IT Service Management
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 

Introducing HPE Service Manager 9.20

Yvonne_Bentley on ‎06-04-2010 10:40 AM ‎09-27-2016 01:22 PM Julia_Dickinson

HPE has put a fresh face on its enterprise strength HPE Service Manager (SM) software application, and initial customer feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.  Customers are excited about this new version of HP SM because it helps IT be more efficient than ever before. Specifically, its end-to-end solution automation increases service performance and agility and the product now offers an improved user interface which greatly enhances service desk agent productivity and control.

Here are some of the highlights you get with SM 9.20:

1.  Web 2.0 user interface, with a significant web client performance increase, for superior operator efficiency.  It is more intuitive and has a cleaner look and feel, requires fewer clicks to navigate and accomplish tasks, utilizes screen space more efficiently with features such as collapsible sections and hover-over fields, and provides more control over record list views.  A customizable ‘MySM’ dashboard provides role-based, “business at a glance” graphically-driven operational summary data so service desk agents can stay on top of things.  A new ‘Restart’ command enables control over SM processes individually, promoting higher SM system availability.

2.  Enhanced end-to-end solution automation for Change, Configuration, and Release Management (CCRM) and Closed Loop Incident Process management (CLIP) drives higher service agility.  New integrations between HP SM and HP Operations Orchestration speed service delivery by automating change execution and incident triage and remediation.  HP Release Control Analysis calendar and assessment capabilities are now embedded into HP SM to streamline collaborative planning and decision-making for changes.

HPE SM 9.20 is actually an extension of the SM 7.x family (and thus a simple upgrade).  It was re-numbered from 7.20 to 9.20 to reflect how tightly it integrates with the new releases of HP Universal CMDB 9.0, Release Control Analysis 9.0, and other products in the HP BTO portfolio.  HP SM 9.20 is available for purchase now and shipments will begin by mid-June 2010.  For more information, go to the HPE Service Manager web page.

Learn more about HPE Service Manager 9.20 by attending the following events:

See HPE's enterprise strength service desk solution in action        

Live Web Event:  Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 10:00am PT / 1:00pm ET

See how the latest release of HPE Service Manager gives you an enterprise strength service desk proven to handle the volume, scale, performance, and globalization requirements of your business through an ITILv3 service-oriented solution.  In this webinar you'll get a pragmatic approach including how you can see results faster, automate change management, integrate your service catalog and leverage the power of automated discovery and service dependency mapping with HPE Service Manager.            

Take a tour of HPE Service Manager  On-demand        

Watch this 25 minute demo to see unique features that allow you to manage all facets of your ITSM environment with emphasis on ITIL v3 service oriented approach.  The latest release of HPE Service Manager automates and integrates key IT processes such as incident, problem, change and release management.  See how you can give users the convenience of self-service, catch unplanned changes, analyze risk and gain ultimate order, efficiency and control.


Interested in more information about Service Manager and the ITSM suite? Visit the Service Desk and ITSM pages for the latest videos, events, and and more!


About the Author


A 25+ year veteran of HP, Yvonne is currently a Senior Product Manager of HP ITSM software including HP Service Anywhere and HP Service Manager. Over the years, Yvonne has had factory and field roles in several different HP businesses, including HP Software, HP Enterprise Services, HP Support, and HP Imaging and Printing Group. Yvonne has been masters certified in ITIL for over 10 years and was co-author of the original HP IT Service Management (ITSM) Reference Model and Primers.

Vadim Gorda
on ‎06-07-2010 11:31 PM

Good morning Yvonne!

Have a short comment-question. I am developer in a biggest project in Russian Federation on Service Manager. We have more then 80 installations all over the country with custom integration between them and central region. Project started more then a year ago, when SM 7.11 was not even released. So the whole project is build on the SM 7.01 IIA. Customer needs are very specific and we made a tons of customization to the system to meet their needs. As it is logically understood migration from SM 7.01 to SM 7.11 or any other version can not be done and even is not considered in newest future.

When we do face some product bug in the system, HP support mainly solve bugs only for the never versions (like SM 7.11). As I understand it is considered that to solve Bugs for older versions is very expensive and not sufficient from the HP point of view. All this race for the newer and newer versions of the system (now it is SM 9.2 already) leaves all the projects on the HP SM 7.01 without solution patch releases. And I want to mention that of course it is not a single project  built on SM 7.01.

Suppose in close future most fix releases will be made only for SM 9.2 and there is not end for the race of the endless upgrades of system from version to version. Also I want to mention that upgrade needs a lot of workhours to be fulfilled properly and most customers doesn't want to spent money on this endless migrations.

Would be glad to hear what is your point of view regarding this problem.

on ‎06-15-2010 10:04 PM

well said comrade Vadim.


This endless upgrade process is a joke. There are so many bugs, which indicates that very little testing is done by HP, It is clear there will be many more upgrades as vadim suggests and they are expensive. It is obvious HP are going to rebuild SM (robust, easier to configure etc) with us being their testers. 


We are currently like vadim on 7.01 we are upgrading the run time library to 7.11 ( I dont know why) and this what should be a MINOR task has taken two weeks of onsite HP ($$) plus a cast of several here. Heaps of problems were found, and it will take a couple of weeks more  and for what to possibly encunter another 44 pages of bugs.


I am glad the soccer is on, i am going home.







Vadim Gorda
on ‎06-15-2010 11:44 PM

Right comment coldbeer,

We have tryed  to make migration from SM7.01 to SM7.11 on our test servers to just see what we can by ourselfs and will it be possible for us to make migration with non default configuration. It tooks quite lot of time and several hands for it (all this comes as used workhours - and we know time is money). And this was done on the defalt db.

As we all know product is not perfect, has bugs and needs manual Tailoring to make him more likely to real life then it is OOB. In my case the thing is even worth because we have Russian localised system, which often has much issues in naming translations and other form customization. Besides of that each customer wants to the system much more looking like his iolder one to which he got aquinted. Most customers are migrating from SD 4.5 and they want much features which were implemented there + some new features which was not in old system and is not in SM. As the result of this we had around 600 request for customisation, logic change, form correction and other configuration stuff. So if i know migrate to the newer system version for which only most bug patches are realised i will have to implement this from begining. Anyone wants to count how many hours will it take to understand and get all spots in which changes where done while fulfilling this 600 requests and making them from 0 in the new environment? I am even afraid to think about it, because i know that we wont even revise 60% of places that were changed to get the solution required by customer.

As the result i am left almost without bug patch support becuase i can not catch up with that race of Upgrades from version to version.

Best Regards

Vadim Gordadze

on ‎06-16-2010 02:26 AM

Dear   Yvonne_Bentley,

 Would be very useful, if you could add links to Documentation and to the software itself.


Also, is there smth like Migration Guide?

From my previous expiriense with HPSM - its very poor for good documentation.

Was it changed for this version?

on ‎06-17-2010 02:53 AM

Dear Yvonne,

Is that true, that in the future HP is going to get rid of Windows desktop client and use only Web version? Also, does Web client have features which are not available in the Windows version?

Vadim Gorda
on ‎06-28-2010 04:13 AM

Hello Nika,

Don't know if it is true about getting rid of Windows client, but if it is , then it will be very big mistake!

First of all Windows client is best suitable for the development as it is much friendly and easy to use then the web one. Form designers menus and all other things look much prettier in the windows client.

Also regarding not available features of the windows client comparing to the web, I suggest that it is more vice versa. As I already mentioned above Windows client is much more suitable for development then web version.

Can say that specialist of our customer thing as I am. Windows client is much more suitable for day to day work because even function of viewing high number of records by switching from page to page in web client is very uncomfortable. Options drop down lists are moved in such way that you can not guess which one is for the current record and which one is for the qbe search results. In localized system we had problem with localization of statuses because of problem with Global variables in web.


Can not list everything because it all appear after facing the problem but as a conclusion I can say that Windows client is 100% better for operator and development performance improvement.

Vadim Gorda
on ‎06-28-2010 04:15 AM

Regarding documentation-

Yes there were migration guides which were available via the partner access. Don't have links at the moment but I know for 100% that they are this migration guides, as our specialists were using them.

on ‎06-30-2010 03:01 AM

Thank you for the answer, Vadim_Gorda.

Ok, we will wait for our partners to download the Guides and the distributive itself.


Interesting, why the blog owner does not respond to the posts.

Vadim Gorda
on ‎06-30-2010 03:30 AM

It is a big question for me too NIka.

When i posted my first reply here, first of all I was waiting for any answer from the blog poster and not from other community participants. Maybe there is obligation for them to just pass information down to the partners and other interested users and all other conversations are made in separate place.

Vadim Gorda
on ‎06-30-2010 05:33 AM


Regarding the manual - I managed to find it on partner site (got a hard copy of it and browsed by the name) and here is the link directly to the manual


Or you can search for it from with the name SM7.10UpgradeGuide.pdf or HP Software Service Manager Upgrade Guide.

Cheers and hope it will help you

on ‎06-30-2010 09:10 PM

Thanks a lot, Vadim, downloaded!

Vadim Gorda
on ‎06-30-2010 11:17 PM

You are welcome Nika.

here is a 9.20 Upgrade guide link which I saw on old ITRC forum

Vadim Gorda
on ‎07-08-2010 05:17 AM


Just as a fast question regarding SM 9. After installation of web part, first opening of the web requires several minutes (3-5) the same time is required to log in to the system (3-5). Does it depend on the browser? System makes initial configuration or why it requires so long to initially start?

on ‎07-09-2010 11:01 AM

Hi everyone,


Just got back from vacation in Spain.  It was great!


I see there have been some comments about HP Service Manager 9.20 and upgrades.  Good to know you're out there! 


Remember that HP SM 9.20 is just an extension of the SM 7.x family (and a very simple, straightforward upgrade).  It was re-numbered from 7.20 to 9.20 to reflect how tightly it integrates with the new releases of HP Universal CMDB 9.0, Release Control Analysis 9.0, and other products in the HP BTO portfolio. 


The documentation is online - and an upgrade guide is coming very soon.


And if you have support-specific items, you can go to


Stay in touch,





Vadim Gorda
on ‎07-12-2010 12:37 AM

Hello Yvonne,

Would like to spent my vacation in Spain as well and I am 100% sure that it was very nice :smileyhappy:  Think as all of us you are very happy to return to job after vacation :smileywink:.

Regarding Upgrades and other technical issues it only sounds easy to upgrade from 7.01 to the 9.2 version. Checked RTE upgrade but it did not solve some issues as it was declared, but think it is more technical side and really better to be posted in the Support forum part.

And regarding non technical issue, want to mention that it was a very big disadvantage of making all forms nice looking for web but totally uncomfortable to work from windows client. Don't want to dig in deep but everything displayed in sequence for scrolling and removing tabs was a very bad idea:smileyhappy:.

I can go very deep discussing it so I better stop now:smileyhappy:

Thanks for answer again!

on ‎07-27-2010 04:05 PM



There's a problem with this statement:

"Remember that HP SM 9.20 is just an extension of the SM 7.x family (and a very simple, straightforward upgrade).  It was re-numbered from 7.20 to 9.20 to reflect how tightly it integrates with the new releases of HP Universal CMDB 9.0, Release Control Analysis 9.0, and other products in the HP BTO portfolio. "


The problem is that is not true. HP made undocumented changes to workflow and processes in SM9.20. 


For Example:

When introducing the IIA build, HP updated change management to use the assignment table for the assignment of workgroups for changes and tasks. In IIA presentations, this was referred to as a deliberate process improvement. This carried forward into the out-of-box 7.1x releases.

  • The assignment file was updated to include Change Coordinator information.
  • Configuration Items and Services were updated to list the assignment groups that supported them, and when escalating to a change, those assignment groups are listed in the escalation wizard.
  • The Service Catalog, when defining an item fulfilled using Change, prompts the user for the assignment group to which the change will be assigned.

The Issue:

In Service Manager 9.20, Change Management has reverted to using Change Message groups (defined in cm3groups) instead of assignment groups as a result of a logged defect correction. This is a significant change and has many potential problems (especially as the switch was done poorly, and has introduced multiple other issues—see case for details).

  • This is a significant workflow change, yet it is not called out in the product release notes or any other documentation.
  • The current out-of-box build bypassed any problems with this change by including change groups with the same name as all of the assignment groups, but this seems, quite frankly, an incredibly poor solution.

My Question:

What is the intended product workflow?

Is the intent to use Change Groups moving forward for change and task assignment?

IF so, is the intent to actually update the other parts of the system to support this change?

  • Wouldn’t it be helpful to actually explicitly call out such a significant workflow change in the documentation?
  • Will Configuration Items require designation of both Assignment Groups related to SD/IM/PM and Change Groups for Change?
  • Will the Service Catalog be updated to prompt for change groups when defining an item fulfilled via the change connector? Will the change escalation wizard be updated to prompt for cm3group?
  • If it will be required to create matching assignment and change groups, what plans are there to automate the process, as it creates unnecessary overhead for customers, especially in larger organizations?
  • Because cm3groups are also used to defined approval groups that are not workgroups, will there be a method to exclude the “approval only” groups from being selected when assigning a change?
on ‎08-18-2010 01:06 AM

Hi J_Stagaman,


I am currently securing a Product Management resource to respond to your questions.  I appreciate your feedback and intend to address them as soon as possible.  Stay tuned.



on ‎08-18-2010 01:18 AM

Hi Nika,


I consulted Product Management on your question on the web client.  Based on significant customer feedback, we have determined that the web client is preferred by a high margin.  This is the trend we see in the marketplace for enterprise software as well.  In response to this customer demand, we are placing our development focus on the Web client.  Therefore, there will be a growing gap in functionality in the Web client versus the Windows client over subsequent releases



Vadim Gorda
on ‎08-18-2010 10:36 PM

Hello Yvonne,

To be honest  I don't know which part of customers was asked about which do they prefer to work in as specialist web or windows client, but I can really say that in our not small client pool and even larger my friend specialist and their client pool there are 0 customers which prefer to use web for working with the system then the windows client.

on ‎08-24-2010 05:17 AM

Hi All


"We" have been told that the version number of SM 9.2 is to reflect how tight the integration is between SM 9.2 and uCMDB 9.0. I must admit that I not have been able to test version SM 9.2 and uCMDB 9.0 yet (my system is stil SM7.11 and uCMDB 8.03)..... But out of what I can understand the uCMDB - SM integration is stil based on the uCMDB replication/federation process in the new version. I disagree that this is a tight integration.


Alot of manual/"complicated" work to enable replication of CI's from uCMDB to SM is not a tight integration.


My opinion is that it should have been a direct integration (Based on WebService-API) from SM to uCMDB that enables users inn SM to access all types of CI's in uCMDB. Users in SM should then be able to direct change attribute-values on CI's in uCMDB (Attributes that is tagged as changeable).




I do understand that there is a need for CMDB functionality inside SM for those users that do not have the uCMDB product... alternatively HP should be able to deliver a lightweight uCMDB to those users that do not have the full uCMDB license.

on ‎08-24-2010 12:13 PM

Hi Vadim,


I will for sure share your feedback with the Product Manager responsible for user interface development.



on ‎08-24-2010 12:14 PM

Hi Joshua,


I'm communicating your comments to the Service Manager Product Manager responsible for SM integrations and will let you know when I hear back from him.




Vadim Gorda
on ‎08-25-2010 12:38 AM

Thanks Yvonne

on ‎08-25-2010 02:42 AM

Agree with Vadim.


As the link can be not always perfect when working in distribute environment, we prefer the windows client too.


Thank you for the answer.

Vadim Gorda
on ‎08-25-2010 03:48 AM

Cheers Nika :smileyhappy:  In fact we are not alone it is really a huge part of customers which doesnot want to work with web at all.

on ‎08-25-2010 11:16 PM

Hi Vadim,


In March 2009 our Service Manager product management team conducted a system usability survey and received results from 89 customers, partners, and HP internal pre-sales and services folks.


Our findings were that though customers currently have better perception of the Windows client than the Web client, most (> 95% of HP Service Manager/ServiceCenter customers and > 85% of HP Service Desk customers) would prefer the Web client for end users (defined as non-developers and non-administrators)  if comparable system performance, functionality, and usability could be achieved.


So HP Service Manager 9.20 reflects this improvement focus on the web client and the plan is to continue focusing new development on the web client to strengthen its viability for customers.


We are also responding to market changes and trends, and intend to stay competitive with other web-based cloud computing offerings.  The web versus windows application debate, from a market standpoint, was over about 10 years ago.    


on ‎08-25-2010 11:19 PM

Hi Nika,


Could you please elaborate on what you mean about the link not always perfect in a distributed environment?  We'd like to evaluate your comment more thoroughly for possible product improvements but don't exactly understand what is being conveyed there.


Vadim Gorda
on ‎08-25-2010 11:35 PM


I don't won't to go in endless discussion but don't you think that 89 customers, partners and other is veryy veryyyyyyyyy small amount of people asked to get the real view of customer wishes. Can you approximately imagine what percent of the total amount of HP SM and Service center users was 89 in 2009. I think it was like less then 1 percent. And situation at 2009 is not the same at the mom(ent. I had a very short look at the 9.2 but the first thing that exploded my mind was an endless sheet of the incident record which looks very nice in the web as it has + symbols to expand the view (the thing which was made instead of tabs made in previous versions) but in the windows client it did not had them and I do see all the tabs expanded with endless scrolling to the bottom. I don't know if this discussion has any sense but this is my and out clients opinion.

on ‎08-25-2010 11:48 PM

Hi Vadim,


Fair enough.  We would have loved to have more customers actually respond to the survey we conducted but that's what we had to work with, that and our market and competitive analyses.  Also we received very favorable feedback from customers en masse at the recent Americas HP Software Universe on the web client improvements of HP Service Manager 9.20, so we saw that as further substantiation of our assessment.


I do understand your viewpoint.  The Service Manager product management team has been made aware of it specifically.  And, as always, your feedback is valuable and invited.  Hopefully you will consider the web client improvements over time and perhaps re-evaluate the viability for your clients' situations.



Vadim Gorda
on ‎08-26-2010 03:00 AM

Hello Yvonne,

I did not say that I don't consider web clients improvements or I think that they are bad. These modifications are good and web client looks better then before, but I was pointing at the fact that this improvement must not be done in harm of the windows client. Web became better then before but windows client became much more worth then it was in previous versions, interface became more then unfriendly which in fact forces people to use web which they does not want to use in the cases I stated above in my posts.

In fact if you try to use windows client you will understand what I do mean. Any changes in the system must not be done in harm of other part :smileyhappy:

on ‎08-26-2010 07:14 PM



Here's the response R&D sent via swconsult:


Sorry for our delayed response, as this is a tricky situation, and we were waiting on other departments to weigh in. Basically, John is correct in his assessment. In SM 7.10/7.11, Change Mgmt was not converted effectively to use Assignment Groups instead of Change Groups. So, we reverted back to using Change Groups in SM 9.20, but this has also introduced some defects. The guidance is to use Change Groups and we will fix those defects. I encourage John to open those defects in HP Support so that we can address them.


My assessement is that the use of Assignment Groups for change was completely successful. That allowed change groups to be soley used to define approval groups and review groups.

--Every customer I worked with went with this approach, even customers who had previously used cm3groups in SC.

--Many Service Center customers used this approach by tailoring the system in the past, because the maintenance of cm3groups through profiles is needlessly complicated and requires excessive administrative overhead.


But I really think it is unacceptable that HP executed the change so poorly, and the response from R& D is:

--We made the change, but no we see no need to tell anyone that we altered a core product workflow.

--We made it poorly, so that it introduced  number of defects.

--We, R&D, are unable to identify defects and customers have to do it for us.

--We, R&D, apparently don’t require that the developer making changes to a module fully understand that module or complete basic testing of their changes.


There are also some MAJOR issues with the response:

--If, AS R&D STATED, "Change Mgmt was not converted effectively to use Assignment Groups instead of Change Groups" how did the change EVER get into the released product?

--It was maintained in the released product for two years and was rolled out as a Best Practices driven change. 



My existing case (4616901496) lists every issue I have found. I will not be opening additional defects. R&D can reference the existing case.

Vadim Gorda
on ‎08-26-2010 10:36 PM

Nice one John :smileyvery-happy: Me and my colleagues already figured out that main testers are partners which tailor system according to their projects and face the bugs while doing that :smileyhappy:

on ‎08-27-2010 02:22 PM

Hi John,


Thanks for opening this dialogue about Change Management and the issues you encountered.  I have engaged deeper R&D and Product Management resources to more thoroughly investigate because these look like fair questions to me and I believe the original response SWConsult was putting together for you was neither complete nor extensive enough to address your full set of concerns and questions.  We want to give it the attention it deserves, so please give us a few days to come back with a more substantive and complete response. Thanks for your patience on this.



on ‎08-27-2010 07:56 PM



Thanks for responding. A principal concern is the apparent randomness of the change back to change groups. After the IIA build was released, we advised customers to move to using assignment groups for change based on HP guidance that IIA's use of common workgroups for SD/IM/PM/Change was consistent with Best Practice. We made the recommendation on good faith that HP, having made the change, had done so after proper consideration and advised clients that using assignment groups would simplify support and future upgrades, as the move to assignment groups was called out as a benefit of the IIA/best practice workflow. Now, those customers are potentially penalized for following the out-of-box model.


The reversion to change groups in 9.20 is troubling because it makes it difficult to advise any customer that they can expect consistency. The change appears random, and the fact it was completely undocumented is especially troubling.

on ‎08-27-2010 08:45 PM

Just to be clear, overall I am very impressed by the 9.20 release. I find it impressive that HP focused on a number of changes to improve the core usability of the tool. The normalization of display options across the modules (e.g. replacing OK with Save & Exit) and the major improvements in list behavior in web tier are welcome. Despite the issue above, I believe the new web client resolves many long-term usability challenges and that those improvements are are of great benefit to customers. 

I recently had the opportunity to present at a user group meeting and very strongly emphasized the benefits of the new web tier, the embedded integration with Release Control, and other improvements. In my current customer implementation, we elected to pause the build to move from an active SM 7.1x  to SM 9.20 based on a review of the new web tier. 

on ‎08-31-2010 02:47 AM

Hi Yvonne.

Thank you for your interest.


What do our team prefer to use the Windows client -main cause is that its more effective.

What takes 5 sec to load in Windows client, can take about 14 sec in Web!

And if you have server in other city, and the link bandwidth is not very good, it could take even longer.


on ‎09-07-2010 06:34 PM

Hi Joshua,


The Service Manager integrations product manager has been on vacation and I finally was able to work with him on a response to your comments on SM/UCMDB integration.  He says the following: 



"The integration of SM 9.20 and UCMDB 9.0 is tight because it does not rely on any other integration technology such as Connect-It. We built a direct web services based interface that allows customers to view the actual state of a CI from the UCMDB natively in the SM UI. The CI data that is coming from the UCMDB can also be federated from other sources such as Asset Manager.

The integration also provides for a closed loop change management system, using a reconciliation engine that can effectively deal with unplanned changes that are automatically detected in the environment.  HP plans to continue to make the UCMDB integration even tighter in future releases." 


Then, to address your comment about "...alot of manual/complicated work to enable replication of CI's from UCMDB to SM", he responds this way:  

"With UCMDB 9, and the introduction of the new 'Integration Studio', it is now easier to configure the integration, which involves a one-time transfer of CI's from UCMDB to SM. The integration will then update the list of CI's in SM when UCMDB discovers new CI's or new attribute values. This is done by configuring the replication jobs which is easily done in the Integration Studio UI, by filling out credentials and system information for the SM server."


Joshua, I hope this addresses your concerns.  Please let me know if you require any further detail.



on ‎09-08-2010 01:46 AM

Hi  Yvonne


Thanks, for your answer :smileyhappy:

I stil believe that HP can do even more on the integration between uCMDB and SM.



* Make it possible to: From SM manualy create CI's and CI relationships in uCMDB.

* Make it possible to: From SM change attribute-value on CI's in uCMDB.


My opinion is that it should be seamless for the SM user to view/change data in uCMDB.


ITIL Configuration Manager/Coordinator will work with SM GUI... Not with the uCMDB GUI.


Br. Rune




on ‎09-09-2010 10:47 PM

Hi John (J_Stagaman),


Thanks for meeting with our Service Manager product managers to discuss the change management issues you raised in more detail.  They walked away from that meeting with a lot to think about.  Here is their initial response so you and others following this thread can see what is being done behind the scenes: 


"We have reviewed the issues that you have raised. In discussions with our development team, we confirm many of your findings. Based on this, we have escalated a development activity to fully understand the broader implications of this situation, and to identify the appropriate mitigation strategy to address it. This activity will take some time because we want to ensure that we can address all the core and peripheral implications to the product. Given the importance of this issue, we will communicate our findings and resolution plan through the appropriate support channels."



on ‎09-09-2010 10:52 PM

Hi Rune (Joshua),


Thanks for your further inputs on SM/UCMDB integrations.  I will share them with the integrations product manager.  Please feel free to provide a more detailed set of examples if you have more to share and I'll make sure he gets them all. 


This is really valuable input and we appreciate the time you are putting into documenting the improvements you would like to see.



on ‎09-09-2010 11:08 PM

Hi Nika,


Thanks for your elaboration on your original comment "...the link not working in distributed environments...".  You are actually referring to performance differences between windows and web clients.  I have shared your comment with the UI product manager for Service Manager.  As you are now aware, there will be continued improvements in the web client to deal with such issues.  I will share any response that the product manager provides me to address your comment. 




on ‎09-12-2010 10:02 PM

Hi Nika,


The UI product manager for Service Manager did get back to me.  He states that we did improve the web client performance for SM 9.20 so it should be significantly better than SM 7.11, and we will be continuing to focus on improvements to performance in subsequent releases.


What version are you running right now? 





on ‎09-13-2010 12:32 AM

Hi Yvonne


Earlier my company was using HP ServiceManager. With ServiceManager it was
quite easy for the Configuration Manager to create new CI types.
And it was easy for the different Configuration coordinators around the organization
to manualy create new CI's and relationships between these.
Most of the CI's in ServiceManager was maintained manualy (We had a few autoamtic integrations).

But off course the world must go forward and we decided to go for Service Manager with UCMDB
as the CI master.

Good things :
Ability to do atuomatic discovery.
The idea with "Closed loop incident process"
Possibility to see actual CI status from SM.

What could be improved:
Not all CI's or relationships can be discovered automaticaly/integrated trough a datafeed.
* Configuration Manager need therfore a method to, in SM, create CI types with it's attributes and ability to add extra attributes on existing CI types.
* Configuration coordinators need the ability to, in SM, create/change CI's (attributes) and relationships.

All CI's and relationships should be apart of the UCMDB even those that are created manualy.
And the natural place to work with CI's for a Configuration Manager/Coordinator is in the Service Manager GUI.


Personaly I'm not shure that replication of data from uCMDB to ServiceManager's CMDB is the right strategy to get a tight enough integration between Service Manager and UCMDB. Having the CI's & relationships stored in two places (UCMDB & SM CMDB) will, I think, make the integration more complicated than it need to be ( Both for the end-user that should administrate the integration but also for HP that need to solve new needs) . But off course how to solve the challanges technicaly is not important for me.


Somehow the ServiceManager need to be able to natively use (Write, change & view) UCMDB data directly (For those customers that have uCMDB).


I see that combined'ing manualy changed CI/attributes/relationships with automatic discovery data in the same datasource could be problematic. Maybe is it some CI attributes/relationships that the user should not be able to manualy change due to that it's "owned" by "DDM Discovery".


Br. Rune

on ‎09-13-2010 01:40 AM

Hi Yvonne.

We are running HPSM 7.01 currently, and we installed 9.20 on our test environment - and yes, it works much faster!

Hope to see further improvements. Thank you.

on ‎09-13-2010 02:10 AM

And do you know, when Russian help and Russian language pack will be available for SM 9.20?

Thanks in advance!

Vadim Gorda
on ‎09-20-2010 06:59 AM

I am very interested in Russian language pack release as well! Help is not that urgent as the pack :smileyhappy:

on ‎09-20-2010 10:26 AM

Hi Nika and Vadim,


The SM 9.20 language packs are available electronically for purchase.  They will be made available on the partner web site this week.  Physical SR is imminent.


If customers want to access the language pack themselves, then If they are current on maintenance, they are able to find the language packs using My Updates on SSO.  Otherwise, they have to order the language packs by contacting their sales rep.



on ‎09-20-2010 10:29 AM

Hi Nika,


Regarding Russian help:  

It is an integral part of the language pack, on the same CD image, so available this week as well.



Vadim Gorda
on ‎09-21-2010 03:24 AM

Thanks Yvonne!!!!!

Seems that it is already available : Partner Donwload:

Vadim Gorda
on ‎09-21-2010 04:04 AM

I even already installed it :smileyhappy: Thanks again Yvonne

27 Feb - 2 March 2017
Barcelona | Fira Gran Via
Mobile World Congress 2017
Hewlett Packard Enterprise at Mobile World Congress 2017, Barcelona | Fira Gran Via Location: Hall 3, Booth 3E11
Read more
Each Month in 2017
Software Expert Days - 2017
Join us online to talk directly with our Software experts during online Expert Days. Find information here about past, current, and upcoming Expert Da...
Read more
View all