Again excellent points - in fact I've had to get to the point of telling customers that for a "Completely firm quote" (for the patch X install lets say) - we first need to do a "Trial and Analysis" of the impacts - and provide the bullet list of such types of items, etc. Including things like "java versions, web-server conversions, Installer 'issues', system Operations (soft logic)", etc...
These things when performed in a sandbox environment can then be used to "scope the estimate" more clearly knowing all the 'unforseen obstacles" which would have been discovered, jeopardizing costs and delivery times. But as contractors - we should actually be thankful for these "undocumented features" that keeps us well-employed and well-detailed into the tools, processes, and advanced methods to recover from such events :) Robert On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Guillaume Rheault <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > You make excellent points Rick. > > If the upgrade breaks because of the BMC installer, and management has no > confidence in the Remedy administrator (be it employee or consultant), the > reputation of the administrator is damaged and BMC cannot repair that > easily. On the other hand, the company will view BMC's products as deficient > in quality, which does not help BMC either; it will be like Microsoft: wait > for service pack 1 (path 1 or 2), etc > > Guillaume > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ > [email protected]] on behalf of Rick Cook [[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:52 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Remedy ITSM 7.6 Upgrade warning > > ** And this is why I have been a strong proponent of BMC providing us > with detailed release notes, so that we can know what to expect when our > bosses ask us what the effects will be of an upgrade. Some product managers > at BMC get this more than others. This is also a case where not having > access to read the install script hinders us by not being able to have any > ability to verify what the Release Notes (such as they are) say, but I think > that ship has unfortunately sailed off to where there be dragons, never to > return. > > I don't really feel comfortable putting my butt on the line for an unknown, > and if I have to qualify my statements with what MIGHT happen, what manager > will feel safe putting HIS butt on the line to approve the Change? So what > are we to do when our bosses ask us what the effects of a proposed patch or > upgrade are, since we apparently can't trust them to be more than randomly > trustworthy? If a problem is caused by BMC, how do they make it right? > Where does someone like Tommy go to get his ability to be trusted by his > boss back, when it wasn't his fault? Surely the answer can't be that each > of us has to verify everything BMC Engineering says independently. > > Rick > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Tommy Morris <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> ** >> >> Exactly, it makes for interesting project meetings when you have to >> announce that you development team lost 16 hours of work after you were >> adamant that the custom fields would not be removed but may have to be >> re-aligned on the form. I sure am glad that my boss is forgiving. >> >> >> >> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Guillaume Rheault >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2010 11:29 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: Remedy ITSM 7.6 Upgrade warning >> >> >> >> ** >> >> Thanks for the heads up.... >> One more reason to avoid being on the "bleading" edge of the ITSM apps >> >> Guillaume >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ >> [email protected]] on behalf of Tommy Morris [ >> [email protected]] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:45 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Remedy ITSM 7.6 Upgrade warning >> >> ** >> >> Be aware that if you have any custom fields on your Change Management >> prior to this upgrade they will be deleted. Not removed from the view but >> actually deleted from the form along with the data in those fields. This >> behavior is not seen on the Incident form. I had been told by BMC that the >> new upgrade/ patch installs would be performing a form merge instead of an >> overwrite so as long as custom fields were in the reserved range we would >> be ok. That is obviously not the case at least on the Change module. >> >> Tommy Morris >> >> RSTS Remedy Developer >> >> 817-415-6898 >> >> _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers >> Are"_ >> >> _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers >> Are"_ >> _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers >> Are"_ >> > > _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers > Are"_ > _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers > Are"_ > -- If it were not for the gutter, my mind would be homeless! _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor:[email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
