We are starting our work group meetings next month getting ready to transition. What you describe sound a lot like what I think we are about to experience. It also sounds like Claire and I have similar situations from the versions to the clinical needs that have been accommodated over the years.
Although we have been promoting this "upgrade" for over a year and have been showing off pieces of the new environment I don't think it has occurred to most of our IT dept that almost all of their precious custom forms, fields and custom enforcement rules are toast. Our Sr. leadership is supporting the minimal customization approach however we are not far enough to get any kickback yet. We have also announced the new environment is completely web based. So far most people think this is cool. I am really looking forward to not having to support a thick client anymore. The MT performance has been outstanding! (I am especially impressed with 7.6.04 and IE9) We'll see if that remains true under user load but we are planning on server groups and balanced Mid-Tiers so it should scale. All of our users are in the same county, on our fast WAN and our concurrent user base is not nearly as high as what I have seen people on the list talk about (although we do anticipate Remedy usage expanding throughout the enterprise). We have never had a solid process for requesting changes or receiving approval. Up until a few years ago all it took was an email or call to a developer and the change would be made in production within minutes. People are finally use to putting in CM requests and not looking for instant changes. We also adopted Tuesday and Thursday as the only days for production changes which helps with expectations. What we still lack is any kind approval process or proof of business need/benefit. Time and time again we have built or customized something to find later it was never used (but we had not power to say no). I find many of our customizations/extensions/enhancements are to address user behavior, things that could be handled by training and mentoring. We have some managers that want to manage with Remedy code. We have suggested to our VP (who "owns" Remedy) that we create a change committee for Remedy. She is supportive of the idea so we'll see how that pans out. On one hand I wonder if we are killing what made Remedy so useful to our organization (flexibility) but on the other hand the experience of using our Remedy environment is so inconsistent, fragmented and in some situations painful. We can't properly maintain all of the (undocumented) customizations and home grown apps. We have a home grown identity management app that you have to be a specialist to use. You need to know to check this box, select this value from this menu, pull your left ear with your right hand and click Save 2 times to get things to work right. Granted this app has a lot of automation built into it (AD automation, is referenced for password synchronization and account build automation, automatic notices to managers/HR, etc) but overall the pieces don't work well together unless everything is done just right. On the other hand with each group being allowed to customize themselves into their own little corner, we (IT) don't always play well together. We (the Remedy team and leadership) are really looking forward to process consistency and being able to have multiple groups work together on a change request instead of each one having their own form. Once the battle dies down and people's feelings are no longer hurt because they don't have their own special little place anymore, I think we can start to work much more efficiently as an IT department as a whole. That or there will be a pile of bloody Remedy programmers/admin corpses left laying around. If you don't see me at WWRUG11 you'll know how things went. Jason On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:26 PM, patchsk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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" > <[email protected]> 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: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Rick Cook > > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 1:11 PM > > To: [email protected] > > 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" < > [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> 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 > > > [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]> > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > ____ > > > 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" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
