That's why we're a 'custom' shop. Our company is quite unique and has a vision and requirements that don't exactly fit the mold. Plus our business grows quickly and adds new requirements that ITSM may not be able to support OOB. We have our own equivalent of ITSM, just our version.
Koyb might consider suggesting Cloud Remedy where they also manage it. You can request customizations and bmc will do them for you. Be prepared to have deep pockets! Then you have OOB ITSM sort-of, but bmc is doing it so it looks like they've changed the basic program. And they'll handle the future upgrades! Susan On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Jason Miller <jason.mil...@gmail.com>wrote: > ** > LOL! I have been thinking we need a visit from Doug too (not just around > customizing but also for CMDB expectations reality check). In our org > there are many of the same perceptions; that ITSM doesn't work how we > want so it is broken. Occasionally somebody suggest that BMC needs to > "fix it". However as an org we are not against customizations (it is > actually our culture with almost all products). It is a bit of the > opposite where we are trying to keep the floodgates closed by making people > prove there is real benefit to the change they want. That the effort to > make the change and to continue to support it is not more than the process > effort the change actually reduces. Since we have FTE developers and > they don't work in for the requesting department all customization are > free, right? > > It almost sounds like BMC Remedy ITSM is not for Koyb's organization. > How the environment is described I am not sure there is any product that > is for your org but I believe Remedy is just too flexible > customization-wise and inflexible BMC willing to change it for one > customer wise (best of luck with the next vendor). > > So when something is deemed broken is there anything supporting that > statement beyond "it isn't how *we* do business" or "because *we *don't > like it"? Something like "the ITSM CM process deviates from *ITIL *process > when doing XYZ"? "*Industry standards* are ABC and BMC ITSM is expecting > us to do DEF"? > > Even referencing ITIL, Best Practices and Industry Standards will only > get you so far and why BMC ITSM (Remedy) allows modifications to the > framework provided. If they were ridged rules like you org seems to be > looking for (as long as they agree to them) then no changes would be > allowed. In some cases these frameworks have gray area and BMC needs do > some interpreting for them self and make some decisions. So yes there are > places where arguments could be made that the tool doesn't do what one's > interpretation of what "should" be done. In those cases you change it *IF > * the business gain/impact is great enough. > > I can only imaging if BMC made custom builds per customer's > interpretation of how things should work. They would need to greatly > increase their staffing levels to develop and support all of the > variations. It just isn't sustainable. Much like why almost any > organization standardizes on set models of Dell, HP, etc. for desktops. > Can you imagine if each department went to Best Buy and just bought want > they wanted? It isn't sustainable. > > So now that we know BMC isn't going to make special builds for customers > (well I guess money talks and that there might always be exceptions if > enough zeros are included (hopefully this is less of a factor now that they > are private)). So let's say BMC "fixes" what your org does not like. > What if my org agrees with how the functionality originally worked? Why > does your org get to decide the product path? > > Then there is the poor soul who moves between companies in the IT world > and needs to learn each company's version of ITSM. Of course there are > wide variations between version and vendors but when somebody has worked > with one of BMC's ITSM 7.6.04 / 8.0 / 8.1 that experience should be > fairly transferable. > > Jason > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Susan Palmer <suzanpal...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> ** >> Invite your management and Doug Mueller to have a discussion together. >> If Doug cannot reassure them it can be done, no one can. >> >> Susan >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Pierson, Shawn < >> shawn.pier...@energytransfer.com> wrote: >> >>> ** >>> >>> I agree with the suggestion from Tauf. It sounds to me like Remedy is >>> being set up to fail in your organization, and you can extrapolate whether >>> that impacts your job or not. If you otherwise like your company, see if >>> you can find someone logical in the circle of decision makers, schedule an >>> hour to talk to them about overlays, BMC’s best practices, etc. and >>> convince them to become your champion. There’s no way to override or >>> change the minds of people higher than you who don’t trust in your >>> knowledge and expertise.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> One of the primary reasons I’ve stuck with the company I work for now is >>> that I can have discussions with I.T. management and while we may not >>> always agree, they defer technical decisions to the people that actually >>> understand the technology.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Thanks,**** >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *Shawn Pierson * >>> >>> Remedy Developer | Energy Transfer**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: >>> arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Koyb P. Liabt >>> *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2013 10:06 AM >>> >>> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG >>> *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:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG <arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>] *On Behalf Of *Tauf >>> Chowdhury >>> *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2013 9:41 AM >>> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG >>> *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 <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_**** >>> >>> >>> >>> **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> -- >>> *Tauf Chowdhury***** >>> >>> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ **** >>> >>> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_**** >>> Private and confidential as detailed >>> here<http://www.energytransfer.com/mail_disclaimer.aspx>. >>> If you cannot access hyperlink, please e-mail sender. >>> _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"
