Agreed, it's a framework. As you previously stated, you have many of your "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".
But you're off the support matrix and if you don't upgrade, you can't get official support for any issues you might have. You continue to pay maintenance on a product that BMC won't help you maintain. Forcing you to upgrade to something that you don't want and/or can't use without major disruption and a complete overhaul of your established business processes in order to stay in the support matrix is bad business (IMHO). What happens? 1) Like the original poster, the company determines that the upgrade is just as painful as going to a completely new product. So they re-evaluate and decide to dump Remedy for a competitor. 2) They decide to stay with what they have and live with an unsupported application. 3) They endure the pain and upgrade anyway, complaining the entire time. I think that the ITSM Suite 7.x is great for those companies that WANT to make the jump from the 5.6 line and are willing to endure the pain points you describe. It is also good form those companies that are looking for a new application with a defined ITIL framework already constructed for them. I have a customer on the west coast in just that position. They are an big company, but they've been doing support in 3 separate business units using 3 separate homegrown apps. They want to merge their support units and unite under a single application that had an ITIL framework. ITSM 7.x is great for them and they are happy to change in order to use it. But for those companies that have gone the path of your company and do not want to (or cannot) endure the pain should have an option too. 5.6 was the last of the "legacy" helpdesk lines before it shifted towards what it is today. All BMC needs to do is re-work the 5.6 Suite (full Helpdesk, Change Asset and SLA) WORKFLOW using the ARS 7.1 platform, thus bringing it up to speed on a supported version. Since it's the full version, I think it's ok for them to continue to require app licenses. Call it "helpdesk something", give it a 7.1 rev and now you're back on the support matrix and your upgrade pain points are greatly reduced. Additionally, they could make a scaled down version of it, like the 5.6 Helpdesk w/Change Tasking and Asset Tracking (I keep calling it Lite) and let it run on plain ARS Fixed/Floating licenses. That becomes a good product for those smaller companies that don't need or can't afford the new ITSM Suite but still have a need for a solid product that is highly scalable and adaptable. Everybody is covered now. Is it really much more complicated than that or am I missing the big picture? TP -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Company Dropping Remedy 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" _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
