Got another question for everyone!  How are you sending your server and storage costs when there isn't an application associated?  We're wanting everything associated with an application, but understand those efforts can take a while.  Do you view that as fallout or do you spread the remainder to apps with matching server/storage?  That seems to make sense - plus, maybe not everything can be associated to an app, so that would be sent that route as well.  Thoughts?  Thank you!

Any infrastructure we cannot assign to an application we mark as “Orphan” and spread as an “Overhead”..this allows us to identify the cost of the bad data and also apply it as part of the final unit rate.

Travis Cole

Office: 402-777-4409 | Mobile: 402-699-3715

Hi Jenny

We are in the same boat, and we are spreading it to remainder applications as a % split as agreed with the owners today (as an interim solution).

We are using the location and for the storage for the rest, and moving it to the business unit that sits out of that location.

Hope this helps.

Thanks

Dhivya Shyam

We have created an "Other Server Spend".  This is the easiest way to call out the Infrastructure team where improvements can be made in tagging the servers and to gauge our progress with anticipated reductions to the amount.

Hi @Dawn Read, is that a separate object?  How are you then sending those costs up?  Thank you!

I am treating it like an application - in the server master data:  =if(Application=" ","Other Server Spend",$_)...we do the same with Projects that have not been correctly aligned to an app - "Other App Spend".  We have a need to get all the dollars up to Applications, minimizing fall-out, so this is how we accomplish this.

Any server that lacks an application association goes into unallocated server expenses and goes into the overhead bucket.  It's a good news bad news story though.  Well over 95% of our servers do have an application association however it's to an IT application (Websphere, OpenShift, Oracle, etc.).  That's great except downstream allocations like Database and Middleware which are huge consumers of Servers and Storage don't have good application associations which drives a lot of these dollars back into Overhead.   We're in the middle of a redo with a focus on Application TCO which should start to drive a lot more through applications.  

We have created a TBD bucket. So any infra item that could not be mapped we assigned it to TBD which shows what the gap was where they had to fix things. After 2 quarters since this cost was very high we reviewed it with the team and mapped it directly to an Infra Service which is heavy. From IT to Business everyone knows that this needs to  be addressed at the CMDB level & was a use case for cleanup.

Thanks

Yamini

We let it fall out and have a report of unmapped servers so that everyone can see that there is room for improvement.

Thanks everyone!!  (BTW, I should have posted this as a 'Discussion' vs a 'Question' because there's no wrong or right answer.  I know at some point I'll have to mark one as correct, so will just go with the first response. )

We created a "bucket" called "fallout" and a report to show how much those "unmanaged costs are actually costing us".  Then we spread to everything except those that already have and allocation.

The report for all fallout is called "Unmanaged Costs".  It gets attention!