1. If you are not staffed to create and maintain custom ARS apps, the ITSM suite or a competitor (on ARS) is your only answer; the alternative is to drop Remedy and go to something else completely different - something turnkey or hosted that keeps your manpower costs down.
2. ITSM is only viable if you can tweak it around the edges with essential customizations; it is seldom 100% of what you need at every location, and the ITSM developers have never addressed 100% of required processes in the OOTB application. The customizations _taught_ by BMC Education for ITSM 7 are targeted to meet some of the shortfalls in the OOTB application (like the fact that they hid Login_ID and Corporate ID which were major customer search attributes in the previous versions - DOH!). If they are teaching customization processes with the intent to help you avoid patch and upgrade problems, they mean to keep that door open to developers who need to work around the OOTB code. 3. Integrations to other applications or data are completely custom (unless you are running all-BMC pre-integrated tools throughout your environment), and run just fine underneath an ITSM application. If you avoid customizing the OOTB code except at the specific point of integration (where your integration pushes into the OOTB forms like CTM:People, User, etc.), then most of your custom code will be isolated from future patches and upgrades. The tools for integration just keep getting better, so BMC certainly appears to support this kind of an approach. In the unlikely event (IMHO) that BMC ever does lock down the ITSM apps completely to prevent customization, we would have to make plans to drop them and begin evaluating all of the other solutions on the market. My CIO would most likely change products before he would add the manpower resources necessary to build and maintain custom apps. We are both library and information science-trained, and have observed two decades of build versus buy decision-making in the library automation world; because of economies of scale, hosted solutions with rich feature sets now dominate that market. Like Axton said, if management is forced to consider a major change in a current system implementation, then in most cases they are going to opt to consider ALL of the possibilities in order to derive the most value from the inevitable disruption to current business processes. If it is no more work and no more disruptive to switch systems completely than it is to upgrade existing ones, AND switching systems could save you $$$$ over time, which choice do you think management will make? Enough speculation - I have a custom integration to test and finish this week. Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing & IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Seth Wrye Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Company Dropping Remedy This is true. It doesn't help either when over zealous sells reps use this as a selling point and then drop us developers on site to explain. Lord knows they make more $$ up front selling the ITSM suite than they do selling ARS. And on goes the battle between sales and ops.... It would be nice if BMC would take a hard line and either lock the apps down or say they are customizable. Not this "Customize if you want but you may or may not be supported" mumbo jumbo. Seth Wrye ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of T. Dee Sent: Wed 2/6/2008 10:43 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Company Dropping Remedy I have to agree - you are damned if you do, and you are damned if you don't. On 2/6/08, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CS/SCCE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see "customizable" as a false selling point for the current ITSM > product. A lot of folks tend to argue that Remedy's ITSM offering is > better than the competitions' because it is "fully customizable," when, > in fact, you customize at your own risk, and, as BMC's own staff says, > "Any customization is a bad one." > > It's a catch-22. People like Remedy's ITSM offering because it's > "customizable" but if you dare customize it, you put yourself into a > precarious, unsupported position. Plus, the thing is a spaghetti code > monster, making customization nearly impossible. > > I try to communicate that "Remedy" and "Remedy's ITSM" products are two > separate products. "Remedy" (i.e., ARS) is a software development > platform--ITSM is a canned application that should remain as is. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Seth Wrye > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:23 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Company Dropping Remedy > > Understood. The only problem though is that being able to customize ASR > (Apps or Platform) has been one of ARS's strongest selling point. > Should I tell my customers that if they want to customize the HelpDesk > form by adding a graphic or to change the flow of a ticket, they will > either have to build the entire module from scratch or loose support? I > think, with the apps at least, BMC is narrowing the gap that made ARS so > much better than the rest of the competition. > > Seth Wrye > > ________________________________ > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of > Grooms, Frederick W > Sent: Wed 2/6/2008 10:10 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Company Dropping Remedy > > > > I think there is a difference here. The ARS platform is one thing, the > canned OOB applications are another. I believe BMC's customization > statement is about the OOB applications. Here we don't use any of the > OOB apps, it is all pure ARS custom code. > > Fred > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Seth Wrye > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:49 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Company Dropping Remedy > > I know, I know, I was also there for that. I have since taken more > training (as we all do) and every time I bring this subject up, I get > the same answer. Its usually something like "BMC says that any > customization is a bad customization". If they plan on keeping the > platform open for customizations, great!! But... there's nothing wrong > with being prepared for the worse case scenario. Most of us witnessed > that when that one company purchased Remedy. If I recall, I think the > name started with a P and ended with bankruptcy. > > Seth Wrye > > ________________________________ > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Susan > Palmer > Sent: Wed 2/6/2008 8:25 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Company Dropping Remedy > > > ** > Seth, > > At UserWorld 2007 Doug Mueller was emphatic that BMC has no intention of > locking down the platform prohibiting development. I've never felt > Doug has been anything but honest with us. There was a full session > devoted to Doug basically talking about the future of ARS and providing > reassurance to our community. > > Of course business is business but Doug was very convincing. > > Susan > > > On Feb 6, 2008 6:47 AM, Seth Wrye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > A company I was contracted to tried that last year and was > informed by BMC that if we did not renew support, we must delete all of > the licenses that we did not pay support for and un-install each of the > modules. It is also stated in the license agreement. This was a small > company and they did not have the cash needed to continue with the ITSM > suite. They were seriously considering getting rid of Remedy all > together. I was able to convince them that since the company is small, > they could build a custom system off of the ARS platform and when the > due date comes, drop the support, delete the licenses for the modules > and keep the server and ARSystem User licenses and pay support for only > what they keep. Depending on the size of the company and system this is > a good alternative. If the company grows later on and can justify > spending the $$ then at least they still have Remedy and can bring back > the modules and a company has been saved the heartache of moving to a > lesser platform. Ahhhh, It brings us back to the days of real > development where if you wanted an asset management module, you had to > build it... Not sure how long this will even be a possibility depending > on if and when BMC completely locks everything down so no development > can be done whatsoever. > > Seth Wrye > > ________________________________ > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf > of William H. Will Du Chene > Sent: Tue 2/5/2008 5:01 PM > > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Company Dropping Remedy > > > > > What about this scenario: > > BMC may have control over whom they want to "transfer" support > to while > the contract is in effect for the amount of the term. It's sort > of like if > you and I sat down at the table and hammered out an agreement > that you > would purchase my services for a month. > > I'd expect that you would be honor your side of the agreement > for the > duration. I'd venture a guess that most would agree, yes? After > the month > is up, who cares? > > I am not a lawyer (and I don't even play one on television!), > but it would > seem to me that there is a very simple solution: wait until your > support > contract is up, and DO NOT renew it with BMC. Once your term is > up, then > you should be able to renew it with the VAR of your choice. > > If your term is up, then the contract language might not apply. > It would > be prudent to contact your legal department for confirmation > first, > however, just to be on the safe side. > > Just an idle thought - offered humbly. > > > -- > > Will Du Chene > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.myspace.com/wduchene _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
