I read the informative thread regarding the two sets of lifecycle dates and reviewed the documentation Julia linked. What is the thought on showing components with blank lifecycle information as “No Risk”?
I can understand that it may not be very common to have ‘blank’ IT components, but I would think the status should be “Missing Lifecycle Information”.
Best answer by Julia Schirmer
Hi
Cheers
Hi
there is currently one scenario that leads to missing lifecycle information.
We updated our documentation for a better illustration of the scenarios.
However, I think an unintended behavior is: If an application’s component(s) have no dates, not even an active date, they will show as ‘no risk’. Even if the Aggregated Risk report is not really meant to address data quality, I think it obscures potential data quality issues. To me, a missing Active Date should = Missing Lifecycle Data.
If this isn’t a bug, I would be happy to work with some stakeholders like Helder to ideate on an enhancement if makes sense.
Hi
this exactly is not considered a problem within the aggregated risk view, because the risk assessment focuses on EOL, not if there is an “active since” missing for any IT component (neither from internal nor from vendor lifecycle)
And there are plenty of scenarios, where active since on internal lifecycle is missing, especially when ITCs are created via reference catalog, discovery services etc.
And these should not interfere with the actual risk that requires some short term actions to decide on.
To validate that IT components have an “active since” and therefore trigger “maintenance activities” around this I would recommend using a classic IT component report view.
However, as mentioned above, when you share it via productboard, I’m happy to start collecting this as an insight. And we might consider introducing some informative status in the future.
Best,
Julia
Hello Ian,
Thanks for reaching out.
Please note that when we previously adjusted the original "No Risk" state, we received some pushback, particularly from more mature customers, as mentioned in the related post.
At this time, there are no plans to introduce a new neutral status. However, I’d recommend submitting an idea for improvement on our Product Roadmap: https://roadmap.leanix.net/tabs/1-voting/submit-idea. Your input would be greatly valued by our product team!
Best regards,
Valeriia
+3Hello Ian,
Thanks for reaching out.
Please note that when we previously adjusted the original "No Risk" state, we received some pushback, particularly from more mature customers, as mentioned in the related post.
At this time, there are no plans to introduce a new neutral status. However, I’d recommend submitting an idea for improvement on our Product Roadmap: https://roadmap.leanix.net/tabs/1-voting/submit-idea. Your input would be greatly valued by our product team!
Best regards,
Valeriia
Hi
Cheers
Valeriia,
Having reviewed
While we continue to look into provisioning default “active since” dates for reference catalog items, we also decided to set the status for the calculation of scenario where there is:
- no "vendor active since" date available, which would indicate that vendor information (via catalog) is being reviewed,
- no Vendor End-of-Life (EOL) date,
- no internal EOL date
from “missing lifecycle” back to “no risk”. This will give us enough time to consider a different status for these unknown vendor situation based on customer insights in the future
I understand
However, I think an unintended behavior is: If an application’s component(s) have no dates, not even an active date, they will show as ‘no risk’. Even if the Aggregated Risk report is not really meant to address data quality, I think it obscures potential data quality issues. To me, a missing Active Date should = Missing Lifecycle Data.
If this isn’t a bug, I would be happy to work with some stakeholders like Helder to ideate on an enhancement if makes sense.
+1
Hi
Cheers
Hi
there is currently one scenario that leads to missing lifecycle information.
We updated our documentation for a better illustration of the scenarios.
However, I think an unintended behavior is: If an application’s component(s) have no dates, not even an active date, they will show as ‘no risk’. Even if the Aggregated Risk report is not really meant to address data quality, I think it obscures potential data quality issues. To me, a missing Active Date should = Missing Lifecycle Data.
If this isn’t a bug, I would be happy to work with some stakeholders like Helder to ideate on an enhancement if makes sense.
Hi
this exactly is not considered a problem within the aggregated risk view, because the risk assessment focuses on EOL, not if there is an “active since” missing for any IT component (neither from internal nor from vendor lifecycle)
And there are plenty of scenarios, where active since on internal lifecycle is missing, especially when ITCs are created via reference catalog, discovery services etc.
And these should not interfere with the actual risk that requires some short term actions to decide on.
To validate that IT components have an “active since” and therefore trigger “maintenance activities” around this I would recommend using a classic IT component report view.
However, as mentioned above, when you share it via productboard, I’m happy to start collecting this as an insight. And we might consider introducing some informative status in the future.
Best,
Julia
I do think I now understand how to explain this, avoid any confusion about it, and mitigate any data quality risks related to lifecycle. So, I would consider my novice question resolved!
And I will sit on my pedantic concern in lieu of anyone actually having a problem. : )
+1great :)
And don’t get me wrong - I don’t disagree, that it would be nice to get this state as a separate information at some point.
Therefore, I added your feedback also to our productboard to keep track of it.
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.