Sometimes it is very hard to find a balance between the user experience and handling of the customizations. We went through similar review where our VP discarded 90 percent of the customizations for the new upgrade. But during the training/demos users are pissed off because 1. It is completely web based and slower than user tool 2. They are loosing the look and feel or the handy customizations they had for the past six years 3.With the best practice views many fields that were in the classic view are either no more used or hidden or not easily accessible. So we had to rebuild some of the easy ones from the discarded customizations to get a buy in for UAT sign off. With new version OOTB there are only very few fields that are required to close a ticket, and it will mess up several matrics/reports. For example Product or Operational categorization are optional OOTB, and they are required for metrics,auto assignments,approvals in our company. Users were asking for several process enforcement rules like they must enter data in field x, if there is a value in field y etc.. It was very hard to convince users that many of their requirements are user training issue rather than a tool customization. At the end we had to reject the user requests and direct them to VP and CAB to get the sign off.
On May 3, 1:18 pm, "Sanford, Claire" <claire.sanf...@memorialhermann.org> wrote: > This is what we want them to fill out before going to the CAB. > > They are fields that were added to the old HD form and the old CHG form that > in the past all they had to do was put in a request with approval from a > Director and they could have it added. > > With this implementation, there are new rules. No > enhancements/customizations unless they can justify the need and get it past > the CAB or a System Executive (VP). > > ________________________________ > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Rick Cook > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 1:11 PM > To: arsl...@arslist.org > Subject: Re: Customization Approval Process Question > > ** > > Isn't that what the Change Management process is for? The CAB decides what > is worth pursuing. > > Rick > > On May 3, 2011 6:59 AM, "Sanford, Claire" > <claire.sanf...@memorialhermann.org<mailto:claire.sanf...@memorialhermann.org>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > When you have a customer that wants a customization made, do you have a > > special requirements document you have them complete? > > > I have my gazillion customizations in the 6.0 version of HelpDesk and in > > order for them to move to the new ITSM 7.6.4, the users will have to > > provide some form of justification for needing something that is not OOB. > > > We have determined that MANY of them are adaptable to some of the newer > > processes, some customizations are so complex and very clinical in nature, > > there is no place in the OOB version for them. > > > Suggestions? Samples? > > > Claire Sanford > > Information Systems Division > > Memorial Hermann Healthcare System > > System Services Tower North - 2:105 > > 920 Frostwood, Houston, TX 77024 > > Phone: 713 338 6035 > > claire.sanf...@memorialhermann.org<mailto:claire.sanf...@memorialhermann.org> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > ____ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives > > atwww.arslist.org<http://www.arslist.org> > > attend wwrug11www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSList: "Where the > > Answers Are" > > _attend WWRUG11www.wwrug.comARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > ____ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives atwww.arslist.org > attend wwrug11www.wwrug.comARSList: "Where the Answers Are" _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
