new: asset substate Asset Substates based on Class / Type

[samwoo]

Hello,

I'd like to request the ability to have different substates based on the Class / Type of Assets selected.

This should work the same way the Request Substates work per Service / Global etc.

I really hope this is an easy addition as we are now having to have different substates for all our different types of Assets and discovered that the settings are currently Global so will make CMDB a tad bit difficult for the moment whilst we change our internal processes.

Trying to think of a Workaround for the moment though...

Thanks,

Samuel

[Steven Boardman]

@samwoo thanks for the suggestion. 

We don't currently have anything planned in this area, however could you provide some more info on the differing types of sub-statuses you would envisage for different classes / types so we can look at this with some real world examples?

Steve

[samwoo]

4 hours ago, Steven Boardman said:

@samwoo thanks for the suggestion. 

We don't currently have anything planned in this area, however could you provide some more info on the differing types of sub-statuses you would envisage for different classes / types so we can look at this with some real world examples?

Steve

Hi @Steven Boardman,

Sure so here are some examples:

Computer System

• Laptops
  We were using "Current", "Active" and "Retired" states for Laptops - we are now moving to just using "Active" and "Retired" states. We will need to keep some "Current" Substates to be used for other Asset Type, but we don't want them to be visible in the Laptops Asset Type.
  • Active
    • In Stock: Built
    • In Stock: Unbuilt
    • Ready for Collection
    • With Customer
    • Waiting to be returned
    • Under repair
  • Retired
    • Assumed Lost
    • Confirmed Lost
    • To be disposed of
    • Disposed
       
• Desktop
  We were using "Current", "Active" and "Retired" states for Desktops - we are now moving to just using "Active" and "Retired" states. We will need to keep some "Current" Substates to be used for other Asset Type, but we don't want them to be visible in the Desktop Asset Type.
  • Active
    • In Stock: Built
    • In Stock: Unbuilt
    • Waiting to be installed by IT
    • With Customer
    • Waiting to be collected by IT
    • Under repair
  • Retired
    • Stolen
    • To be disposed of
    • Disposed
       
• Servers
  • Current
    • Live - Production
    • Live - Development
  • Active
    • In Stock: Built
    • In Stock: Unbuilt
    • Waiting to be installed
    • Patching due
    • Under repair
  • Retired
    • Decommissioned
    • To be disposed of
    • Disposed

As you can see we only need certain substates visible for certain types of Assets. There are some we could have "Global" and the others "Type" specific. We really need to prevent users from selecting the wrong Substate hence the reason for this request.

[Steven Boardman]

@samwoo thanks i'll raise this and see what is involved. 

[samwoo]

Thanks @Steven Boardman 

[samwoo]

Hi @Steven Boardman,

I was wondering if there has been any development in this area. 

I am having a hard time stopping people from using certain states / substates for Assets they should be using them for. 

Did a high level count of each Asset Class, and Asset Types...

Every single Asset Type used a combination of every single Record State and a combination of (almost)  every single Substate within those Record States. 

I hope we can have the ability...

• to specify which Record States can be selected per asset type.
• To specify the substates that are used across all asset types (global)
• To specify which substates are only related to a particular Asset Type (individual).

In addition I hope we can have the ability to define our own Record States for more fine tuned information, and and be allowed to also define substates against them (globally)  or (individually) 

Myself, @Aaron Summersand a couple of Tech Support people really taking Asset Management seriously, and I am attempting to convince some higher-ups that Hornbill Asset Management is a good CMDB tool (which they are still disagreeing with),  so I still have a long way to go. I want to convince them before they put their mind elsewhere if you get me. 

ITOM and Asset Management Life cycle Process will be a major step forward though. 

Thanks, 

Samuel 

[Steven Boardman]

@samwoo no update on the primary thread here i am afraid, but we will post back when there is. 

In regards to the wider CMDB question, we don hope that the ITOM and Lifecycle processes will really add even more value to the Hornbill configuration management offering, we're busy working on finishing these areas, so you will hopefully have some more capabilities to discuss with your colleagues. 

[samwoo]

On 9/6/2019 at 8:43 AM, Steven Boardman said:

@samwoo no update on the primary thread here i am afraid, but we will post back when there is. 

In regards to the wider CMDB question, we don hope that the ITOM and Lifecycle processes will really add even more value to the Hornbill configuration management offering, we're busy working on finishing these areas, so you will hopefully have some more capabilities to discuss with your colleagues. 

@Steven Boardman - thanks anyway for checking.

Re. ITOM and Lifecycle Processes - it really does sound like it will do wonders!- we just need to be realistic about it  

Thanks,

Samuel