We are in a similar place as Axton. Ours was a HD v5.0 application but I now consider is custom since it has been customized about 85%. We have a lot of very specific business enhancements in the system and to go to another version would be a total new implementation. I have a current backlog of 48 requests that I estimate could take more than a year to finish and more get submitted near every week. They are very business specific and are not included in ITSM so I'd have to do them no matter what my core application was.
We're on 7.0.1 platform and will continue to upgrade the platform. Although I still have nightmares about that 5.1.2 to 7.0.1 upgrade. Susan On Feb 6, 2008 6:20 PM, Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem we have with upgrading is that we have so many of our > internal business procedures bound to the 5.6 applications and the > customizations that have been introduced over the lifetime of the > product. We've extended the applications exhaustively in certain > areas, and we can't simply disband those processes and the functions > on which different departments that have come to rely. To upgrade > change, asset, and help desk is too much for one bite. I'm afraid we > may be stuck with the 5.6 apps; the cost comparison, in terms of > business disruption and licensing, of writing our own apps and > disbanding the packaged apps is looking to be far less than performing > a cliff upgrade, with another cliff upgrade in sight. To perform > cliff upgrades (a.k.a., comparable to a replacement) disrupts our > mission in several key ways: > - we can no longer extend or adapt our apps to meet the business needs > (a freeze is in order to move customizations to the new version) > - the turnaround, considering the level of involvement from department > heads, process owners, data owners, data warehousing, reporting, > remedy development, integrations, ... is too long, and the end result > is a frustrated user pool because the apps don't do what they used to > do > > One of the things I've been pondering is the competitive advantage > attained by having in-house applications. The business knows how to > make money and do things to the level they need to (in terms if IT). > To put a cookie-cutter application in place that drives cookie-cutter > processes dilutes the value of the business. It adds unnecessary > overhead (new processes we never needed and still don't), creates a > diversion from what's important (how we run our business, what we know > needs to be done), and generally is a waste of time and money and > source of frustration. To use the new version of the applications is > to completely abandon what makes ARS unique and successful. > > My final thought on this is that it's time to find some brains to > develop a method by which the benefits of a purchased application and > the benefits of customization can be merged into a product line that > doesn't commit suicide every time a new release of the applications > comes to fruition. > > Axton Grams > > On Feb 6, 2008 5:34 PM, Steve Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ITSM 7 is just too darned complex for what you get out of it...". > > > > we have been running it now for nearly 8 months and still sorting out > > issues with incident, havent even touched the other modules thus the > > reason we are cutting our losses here. Sadly the local support in > > Australia is not through BMC but a partner and they do not even know > > the ITSM products well and focus on development > > > > > > On 2/7/08, Jason Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ** I have been wondering about the custom market myself. The list has > > > largely turned into an ITSM7 list. The percentage of posting trying > to > > > figure out how to do xyz in ITSM7 are through the roof. I am not > > > complaining, that is exactly what the list is for, but personally I > have > > > lost interest in some of these postings and my eyes cross when I see > > > CTM:People and HITSM 7 > > > > is just too darned complex for what you get out of it..." > > PD:IncidentInterface_Create and all of the hoops to gently > > > work with ITSM7. > > > > > > It appears that Remedy developers are a dying bread (not the first > time it > > > has been mentioned). From what I have seen (granted I do not do the > > > travelling consulting thing) there has been a such a huge push for > ITSM7 and > > > many people have been sent to the ITSM classes to learn how to install > and > > > configure. I was working with a fellow how had been doing ITSM7 > > > implementations and when I asked how did he handle customizing ITSM7 > to meet > > > the client's needs he basically said you try and do it through > configuration > > > and try to talk the customer out of customization. > > > > > > When purchasing a OOTB system it is hard to get anything other than > ITSM7 > > > anymore. On multiple occasions I have specifically stated that I want > ITSM6 > > > but end up receiving ITSM7 licenses and software. I then have to work > and > > > get pre ITSM7 licenses. There is the huge push for ITSM7 and the do > not > > > customize trend, yet we are anticipating a shiny brand new development > tool > > > so I can't believe the end of custom development near. > > > > > > There are number of people who have been doing this for 10 plus years > (I am > > > not there yet) and they seem to be quieter than ever and whole lot of > new > > > names with ITSM7 questions. Don't get me wrong you are absolutely > welcome > > > here and it is the right place for these questions, I am just noting > my > > > observations over the past few years and trying to figure out the > direction > > > things are going. Are we going to end up with a lack of experience > > > developers at some point? Will there be a need or much of a market > for > > > developers. The beginning of this thread bothers me. While I have > just > > > returned to stable, extremely custom and highly integrated shop and > the > > > value of our development is recognized by management, I still get > concerned > > > when I see companies who have been using Remedy for a long time > switching > > > products. You never know when your company is going to jump on the > latest > > > cost saving trend. > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > On Feb 6, 2008 11:06 AM, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CS/SCCE > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think there will be a greater demand for custom applications > that > > > > employ the "KISS" rule. > > > > > > > > I don't know about that. While it certainly seems logical from > where I > > > > sit, I just don't see a lot of demand for custom Remedy apps > anymore. > > > > Virtually every job I see posted nowadays is for ITSM. I think that > > > > might be a bit of wishful thinking... > > > > > > > > Don't get me wrong, though--I'm right in there with you wishing! > > > > > > > > I really thought I'd be hearing more people saying things like, > "ITSM 7 > > > > is just too darned complex for what you get out of it..." > > > > > > > > But evidently not. Maybe people are just reaping all sorts of > benefits > > > > from it... > > > > > > > > > > __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > > > html___ > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > > > Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
