Good point about presentations and pitches. Our staff can be very sensitive to this. Especially when they come to a meeting where the expectation is something productive will come out of it (better understanding, suggestions on how we can improve process/tool usage) and they get a sales with marketing.
Jason On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Susan Palmer <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > My experience has paralleled Jason's. Never having worked 'federal' > I've only experienced it from a company perspective. > > I don't even bother to add BMC people as contacts since they change before > I need to contact them. There's been meetings with our support provider > where the invited BMC person was a no-show without notice. > > Back in 1996 or 1997 Doug made a visit to my company at the time at our > request. We were custom, which of course was the way it was then, but it > made a difference in executive appreciation for what 'Remedy' could do and > had a very positive impact. Granted there weren't as many customers then, > but don't discount the impact Doug can have. Don't assume you have to > settle for less. > > Sometimes a sales person is exactly just a 'sales' person. You don't > always want the 'presentation' you want plain talk that is not just, 'of > course we can do it'. (but just try and actually do it) You want the > technical supporting information that will make you believe you really can > get there, not just the hype. > > Susan > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Jason Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > >> ** >> Alright, one overdue reply down, one more to go. >> >> LJ and Koyb already touched on that Doug is a wonderful resource for an >> organization struggling. He understands the vision, what the tools can and >> can't do as well as can relay that information to executives or techies. >> He is excellent at explaining why a customer who thinks they want to do >> something may not really want to do that something. Or at least bring >> reality into the picture when expectations from a tool are too high. >> >> So now we get to the local sales person (yes, this is meant to be >> ranty). I think the first thing to point out is Federal/public sector has >> much more sales loyalty. The three replies that apparently find there >> local sales people useful are associated with the public sector. I spent >> some time on a govt. contract and was thrilled at the level of support and >> interaction. I felt bad for our AM because the Federal customer would ask >> for things I personally felt were unreasonable but she would usually find a >> way to pull it off or find an alternative that was acceptable for the >> customer. >> >> Now I have been back in the private sector for the last 5 years. I can't >> decided if I change the oil in my car more often than our account manager >> changes. I must admit that we had a great run (in BMC custom terms) where >> we not only had the same AM for a few year but also he had a wonderful SE. >> In the course of a year or two they were helpful way beyond what I thought >> was ever possible from BMC (in the private sector without spending >> consulting money). At one point I was pleasantly surprised to see Darius >> walking down the hall of our office. Unfortunately they are both no longer >> with BMC and we seem to be back into the rotating AM cycle. It is so bad >> that we largely forget they exist except when we need to buy some licensees >> and we need to research who we should be talking with. I checked >> support.bmc.com the other day where the AM is supposed to be listed and >> there wasn't anybody there. Maybe BMC doesn't even know at the moment. Ok >> to be fair I think I roughly know who our AM is at the moment however I >> have an email and voice mail from a new name that I need to get back to so >> maybe it has changed again?.?.?. Honestly I really have no desire to talk >> to the next person in the rotation. Shouldn't relationships be built? >> >> There was mentioned of periodic visits earlier in this thread. Except >> for the span I mentioned we do not get visits. I assume we don't spend >> enough. Technical person? I had no idea that was even an option for many >> years. Until the SE previously mentioned the only time we saw a >> "technical" person was when they were along with somebody trying to sell us >> products. Again, I figured we just don't spend enough. >> >> Regarding having our AM helping with our challenges. There have been >> times when I wouldn't want our AM to talk to our upper management (or >> anybody in IT for that matter). My experience has been because of the >> frequent turnover they are typically too green and our IT dept would rip >> them after a few questions that couldn't be answered (admittedly we can be >> a tough crowd). This is where I added "me too" about having Doug talk to >> our IT leadership because I have zero confidence in most people from BMC >> that get sent our way. There absolutely have been exceptions but that is >> just it, they were exceptions. >> >> I am very supportive of many aspects of Remedy, BMC, Support, >> Engineering, etc. but the sales/local contact side typically I don't find >> very useful unless you have money in your hand. >> >> Jason >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Koyb P. Liabt <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> ** ** >>> >>> **** >>> **** >>> Actually I was chiming in as a reply to another person who had mentioned >>> Doug. Although yes I think it would be great if he did speak with them - I >>> would NEVER ask Doug to speak to our team. This is not Doug's obligation. >>> However, yes I do think he would be very influential in this situation. >>> When I hear Doug speak - I am very much persuaded, and his communication >>> has been crystal clear to me. Our Management decision makers are technical >>> Managers (i.e. software / infrastructure / architects etc) so we need a >>> heavy hitter on the technical side. Our company is large. It's >>> unfortunate that this miscommunication is happening, and the adverse info >>> is being communicated through our organization about a good product. Our >>> Account rep does not have the type of relationship with our Management in >>> which they would even listen. >>> >>> **** >>> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: >>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *[email protected] >>> *Sent:* Monday, October 21, 2013 7:33 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: Customization**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** **** >>> >>> Just asking, but “why Doug” in these situations? Where is your local >>> salesperson or technical person. Don’t**** >>> >>> you get periodic visits from them or have access to the regional tech >>> person?**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ >>> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Koyb >>> P. Liabt >>> *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2013 5:56 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Customization**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> ** **** >>> >>> ****** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> That's a scary thought. I hope they do not have this point of view with >>> any other application. It's unfortunate because BMC is a really good >>> product, however our Managers are sending out this bad publicity due to a >>> lack of understanding of the BMC products. When I try to explain - it's >>> like talking to sheet rock. Nice people, but I'm not sure why they are not >>> listening to the professional recommendations the BMC SMEs that they >>> hire. Meanwhile we have all these great BMC tools and we are not >>> leveraging the technology. **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> A year ago, I created 1 field in a regular table. I heard noise about it >>> of course - my phone was ringing right away. I was told this new field >>> made them really "nervous" and code changes are not allowed - contact BMC >>> for a hotfix instead. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this. I >>> wish Doug would have a chat with them.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ >>> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *arslist >>> *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2013 4:35 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: Customization**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> ** **** >>> >>> Does your company have the same unrealistic view of all application >>> software or only BMC’s?**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Feels like a Friday type thread, only a Dilbert version of it.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> Dan**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ >>> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Koyb >>> P. Liabt >>> *Sent:* October 18, 2013 11:06 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: Customization**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> ** **** >>> >>> ****** >>> >>> We are on AR System/ITSM 7.6.4 and I have explained to the team that we >>> have overlays which manages these code changes. The reply was "No code >>> changes - and BMC has to fix their application." (oh brother)**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ >>> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Tauf >>> Chowdhury >>> *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2013 9:41 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: Customization**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> ** **** >>> >>> What version are you on? In the newer versions, BMC has made it "easier" >>> to customize the system and every version, they try to take more and more >>> customer "customizations" and make them something you can configure within >>> the tool. So I guess the first question is if you are on a version that >>> supports overlays (7.6.04 +). **** >>> >>> It may then be a good idea to get in touch with your company's sales guy >>> and explain to him the negative opinion everyone has about the product and >>> said comments about the "no customization" rule. I'm sure the sales person >>> will be interested in smoothing things over if he cares about doing more >>> business. Ask him/her to set up a meeting with product management and have >>> a real, in person, discussion with them about the direction of the product >>> and what you should/shouldn't do. **** >>> >>> Worst case scenario, hit the job market. Sounds like a crappy >>> environment to work in. There are plenty of great opportunities out there. >>> I believe Unisys is hiring.**** >>> >>> Hope this helps.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Koyb P. Liabt <[email protected]> >>> 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_**** >>> >>> >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> -- >>> *Tauf Chowdhury***** >>> >>> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ **** >>> >>> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_**** >>> >>> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_**** >>> >>> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_**** >>> >>> Portions of this message may be confidential under an exemption to >>> Ohio's public records law or under a legal privilege. If you have received >>> this message in error or due to an unauthorized transmission or >>> interception, please delete all copies from your system without disclosing, >>> copying, or transmitting this message. **** >>> >>> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ >>> >>> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ >> >> >> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ >> > > _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"
