13 Replies Latest reply on Jan 23, 2020 5:22 PM by Marie Johnson

    How are CTM:People and BMC:Person Linked ??

    Kumar Premankit
      Share This:

      Hi All,


      I want to understand how BMC:Person and CTM:People are linked. Also how extensively we use BMC:Person throughout ITSM Module?


      Can someone highlight BMC:Person and its use apart from storing People data in CMDB.

        • 1. Re: How are CTM:People and BMC:Person Linked ??
          Sidhdesh Punaskar

          In change management, you can related that person record data from CMDB as CI relationship. This to add related people who would be impacted if particular change is implemented.

          • 2. Re: How are CTM:People and BMC:Person Linked ??
            Ankit Tiwari

            You can refer thread BMC:Person to CTM:People sync




            2 of 2 people found this helpful
            • 3. Re: How are CTM:People and BMC:Person Linked ??
              Kumar Premankit

              I already reviewed that article, to me it appears as very old article that doesn't give complete insight. This is why I created a separate thread.

              • 4. Re: How are CTM:People and BMC:Person Linked ??
                Sidhdesh Punaskar

                so you got the answer? or still need more info?

                • 5. Re: How are CTM:People and BMC:Person Linked ??
                  LJ LongWing

                  Ok...not having read that article....tell me if this says the same, or provides more insight.


                  CTM:People - Your Record in ITSM, defines your organization, permissions, contact info, username, etc

                  BMC:People - Your relationship with CMDB CI's, what you use/own


                  Does that jive?

                  5 of 5 people found this helpful
                  • 6. Re: How are CTM:People and BMC:Person Linked ??
                    Carl Wilson


                    to add to the previous answers, an organization can define that a person is an "Asset" where there can be relationships to Computer Systems, Contracts, Processes, etc for a Person.  The organization can then use this CI in Change or Incident Management to register requests, updates, failures, etc. related to a Person.

                    Therefore there is a class in the CMDB to account for this and to also be able to report against e.g. what was the cost to the business of a Person not having a certain item, failure of an item, etc.




                    4 of 4 people found this helpful
                    • 7. Re: How are CTM:People and BMC:Person Linked ??
                      Kumar Premankit

                      Not what I am looking for Sidhdesh Punaskar. I need strong justification why should I still be using BMC.Person. Is it must to keep data in this dataset or I can directly use people throughout. It appears to be keeping iterative data at two place, One at CMDB and one at ITSM.

                      • 8. Re: How are CTM:People and BMC:Person Linked ??
                        Jason Miller

                        Hey Carl Wilson and other experts. I understand the difference between the two forms but aside from "this is just how it is" in the current implementation, is there any reason you can think of why a person CI should be separate from the People repository? I am wanting to know if there are practical reasons aside from two different product teams built what they needed?

                        • 9. Re: How are CTM:People and BMC:Person Linked ??
                          Sidhdesh Punaskar

                          I think the reason could be: in order to use people record as configuration item (Asset) where we cannot directly use record from people form.


                          The only usefulness I have came across is when using impacted asset in change management.


                          If we want to implement particular change and if that change is going to impact any higher authority then how can mention that person reference in change management if that is not present in asset management? The approval could be based on that asset(ast:person).

                          Does this make sense?

                          2 of 2 people found this helpful
                          • 10. Re: How are CTM:People and BMC:Person Linked ??
                            Carl Wilson

                            Hi Jason,

                            in the early version of ITSM, all modules were separate installations therefore you could have only one module installed e.g. Incident and no CMDB.  The Foundation Data covered all the requirements for the data to create and maintain requests.  As the CMDB evolved, and also became an integrated part of the ITSM Suite, additional classes were added including BMC_Person class.  With the evolution of ITIL (and "everyone should have a CMDB"), a person then could be classified as an "Asset" and BMC added functionality to automatically create a Person in the CMDB when created in Foundation Data.

                            This is my understanding of why the 2 are now linked.




                            1 of 1 people found this helpful
                            • 11. Re: How are CTM:People and BMC:Person Linked ??
                              Jose Leon

                              In our environment, when we do our People load, used to be LDAP, the internal CMDB system would run (I think) the Sandbox_Bulk job to create BMC_Person records.  Today we assign Asset People relationships to assets such as Owned by, Used by, Supported by which in some cases with Asset User permission allows asset updates.  When a person is offlined in CTM:People, this removes, rather soft deletes the BMC_BaseElement record that represents the BMC_Person class record.  When a person returns to our organization, their CTM:People record must be changed back to Enabled from Offline, AND we must run the Sandbox reconciliation job to ensure the BMC_Person record is set back to Marked As Deleted = No, and a record exists in BMC.ASSET dataset.  This again allows company devices (IP Phones, Laptops) to be related to a Person record.  This helps Helpdesk personnel to know what devices are in use by the employee for things like Smart IT.

                              1 of 1 people found this helpful
                              • 12. Re: How are CTM:People and BMC:Person Linked ??
                                Jason Miller

                                Yeah, I totally get the history of how we ended up with how the design is today. What I am wondering is there value in the two different repositories or with how the product has matured, should these be consolidated?


                                So far we have discussed how BMC (or even the organization they bought pieces from originally) implemented the solutions. The automation between CTM:People and AST:Person has been mentioned a few times. So we already have identified somethings that need to sync from one to the other. This makes me wonder can't they be consolidated (in an ideal world)?


                                Is there any business/process reason to have the two different repositories? Are there scenarios would apply to a person CI and what would not apply to their People profile or visa versa?


                                For example, if somebody leaves the organization it is common to set the CTM:People Status to Obsolete, or maybe even delete the record altogether. Does this cause an issue with CMDB data if the the AST:Person record were to also disappear? Is there some long-term need to keep an AST:Person record associated with other CIs?

                                2 of 2 people found this helpful
                                • 13. Re: How are CTM:People and BMC:Person Linked ??
                                  Marie Johnson

                                  Jason Miller Value sort of is set aside because it is personal and how the tools work (like it or not!).  LJ LongWing made it really simple and if ya “value” that info, as he described it, then you have your answer!

                                  If you’re only licensed for Discovery and CMDB and you do ITSM in ServiceNow then you’ll have ticket assignments outside of Remedy.  However you may manage the configuration/asset relationships in the CMDB, thus you don’t care about CTM.  When you don’t own ITSM, access to Remedy is granted only through the User form.  I know tons of customers that have never populated people in the CMDB even though they own the entire suite; because they find no value in manually relating people, org, company to CIs (it’s a painful exercise and maintaining it is worse)...plus... once someone finds data out of date, they don’t trust the CMDB, so avoiding it is a strategic choice.   I also know companies who could careless about the requester and ITSM people, because nobody but support or NOC will ever use the tool.  Their customers are companies that ‘use‘ and ‘own‘ the assets, and their ‘supported by‘ are the vendors.  Is it valuable to have so many forms to track people?  And let’s not forget when we add on DWPA, HR, Workflow, RSSO and  Reporting we have more places to enter, synch and load people.


                                  Value is because of the functional role each form plays in the BMC Software tools (as LJ LongWing and Carl Wilson were eluding to) which have been taped together with each acquisition.  So if it is valuable to know who owns or uses an asset then people in CMDB is valuable.  If it is valuable to have members to groups, isolated permissions or control what people see in ITSM, then CTM people is valuable,  if you want people to access the database outside of ITSM and Remedy then database people are valuable.  Last, if you’ve developed your own forms, workflow, permissions, the User is valuable.   Right, so off-the-shelf you cannot authenticate a person for ITSM from the CMDB people and you cannot relate CTM people to CIs.


                                  Could BMC Software have joined and consolidated all of this?  Sure!  if everyone stayed off-the-shelf with all of these forms...but that’s a big zero!  Chances are, if BMC Software did this consolidation someone‘s code will break and they’ll be mad and out here ranting about it.  I do think it is a migration that needs to occur and all the other places to store this logical data should disappear and be part of the ARS Engine and not every app, now that would be valuable!

                                  8 of 8 people found this helpful