John, you make some good points, as always. But one minor one stood out, and should be emphasized again - the one where you said that your discussions with BMC went nowhere. BMC management not listening to us is a theme I see and hear on a very recurring basis. From their disastrous re-architecture of the support site (would any of US not have been FIRED for such a poor implementation?) to product and staffing decisions that have us scratching our heads and beating them into walls, BMC's attitude has been to TELL us what we want, rather than to SELL us what we want - the exact opposite of what AR System has historically allowed us to tell OUR customers, both internal and external.
So while I'm appreciative that BMC is advancing the use of AR System, we need to see more evidence that they're listening more to the people - both at Remedy and the customers and developers - who planted and tended the orchards from which BMC is now harvesting the fruit, or succeeding harvests won't have the yield we all desire them to have. As John mentioned, removing the incentive to innovate kills innovation, which stops the forward momentum of the product, which leads to declining market share. So, Mr. Easter, if it isn't too late for more customer submissions, what kind of innovative topics would fit within the BMC paradigm of acceptable product direction? Rick On 7/20/07, John Sundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
** Agreed. I think ARS needs to be more pronounced as the benefit of the system. Meaning - ITIL is a commoditizer. If ITSM 7 is ITIL -- and the next product (1/50 the cost) is also ITIL -- it will be a hard sell to mgmt that they have to have BMC ARS.... Now - if they change it to be ARS is an service management (generic vs just IT) platform of which it has applications like ITSM (Service Desk, Problem Mgmt, Asset Mgmt, CMDB) etc... -- and has tools and strategies for extending into other areas -- then it is an easier sell. The real sell is the platform - and the direction/vision. However -- the platform (ARS) -- needs to have a life of its own - and be respectable on its own -- not shunned. And they need to communicate that it has other applications like: Customer Support, Project Management, HR application tracking, HR Issue management, Facilities Management, etc... Then companies will be standardizing on a service framework. With that being the case - it will be hard for a company who has an ITIL app (at 1/50th the cost) -- to compete. They may have a story for ITIL processes -- but it would be a huge leap for them to compete against all the offerings. So - how does BMC do this? I know of partners that have the apps already: BMC has: ITSM , etc... -Customer Support -Citizen Response Kinetic Data has: -Kinetic Request -- Service Request Management System -Kinetic Survey -- Enterprise Feedback Management System -Kinetic Field - Field Service Management System Project Remedies has: -Project Management cMango/Wipro has: - HR Application Now if BMC would gather the partners - and create a partner program that encourages collaboration and consistency across the apps provided -- then a cohesive message can be delivered. BMC could have had something like Appforce by Salesforce.com <http://salesforce.com/> -- if they had planned. (I had this conversation 4+ years ago with marketing at Remedy - but it did not go anywhere) I think they could still pull it off - but it takes commitment (and changes of course) Changes/challeges: If BMC were to do this - they would naturally see and have early involvement with organizations who are doing "great things" -- and they would want to move into that app space and take all the revenue (note: Kinetic Request and newScale Service Center). But - they must contain themselves or they actually kill the market - as successful organizations that join the partner program actually lose by joining. So - BMC continues to own and improve their core offering of ARS itself and the existing apps - but BMC must control itself from eating its partners who are expanding the vision in ways that they had not predicted. Other notes: BMC licensing to change: You buy the server and developer licenses. For your apps (Service Desk, CMDB, etc...) BMC charges user licenses. For access to the server itself -- FREE.(read or write) So - a Kinetic Data with Kinetic Field would be strengthening the overall service management platform (a win for BMC (harder to displace with commodity ITIL) -- Kinetic Data would be a able to sell it's apps at what the market will accept (without the BMC user license overhead -- which kills the deal for many apps) (a win for Kinetic Data) -- and customers now can leverage their investment (people/training/servers/infrastructure) in ARS across a number of service related products (a win for the customer) I think it would be cool - and I think it is a vision that people could comprehend (aka buy). So again - BMC creates a true knowledge share / non-competitive partner program. BMC sells the ARS platform as the framework. (customers win, BMC wins, partners win, and ARS fanatics - well - they stay fanatics (and the ARS world does not die)) -John On 7/20/07, Pierson, Shawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ** I would add that a big problem with this is that ITSM 7 is extremely > buggy, harder to use than previous versions, and extremely expensive. AR > System development is what kept Remedy alive, and by de-emphasizing the > strong point of Remedy, I see AR System and ITSM usage declining in the > future. I have heard from a lot of people that their management is looking > forward to the ITSM release from Microsoft because they think it will be > more integrated with other systems. While I think the Microsoft product is > not going to be that good in the first release, it will improve, and if BMC > does not improve the quality of ITSM and go back to selling AR System itself > as a major product, Microsoft will put them out of the IT service management > business. > > Shawn > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Rick Cook > *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:18 PM > *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > *Subject:* Re: BUW 2007 Track Sessions Announced > > ** I think that Susan has a point, and to make a more specific > observation, the de-emphasis of the AR System as a development platform, > making BMC's defacto focus on it just being a willing and able container for > the ITSM/CMDB, has led to less custom work going on these days. This in > turn leads to fewer people able to talk about innovative things they're > doing, because it's increasingly out of the mainstream that it once would > have been in the middle of. Not to say that there isn't custom work, it's > just that privacy concerns are probably keeping most govt. apps private, and > most private entities are going ITIL/ITSM these days, because that's all > that BMC sells to them. > > Not necessarily blaming BMC for that, just saying that this is a > foreseeable byproduct of their product direction, exacerbated by the fact > that many of us are neck deep in trying to figure out what the **** BMC was > thinking in some of the feature decisions with ITSM. > > Maybe THAT would be a good breakout - Gap analysis between ITSM 7.0.2delivered functionality and what customers are actually wanting it to do, > both raising awareness for prospective customers and giving some ideas for > bridging those gaps for both future and present deployers of the apps. > > Rick > > On 7/19/07, Susan Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ** David, > > > > Maybe there is an unspoken message that bmc should be listening too. > > There generally is no lack of submissions by non-host presenters. Since the > > advent of the various version 7 products there has been an aura around > > Remedy that is disconcerting to some degree. Last year we gathered over a > > 100 topics of interest. This year few if any topics were suggested here. > > That in itself is very unusual. > > > > Thoughts to mull over .... > > > > Susan > > > > > > > > > > On 7/19/07, Easter, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > ** > I, too, was disappointed with the dearth of non-BMC > > > presenters. > > > > > > We too were disappointed in the number of customer submissions. If > > > anyone missed the submission deadline but has a desire to present, please > > > feel free to send me a direct E-mail with your topic and synopsis. We still > > > have some ability to move things around to accommodate customer > > > presentations. It doesn't necessarily have to be a development training > > > session - we'd love to have customers present their honest (but hopefully > > > positive) experience with BMC products too! > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -David J. Easter > > > Sr. Product Manager, Service Management Business Unit > > > BMC Software, Inc. > > > > > > The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of > > > action expressed in this E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC > > > Software, Inc. My voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to > > > convey a role as a spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative > > > for BMC Software, Inc. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > > > ] *On Behalf Of *Rick Cook > > > *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:27 PM > > > *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > > > *Subject:* Re: BUW 2007 Track Sessions Announced > > > > > > > > > ** I, too, was disappointed with the dearth of non-BMC presenters. > > > I think the submission time was far earlier than it had been in years past - > > > that may have had a bit to do with it. > > > > > > Rick > > > > > > On 7/19/07, Bill Estep <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > ** I didn't see any development sessions. They are all BMC > > > > product related. Did anyone see anything that's not BMC product related, > > > > but Remedy development? > > > > > > > > Thanks, we're still trying to decide if we are sending folks. > > > > > > > > Bill Estep > > > > Nemours > > > > > > > > On 7/18/07, Geoffrey Endresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ** For some reason it's not on the list > > > > > > > > > > I want the session called "Remedy Licenses for Dummies" with > > > > > tips and tricks to using the minimum amount of floating licenses while > > > > > staying within the License Agreement. > > > > > > > > > > -Geoff > > > > > > > > > > On 7/18/07, Jarl Grøneng < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Pretty much the same, but also > > > > > > AR System Plug-in Server 7.1 and Java SDK and AR System 7.1API enhancements > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > Jarl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/17/07, Jon Chau < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > ** https://bmcuserworld.com/catalog/catalog/catalog.jsp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are some of the topics that most interest you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm interested in: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Definitive Pure Java Single Sign On Integration of > > > > > > Remedy Web > > > > > > > Making DVF Development Easier: A High-Level API and a Case > > > > > > Study > > > > > > > Taking Advantage of New Features in AR System Server 7.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > > -- John David Sundberg 235 East 6th Street, Suite 400B St. Paul, MN 55101 (651) 556-0930-work (651) 247-6766-cell (651) 695-8577-fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with
_______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
