You’ll have to pardon me if this blog article is a bit of a rant, but it will be one so I’ll warn you in case you’d rather spend a few minutes watching the next famous furry animal make some dumb face on Youtube (I still crack up at the dramatic look video).

During the past few weeks at the peanut dispensary (a.k.a. work), we’ve been talking, thinking, strategizing, worrying, yelling, stressing, and generally trying to figure out how to build out our CMDB in the hopes of gaining as much value with as little work as possible.  It’s been an interesting few weeks because 1) I hate doing work and I get out of it under the guise of “research,” and 2) I feel like I’m starting the journey of Frodo to destroy the Ring of Doom, but without any cool weapons, a fellowship, or Viggo Mortensen coming along to save me.  Needless to say, since I’m making a Lord of the Rings analogy, which was filmed in New Zealand anyway, I researched the topic and came along what the Kiwi’s, or at least one Kiwi, mentioned about companies and the results of CMDB implementation.  In particular, I took to heart what the IT Skeptic has publicized about only 5% of organizations having successfully justified and implemented a CMDB.  That’s only five percent, which is the same as taking 100 companies and only expecting five, funf, cinco, חמש (you get the idea) such companies succeed in creating a CMDB.  My point is that’s not a lot, so what does that mean to me as a practitioner?

There are two possible answers.  The first one is to give up and don’t even worry about a CMDB (which definitely gets me out of work).  A second option, and probably more realistic, is for us to look at our CI’s (or assets, depending on the reason you’re looking at said IT related object), and record the information that’s most important, and then figure out a way to manage the data.  But if that’s the case, and we’re simply looking to limit our “view” of the IT world and forgo the uninhibited joy of putting together a CMDB, why are we still calling it a “CMDB?”  Is it because we simply don’t have another name, such as “CMDB Lite?”  Or a cool acronym such as WIWWAC (What I Wish Was A CMDB)?  I understand that given the maturity of my current organization, we don’t need a full CMDB.  In fact, if my boss were to ask me to put together a plan on building a fully ITIL-aligned CMDB, the first section would describe the most effective anti-hallucinatory medication available on the market.  So I get it, stick with what brings value.

But now I have another question out there, and this one pertains to the point of my blog post.  If roughly 5% of organizations have successfully implemented, and justified, a full 100% ITIL CMDB, who were/are the people that know what they’re doing?  I understand there are books on the subject (I still have The CMDB Imperative on my reading list), but if the knowledge is readily available, why are we not pushing towards CMDB Nirvana as ITSM practitioners?  In theory, there’s a lot of benefit and reason to do it.  Is it because there’s a financial cost to such a project?  Or maybe a change in culture that needs to occur?  I suspect the answers go beyond just a couple of simple explanations.

Then again, maybe the answer is simple.  It’s unfortunate, but maybe we, as an ITSM community, really just don’t know what we’re doing when it comes to CMDB, at least in a sense that there’s no one single “answer” for everyone.  Sure, it all sounds cool when we talk about it, publish the diagrams in books and white-papers, and generally bring everything up regarding the theory, but it seems to me the concept of a “CMDB” is more closely related to an evolutionary necessity that needs to grow as an organization matures, and not just as a one (or two) phase project.  In essence, only 5% of companies have justified and built a fully implemented CMDB because that’s the limited number of IT organizations that have really matured their processes and require a true CMDB to continue providing value.

So where does that leave the other 95% of us?  Does it mean we don’t know a single thing about CMDB?  I certainly hope not, or else those ITIL v3 certificates in my desk drawer just means I have a back-up alternative to toilet paper when the zombie apocalypse comes around.  An alternative answer, and one that I believe given my faith in the ITSM community, is that we, as practitioners, are really pushing the CMDB as much as the opportunity for return on value presents itself, no more, no less.  And since several of us are gainfully employed, it also means our places of ITSM practice are still maturing and growing.  Maybe not as fast as we’d like, but let’s be realistic, it’s all about the Continual Service Improvement anyway.

So maybe we do know about the CMDB and it would be better to describe the scenario as a long, drawn out drama in which character development is slowly revealed.  Something more like Gone with the Wind, except without anyone falling asleep.

avatar

Started working in IT in 1999 as a support desk analyst as a way to help pay for food during college. Studied Electrical Engineering for two years before realizing biochemistry was more fun than differential equations, and so ultimately graduated with a Biology degree in 2006. Having (reluctantly) failed at getting accepted into dental school, embraced working in IT and has gone broke becoming an ITIL Expert. Likes to jog, sing camp songs, quote Mel Brooks movie lines and make dumb jokes and loves working for an Israeli tech company where December 25th is a regular work day.