-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Maybe I have not had enough coffee for the day (I am actually getting my first cup just now) but I am not seeing where the issue was that required this originally.
What's wrong with customers leaving a provider and signing on with another? That more or less strikes me as being competition, and - in theory - it's supposed to drive the market place... David Sanders wrote: > I think the reason that BMC had to agree to a change of support provider/VAR > was originally to stop VARs poaching each others customers. Why this should > also be required when you change from direct support to VAR first line I > can't understand. > > David Sanders > Remedy Solution Architect > Enterprise Service Suite @ Work > ========================== > ARS List Award Winner 2005 > Best 3rd party Remedy Application > > See the ESS Concepts Guide > > tel +44 1494 468980 > mobile +44 7710 377761 > email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > web http://www.westoverconsulting.co.uk > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Will Du Chene > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:00 AM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: OT: Did you know you need bmc permission to switch support > providers? > > That's a very good question. I wonder if someone from the BMC camp would > care to expound on that one a bit? I'd like to see some clarity added, > because I can guarantee that - if this is for real - I am going to keep > it in mind, and make my management, and the people that I would > recommend this application to aware of it. > > Bob Rowe wrote: >> That tilts just about everything to BMC's favor. Can you let the contract >> lapse, then pick it up a few weeks later with a partner? > >> As for waiting, I've been waiting since June 18 for additional >> response--after the initial "we're looking into it"--to an issue with >> workflow (manually relating one asset to another). My issue is "High" also >> and we're on a fast turnaround sort of contract as well. > > >> On 6/20/07, Susan Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> ** After several incidents with Support in the last few months I >>> thought I >>> should investigate other venues that provide services. Our contract >>> is up >>> the end of September so I thought I had plenty of time. I was just >>> informed >>> by a partner the following: >>> >>> "Should you be interested in migrating support to a partner, any partner, >>> there is a BMC policy that you need to be aware of that not many are: BMC >>> must provide the customer and the partner approval for this migration in >>> advance of 90 days of the renewal date. Further, the request to >>> migrate must >>> be initiated by the client with certain substance to validate/approve the >>> request. >>> As example, if your support contract renewal date is Sept 30 then BMC >>> need >>> provide approval before June 30. This is a tough policy to meet >>> especially >>> when it's not know. Technically this gives you but two weeks. Of >>> course the >>> voice of the customer is listened to when the date is passed but it's >>> optimal to meet the date, at least with the request. " >>> >>> Why would bmc have to provide permission for you to utilize a 'PARTNER' >>> ??? It's not even just letting bmc know you're considering it. It >>> appears >>> it has to be a settled matter. >>> >>> What kind of relationship does bmc have with it's Partners? What is a >>> customer supposed to think about that relationship? I would think they >>> would welcome less customers stressing their support system. Others >>> may get >>> a contact within the initial SLA. I waited near 6 hours for initial >>> contact >>> on a High issue yesterday (supposed to be within 4 hours). >>> >>> At this point this is all I can say and keep it respectible. >>> >>> Susan >>> >>> __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in >>> it___ > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGebgsU5LpycrTusgRAtWMAJ9khqaziShmBb8+7b9CDaRJm+5hHgCgo5n3 m3medSUqAyXiLnFtxQildvQ= =Ztd+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
