
or Configuration Management Database (CMDB) as a project. These projects usually do not return value
expected and tend to have data that grows out of control. Experience has proven that if we look at the
“WHY” or the business/consumer objectives greater value will result. For example, it is better to have an incident
management project that requires configuration management data. Or, it is better to have a change/release
management initiative that requires configuration management data and
information. A federated CMDB or group
of related databases in a CMS is generally preferred for greater efficiency.
Which is
Required?
Many service providers are
looking to improve the tracking of their assets. Understanding traditional or Fixed Asset
Management vs. Service Asset and Configuration Management is important. It is very common to integrate our traditional
or fixed asset management data as a subset of this overall Service Asset and
Configuration Management System. The
Service Asset and Configuration Management Process and system will mature over
time. Start small, scope and adopt and
adapt your system as you move forward. Looking
at a specific purpose for the data and information for assets and for
configuration items not only allows the architect to scope the effort but most
importantly will allow your system to deliver tremendous business value.
Comments