I will say, BMC Salespeople are killing their own business. They are notorious for telling clients "no customizations" to 1) Mitigate the lack of training to developers making changes in earlier versions that do not know how to maintain the integrity of out-of-the-box workflow. This lack of knowledge creates disasters for upgrades and therefore disasters for BMC. Instead of BMC including how to properly customize OOTB workflow in their developer training courses, they have adopted the "no customization" mantra for a highly customizable software platform. Remedy's niche in the market is its flexibility. And they just scrapped it and wonder why other companies are gaining market share. Silly.
2) Drive up dependency and sales for their support and their internal Professional Services team that offers Remedy developers at 3 to 4 times a senior contractor rate (literally). The irony is that a few of them are really good, but a lot of them are novices/mid-level and yet the bill rate is ridiculous. But their salespeople make clients feel like the only way to properly customize their customizable product is to use BMC resources. 3) They don't realize they are literally killing their own product and opening the door for major clients to try out the competition like Service Now and Saleforce. It's idiocracy but it's consistent idiocracy. lol 4) A lot of them are not techies and really don't know the product. But they are assumed to so clients trust them and their word, as wrong as it is, is perceived to be Gold. BMC, if you're monitoring this list, I urge you to grab up your sales team and educate them. They are killing a great product. And with these hotfixes going right into the Base Development for basic stuff that would normally go into an Overlay in versions 7.6.04 and beyond, your salespeople are actually reopening the disasters that you all were averting with the Overlay concept in the first place. It's got to stop if you want to maintain and grow your market share. Seasoned developers should not have to fight their clients to help them... On Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:50 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]] 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]] 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]] 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]] 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"
