On the ITIL compliant app bit, ITIL is a framework. We chose to implement various aspects of ITIL that are not addressed in the ITSM 7 apps, we also chose to address certain pieces of the framework differently via customizations to the 5.6 apps, which do not mesh so well with the implementation path chosen for the ITSM 7 apps. These are the pain points for our upgrade path.
Axton Grams On Feb 7, 2008 10:28 AM, Timothy Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > > > > I wasn't necessarily stating that BMC/Remedy focus on small- and mid-sized > customers to be its primary customer base. Rather, my point was, why turn > your back on that market all together? A company shouldn't put all of its > eggs in any basket, be it the small/mid or enterprise basket. And they > shouldn't focus on a single solution for everybody's needs. > > > > One reason for BMC to continue supporting/developing smaller, more > customizable apps than the current 7.x ITSM Suite? As many posters have > stated, not everybody is ready for, nor wants a fully ITIL compliant package > like 7.x just for sake of being "ITIL compliant". Many customers have very > solid business processes that their current <7.x application supports. Many > of those same customers have realized the benefit of the awesome development > package that ARS is and have built custom apps that they have integrated > into the <7.x apps. They just need upgrades to the simpler (and > customizable) applications they already have. > > > > Another reason to go back into that market is that not every company can > afford the cost of a 7.x BMC application, but they have the need for > something. One poster mentioned the old Rapid Results program. For $30k, the > customer got 10 days of consulting services, a fully installed and > configured Helpdesk product complete with Asset and Change Lite and a total > of 8 fixed licenses. Once it was done, the company doesn't really need a > developer on staff to do customizations, they just need an Application > Administrator to manage the data. Quick, simple and affordable, both in > initial startup costs and ongoing maintenance. And if they want to do some > extra stuff, like build a custom HR app to integrate with it, they hire > somebody (like the many find independent developers on this list) to help > them do it and they're still ahead of the game. Those customers are still > there, but Remedy is no longer servicing those needs. > > > > By focusing on ITIL and the 7.x ITSM Suite, BMC has excluded > (intentionally?) smaller companies that can't afford it as well as those > that don't actually need it and aren't going to change just for the sake of > change. Why not develop and support two application lines? ITSM 7.x for the > deep pocket companies that might really need it and can afford it and a > "Helpdesk Lite" if you will, for the smaller and "mature" companies that > just need a solid app that's fully customizable and affordable? > > > > M2CW, > > TP > > > > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bradford Bingel > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:56 AM > > > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Company Dropping Remedy > > > > > > ** > > Some additional points we may want to consider: > > > > 1. BMC Remedy appears to be tracking to ITIL standards rather closely. If > ITIL is the objective, then the strategy should lean toward fully developed > applications with little room for customization (thus ensuring ITIL > compliance). If your organization is not moving towards ITIL, then BMC > Remedy's product strategy may indeed appear to be out of synch with your > operational requirements. > > > > 2. The long-term Remedy sales people (so few are left!) probably remember > the .com era, when every startup thought nothing of dropping $100K or more > to install a Remedy system. Unfortunately, when the .com bubble burst, > Remedy was left with hundreds of customers who could no longer pay their > annual support fees. That hurt Remedy financially, but it also reduced > Remedy's budget for future product enhancements. Could be Remedy learned a > painful lesson, and no longer wants small- and mid-sized customers to be its > primary customer base. > > > > 3. BMC Remedy may also be taking a lesson from IBM and their acquisition of > Lotus Notes. When Notes first rolled out (more a document repository and > collaboration tool, backed by an object database with a great search engine > -- messaging was almost an afterthought) it was a unique toolkit that > allowed creative developers to deploy dozens of applications. But Lotus > (and later IBM) never offered any pre-built ready-to-use applications, and > the Lotus Notes product began losing market share. While some may argue BMC > Remedy doesn't adequately promote the ARS toolkit, others may argue it would > be suicidal if BMC Remedy didn't aggressively market pre-built ready-to-use > applications. > > > > 4. Personally, I don't understand why BMC Remedy doesn't market (directly > or through a third-party partner) their products under a > Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) model. Seems like a win-win situation for BMC > Remedy and their customers -- the customer needs a little training and then > BAM! they are off and running, while BMC Remedy collects a nice monthly fee > for every user connection. This would also make it simple for BMC Remedy to > showcase new products. And imagine, never going through another upgrade! > > > > Comments/questions/corrections/complaints/rants welcome, on or off the > ARSlist. > > > > -- Bing > > > > Bradford Bingel ("Bing") > ITM3 California > http://www.itm3.com/ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (email) > 925-260-6394 (mobile) > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Palmer > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 6:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Company Dropping Remedy > > ** > > > 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" > > > __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > html___ > > __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > html___ > > __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"
