- Steve Jobs is a man of a few words
- Internet routing blasts into space
- 15 free downloads to pep up your old PC
- IBM smartphone software translates 11 languages
- New attack fells Internet Explorer
Senior Editor Denise Dubie guides you through the latest developments in management tools and services.
In getting ready for a Webinar entitled "CMDB Adoption in the Real World - Just How Real is it?" - it occurred to me that several of the most significant results could be summarized in what I might call "three pairs." Now for those of you who play cards, you know that three pairs is neither a poker nor a bridge hand - but it appears to be the hand that we've been dealt with in CMDB land.
But before taking a closer look, let's provide a quick reference point for what a Configuration Management Database (CMDB) is. Historically the CMDB is a creation of the IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) and its best practice recommendations. ITIL's notion of the CMDB reflects its definition of configuration management as touching virtually all aspects of the infrastructure as it maps to service delivery. This includes hardware and software, topological and configuration detail as well as operational and business impacts, service mappings, asset-related implications and even incidents impacting critical services. In short, the CMDB is a dynamic common ground for providing consistent perspectives across virtually all management disciplines.
Two parents
In the last column I wrote on CMDB adoption based on some fairly extensive research (154 respondents, plus 30 hours of in-depth focal interviews) - I focused on CMDB's two parents: ITIL and the need to find a better way to integrate and reconcile multiple management investments. In other words, although ITIL has done a superlative job of codifying the need for an integrated resource of information to enable service management from a process perspective, another CMDB driver is toolset integration.
Now the need for toolset integration has been around as long as the IT infrastructure/service management industry has existed. In the past, GUI launches were considered adequate, as were event sharing as alerts got passed upwards from one system to another. But data-level integration was often considered superior - as through it data can be actually shared and can support multiple analytic, visualization and reporting capabilities with consistency. In other words, if you really want to integrate your management investments - isn't finding a compelling way to integrate data vs. simply having siloed tools launching off each other or sending alerts to each other - a more satisfactory answer?
Denise Dubie is senior editor with Network World.
Comment