We actually tried to change our support over to a BMC partner last December or so (within the 90 day blackout window, unbeknownst to us). Our VP of IT ended up on a conference call with some number of BMC people and some number of people from the partner we've been working with. During the course of the call, the BMC people (don't know if they were sales or support or what) spent most of the time disparaging the partner reps. Name-calling, shouting them down. It was unbelievable that BMC was treating a PARTNER in this manner. Their conduct was atrocious and unprofessional, to say the least.
Now that we know about the 90 day rule, we will definitely be switching our support over to the BMC partner as soon as that time comes. On 6/20/07, Wacholz, Jeanette (Jenni) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
** Forgive my attempt at logic here, but why are support people leaving messages asking for a callback if there is now a policy that does not allow callbacks? Are they unaware of this new policy? Gee, maybe they could provide a secret code in their voicemails that would allow actual requested callbacks to get through? You know, to weed out the customers who might fib about getting a callback message just to try to get help with their issues. Sorry about the sarcasm. But I'm another customer who remembers the golden era of Cecil Lawson. And this is not meant to attack any of those great support people at BMC who bend over backwards trying to help us. Good luck with attempt #3, Susan!! Jenni Wacholz Remedy Administration Coventry Health Care Inc 480-445-2517 ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Palmer Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 5:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: OT: Did you know you need bmc permission to switch support providers? ** Exactly. The point is, we know we need official support and if a partner offers that then we have official support. Of course we want not only support but upgrades that will going forward cause us to have grey hair if any is left after the upgrade. It seems to me in the past I've always been pushed off to a partner to buy licenses, which turned out good since you get a discount. I didn't need permission to do it, I was basically ordered to do it. I was waiting for f/u on the ticket I put in yesterday. I got received a voicemail from one of the support people to call back. Heaven forbid but I left my desk for 5 minutes. I called back and got a very sweet message taker. When I said I was asked to call back and I should be able to get through, she said no one gets through now. They found the support people were being bombarded all days with calls and it was hard to get work done. Wellllllllll .... seems like there is something very wrong there. Too many calls, means too many tickets, means not enough people to handle the load. It's only going to get worse as more people move to v7. I believe I've pretty well figured out what I have to do to resolve my issue. It seems in v 5.1.2 if you have an active link setting Assigned To Group (112) field with that Users groups, and then a subsequent active link using some of that info in the qualification, you used to be able to put Assigned To Group LIKE "%OpsTech%" and if that string was present in 112 it did or stopped whatever you wanted. Well, in v7.0.1P2 it seems that second active link now wants the actual group ID, ie 1506. When I first did the dev server upgrade we went to v7.0.1P1 and I did not see this as an issue. Went through the same testing. But P2 must have 'massaged' something. It's a pain to change everything but what can you do. The first support person said she thought she remembered something like it but couldn't find anything in the KB or defects ... so what's new. And now no further info. Next Wednesday is try #3 at upgrading from 5.1.2 to 7.0.1P2. We scaled back the upgrade to only ARS and email engine. Hopefully luck and a nearly full moon will be on my side! Susan On 6/20/07, Will Du Chene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Maybe I have not had enough coffee for the day (I am actually getting my > first cup just now) but I am not seeing where the issue was that > required this originally. > > What's wrong with customers leaving a provider and signing on with > another? That more or less strikes me as being competition, and - in > theory - it's supposed to drive the market place... > > > David Sanders wrote: > > I think the reason that BMC had to agree to a change of support provider/VAR > > was originally to stop VARs poaching each others customers. Why this should > > also be required when you change from direct support to VAR first line I > > can't understand. > > > > David Sanders > > Remedy Solution Architect > > Enterprise Service Suite @ Work > > ========================== > > ARS List Award Winner 2005 > > Best 3rd party Remedy Application > > > > See the ESS Concepts Guide > > > > tel +44 1494 468980 > > mobile +44 7710 377761 > > email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > web http://www.westoverconsulting.co.uk > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Will Du Chene > > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:00 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: OT: Did you know you need bmc permission to switch support > > providers? > > > > That's a very good question. I wonder if someone from the BMC camp would > > care to expound on that one a bit? I'd like to see some clarity added, > > because I can guarantee that - if this is for real - I am going to keep > > it in mind, and make my management, and the people that I would > > recommend this application to aware of it. > > > > Bob Rowe wrote: > >> That tilts just about everything to BMC's favor. Can you let the contract > >> lapse, then pick it up a few weeks later with a partner? > > > >> As for waiting, I've been waiting since June 18 for additional > >> response--after the initial "we're looking into it"--to an issue with > >> workflow (manually relating one asset to another). My issue is "High" also > >> and we're on a fast turnaround sort of contract as well. > > > > > >> On 6/20/07, Susan Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> ** After several incidents with Support in the last few months I > >>> thought I > >>> should investigate other venues that provide services. Our contract > >>> is up > >>> the end of September so I thought I had plenty of time. I was just > >>> informed > >>> by a partner the following: > >>> > >>> "Should you be interested in migrating support to a partner, any partner, > >>> there is a BMC policy that you need to be aware of that not many are: BMC > >>> must provide the customer and the partner approval for this migration in > >>> advance of 90 days of the renewal date. Further, the request to > >>> migrate must > >>> be initiated by the client with certain substance to validate/approve the > >>> request. > >>> As example, if your support contract renewal date is Sept 30 then BMC > >>> need > >>> provide approval before June 30. This is a tough policy to meet > >>> especially > >>> when it's not know. Technically this gives you but two weeks. Of > >>> course the > >>> voice of the customer is listened to when the date is passed but it's > >>> optimal to meet the date, at least with the request. " > >>> > >>> Why would bmc have to provide permission for you to utilize a 'PARTNER' > >>> ??? It's not even just letting bmc know you're considering it. It > >>> appears > >>> it has to be a settled matter. > >>> > >>> What kind of relationship does bmc have with it's Partners? What is a > >>> customer supposed to think about that relationship? I would think they > >>> would welcome less customers stressing their support system. Others > >>> may get > >>> a contact within the initial SLA. I waited near 6 hours for initial > >>> contact > >>> on a High issue yesterday (supposed to be within 4 hours). > >>> > >>> At this point this is all I can say and keep it respectible. > >>> > >>> Susan > >>> > >>> __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in > >>> it___ > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the > Answers Are" > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where > the Answers Are" > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFGebgsU5LpycrTusgRAtWMAJ9khqaziShmBb8+7b9CDaRJm+5hHgCgo5n3 > m3medSUqAyXiLnFtxQildvQ= > =Ztd+ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" > __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ Email Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this transmission is confidential, proprietary or privileged and may be subject to protection under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution or copying of the message is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil penalties. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediately by replying to this email and delete the material from any computer. __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___
_______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
