This is why an architecture perspective is needed

Charles T. Betz — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:41:11 +0000

This is why an architectural view is needed. Resolving these things is really quite simple. You define your data subjects and/or major entities, and then matrix them to the candidate systems. Clive Finkelstein, James Martin, and Steve Spewak have all shown the way.

The challenging bit is defining what is an application (aka system). See http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/ApplicationBoundary.html. There is no-one today selling a Service Knowledge Management System as such (although I'm sure that both CMDB vendors as well as EA vendors are considering their market positioning here). Generally, I have looked to the research firms to define overall categories of systems; they play an important market-making role. Look for guidance coming out quickly from Gartner on "What is a Service Knowledge Management System."

Charles T. Betz
http://www.erp4it.com

Flame Wars ahead

pfranck — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:52:13 +0000

What is in CMDB, CMS or SKMS will probably be one of these subject that are going to generate endless discussions around ITIL V3.

So, so we still release the testing KEDB to production?

ianclayton — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:27:10 +0000

I thought it was once a good practice that the KEDB matured in the testing environment was released with the service to production ? So what does ST do with it?

The IT Skeptic - Comments for "SO regards KEDB as distinct from CMS, ST does not"

This is why an architecture perspective is needed

Flame Wars ahead

So, so we still release the testing KEDB to production?