Quite right, Matt - I was going to mention the compliance/aligned issue, but it didn't seem as relevant as some other things of mention. The bottom line is that there are three ways that BMC can help a company align its applications to ITIL standards, ITSM 7 for a full-on implementation, ITSM 6 for a less complex one, and completely custom apps for any level from zero to full. I wonder to what degree BMC's sales strategies mention all of those options to new Remedy customers. Rick _____
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Watson, Matthew (Melbourne) Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 2:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** Hi Rick, Norm, On the ITIL thread - no toolset should be calling itself "ITIL compliant" - the OGC (who own ITIL) do not offer any test or certificate of ITIL compliance ( <http://www.itil.co.uk/faqs.htm#97> http://www.itil.co.uk/faqs.htm#97). The more correct term would be "ITIL aligned", and when I last looked on the BMC website I couldn't find any reference to "ITIL compliant" (except for one old press release for ITSM 5). ITIL does not have to be a huge commitment or undertaking - although a glance at ITSM 7 would scare many customers into thinking it is, but this is just how BMC have chosen to approach it. Other toolsets approach it in different ways, and for many customers their approach to the BMC toolset is "why buy a bulldozer when a shovel will do" (I've actually heard this term used frequently in toolset discussions). Even independent of toolsets, many people will interpret ITIL in different ways as well and adopt it to their needs (it is after all just a framework at this stage...). Don't forget ITSM 5.x was put through the Pink Elephant "PinkVerify" service and deemed ITIL 'compliant' as well - so version 7 is not the first version of align to the ITIL framework. Matt _____ From: Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 27 January 2007 3:37 AM Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** Rick: On your point.So for those with limited budgets and/or no compelling ITIL initiative, staying with ITSM 6 is probably a better bet. My concern is this-Remedy only supports so many versions. When we get to, say, version 8 or 9 of ITSM, BMC drops support for version 6, the non-ITIL compliant version. Additionally, I don't want to sound cynical, but my impression of ITIL is that it's an industry buzz.like TQM, CMM, CMMI, ISO, QAF, etc. While I understand that there may be great benefits to implementing ITIL, my research indicates that it's a huge commitment and a huge undertaking. And many big enterprises may well balk at the idea of embracing ITIL just because Remedy made their product that way. It seems to me Remedy took an awful risk retooling ITSM the way they did. _____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** To answer your first question, the thing I have always liked about Remedy was that I never had to tell a customer that Remedy couldn't be made to conform to existing business practices. With ITSM 7, I'm not sure that would still be the case. In any event, the corporate ITIL initiative would be the driver on this, not BMC, IMO. This may be just my opinion, but I think that a lot of companies are having to decide whether to jump on ITSM 7 or stay with 6 for the foreseeable future, and customizing it to fit their needs. For companies not really into ITIL, they just don't see the value add to retrain everyone on a new app. and end up with no discernable value for the money they invested in consultants and training to upgrade. So I'm seeing two large buckets of work out there - Fresh ITSM 7 installations and ITSM 6 customizations. The first thing I thought of when I saw ITSM 7 almost a year ago was that Remedy PS was going to make a mint doing the installation and customizations, because few customers will have enough staff time to invest in learning it well enough to make anything resembling a major customization to it. The fact that until very recently, only BMC and its partners were able to even get the training on how to install and configure it only cements that impression. So for those with limited budgets and/or no compelling ITIL initiative, staying with ITSM 6 is probably a better bet. ITSM 7 will cost a bunch to get in place, and a bunch more to change as time goes on. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential upgradeability of the v7 application, which is a complete unknown at this point. Rick On 1/26/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ** Hi list: I apologize for not being a more active participant of the ARS list community recently.work has had me tied up more in red tape than in real development lately. Anyway, I put this in as off topic, but I think it's only a bit off topic. I would like to get any and all viewpoints on the subject of implementing ITSM vs. another product or a custom product. Specifically, how do you feel about the following points (some are from a devil's advocate perspective): - ITSM 7.0 was overhauled from the previous version to be "ITIL compliant". An organization that does not want to embrace the ITIL model, however, is stuck because BMC only supports so many versions back. Eventually support is dropped on the non-ITIL compliant versions. Thus, doesn't the vendor effectively control your organization's process and not the other way around? What are your thoughts on that? - ITSM 7.0 has some 26,000 code objects (forms, ALs, filters, and escalations). Doesn't that make the tool nearly impossible to reverse engineer? And a bear to customize? - Isn't customization unavoidable.especially in large enterprises with longstanding, proven business practices? - If customization is unavoidable, how do you handle configuration control? That is, how do you know the next version won't wipe out all the work you did on your customizations? All thoughts and opinions are much appreciated. Norm __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ********************************************************************** The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail with the subject heading "Received in error" or telephone +61 2 93357000, then delete the email and destroy any copies of it. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it. KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or error-free, as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. KPMG, an Australian partnership, is part of the KPMG International network. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International provides no services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is a legally distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation. This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. See www.mimesweeper.com for more information. ********************************************************************** P __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
