Hi Koyb, I understand your frustration and I've seen similar edicts over the years. Like you I don't agree with them. Some observations
It seems very easy for people to rush to blame any dissatisfaction with ITSM on the presence of any or too many "customizations". Remedy ITSM has always been intended as a customizable product. Early versions were little more than templates to get you started. Full source is provided and it is readable. This is a key strength and market differentiator for the product. Support from the vendor for customization has always been there and won't be going away any time soon. There will always be sophisticated and smart Remedy developers pushing the envelope to create new and innovative extensions to the base product. This will happen even as the base product continues to provide more and more features. There is no one size fits all in ITSM or virtually any other sphere. Rod On 18 October 2013 21:32, Koyb P. Liabt <tekkyto...@aol.com> wrote: > ** ** > Hi, > > We have a serious issue. Our company has strictly mandated that no > customizations be made to our ITSM system - unless BMC does it via a > "Hotfix." Management states that BMC informed them "not to customize." (I > believe it's more than an issue related to upgrades - not sure what all was > communiccated). As result, whenever there is a change that needs to be > made - their position is.." it's BMC's responsibility to fix their > application." For example, if there are OOB fields marked as 'optional" > and our company wants the fields to be "required" - then the oweness is on > BMC to fix it. This is what our company calls "a broken piece of code that > needs a hotfix." (how absurd). Internal developers are to administer the > data and are not able to create a form, add a field, create an active link, > filter etc - it might "break Remedy more." Only four filters were created > over the two years from our team. To make a code change, it > requires several pages of an essay detailing why we need this new code, > weeks of meetings to discuss the filter, Sr. Management must be notified, > then go through the CAB review board, etc.... > > Unfortunately, because of this "no customize" delusion, our > company views the ITSM OOB applications as "junk" because it does not meet > requirements that continually change as we mature as a company. Harsh > statements are daily communicated throughout our company over these > issues. Whenever a field and/or workflow does not match their "wish > list" - almost every meeting, people are walking around complaining that > the "tool just does not work." This is so far from the truth! I have > explained many times the concept of "software development application" and > "developer." BMC packaged ITSM based on industry standard (and other > factors) that contains software development applications that supports IT > Service Management. BMC cannot predict which fields you want to be > required in every single case. Each company is different. Yes, > standardize as much as possible, however if you need to modify the code to > fit your business requirement - then do so. > > I spoke with BMC technical support and asked the technician what is BMC > communicating regarding customizations - because our Sr. Management is > stating BMC warned them not to customize. The BMC tech informed me that we > should not customize ITSM. ?? Where on earth is this coming from? > > If I needed to change the field from a numerical "9" to the word "nine" on > a form - the decision makers on our team would flip out. The reality is, > we have a great need to create tables to manage data and for integrations - > however we cannot :( > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
