Let's take a look at the set of basic definitions in both CM and SCM worlds: such as Configuration Item, (Software) Configuration and Identification.

What should strike from the first sight is the immense difference in the level of accuracy: that is, the SCM definitions are conceptual, formally built, logically correct, abstract and thus general. Whereas CM definitions are non-conceptual, contradicting, informal (not following any formal logic), inconsistent and being very case-specific instead of general, and thus unsatisfactory. (By the way, the definition of Identification is missing at all in CM, although the term is extremely popular and used excessively).

Why would there be such an enormous difference? - I think, the answer is, that SCM defines basic, abstract (and hence, general) concepts. And CM definitions are one's explanations of someone else's reality mapped on the abstract concepts (without one actually realizing it).

That's why the most important thing in the basic CM definitions of the Configuration Item type, where the definitions are just enumerations of the random types (one states they are general).

In SCM such concept as Configuration Item type can exist, but is never used in all the main concepts definitions, for the purpose of applying general basic principles and thus making the (SCM) system consistent.

What about the tools though? - I think, when SCM tool providers introduce a tool, they map their perceived reality on the basic abstract concepts and provide the created realm for the end-users to work/live in. The CM people's (S)CM world perception is based on the (often superficial) knowledge of (one of the) existing tools. As well as every one else's too, basically. But it's the eagerness to generalize blindly based on (sometimes very rough and minimal) knowledge of (often the single one known) existing realm, which matters.

-- TatyanaShpichko - 04 Feb 2007