I have been customizing and developing on OOB applications since the first Help
Desk application. I find it very challenging and rewarding. I think working
on fully customized applications is much easier and lots of fun. I am very
thankfull for the opportunities that BMC Remedy has created for us to remain
employed.
I have migrated from version 4 to through version 7. ITSM 7 is a beast but
managable. I have implemented 7 several times now and not once was it
implemented without customizations. I have migrated fully customized OOB
suites several times with customizations intact. I know there are several
others out there who have done the same. Thank God that not all businesses
have the same exact needs or they wouldn't need us.
BMC Remedy offers courses on customizing the OOB modules for version 7. There
are some customizations they don't recommend but I have never heard that you
should not customize the application. I have worked with BMC Remedy
Professional Services consultants who customized the application very heavily.
So where did the idea come from that you should not customize the application?
Don Simmons
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:56:23 -0800From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Company
Dropping RemedyTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 Californiahttp://www.itm3.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(email)925-260-6394 (mobile)
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Susan PalmerSent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 6:19 PMTo: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]: 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 ourinternal
business procedures bound to the 5.6 applications and thecustomizations that
have been introduced over the lifetime of theproduct. We've extended the
applications exhaustively in certainareas, and we can't simply disband those
processes and the functionson which different departments that have come to
rely. To upgradechange, asset, and help desk is too much for one bite. I'm
afraid wemay be stuck with the 5.6 apps; the cost comparison, in terms
ofbusiness disruption and licensing, of writing our own apps anddisbanding the
packaged apps is looking to be far less than performinga cliff upgrade, with
another cliff upgrade in sight. To performcliff upgrades (a.k.a., comparable
to a replacement) disrupts ourmission 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 departmentheads, process owners, data owners, data
warehousing, reporting,remedy development, integrations, ... is too long, and
the end resultis a frustrated user pool because the apps don't do what they
used todoOne of the things I've been pondering is the competitive
advantageattained by having in-house applications. The business knows how
tomake 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-cutterprocesses dilutes
the value of the business. It adds unnecessaryoverhead (new processes we never
needed and still don't), creates adiversion from what's important (how we run
our business, what we knowneeds to be done), and generally is a waste of time
and money andsource of frustration. To use the new version of the applications
isto completely abandon what makes ARS unique and successful.My final thought
on this is that it's time to find some brains todevelop a method by which the
benefits of a purchased application andthe benefits of customization can be
merged into a product line thatdoesn't commit suicide every time a new release
of the applicationscomes 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.orgPlatinum 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___
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star
power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
