Re: Request for Comments: multi-vendor vs single-vendor
John, I think the question is less about if the tools you use come from one vendor or not, but how those/that vendor handles the separate products. If as you say that the 'suite' is only released as a suite, and if one portion of that suite is 'hung up' for some reason, they don't release the suite.that can cause issues. But tell me this.when was the last time MS released Word before it released Excel of the same version? To my knowledge it hasn't happened.MS chooses to sell its Office Suite as a suite, and as such, you must wait for all components to be ready before you get the next version. This discussion goes back a bit to last week's discussion regarding interfaces between modules within the same suite. I think it's awesome that there are competitors to BMC in some spaces of the Service Desk arena, but I can't honestly fault BMC for delaying a suite install because some components needing additional tweaking J From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of John Sundberg Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:23 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Request for Comments: multi-vendor vs single-vendor ** What are the thoughts around multi-vendor vs single-vendor? Michael Poole - from our company recently wrote a good blog post on the subject: http://blog.kineticdata.com/vendor-strategy/are-we-living-in-a-one-horse-tow n/ My observations are in-line with the blog post. A single-vendor approach puts companies on the path of the vision of that vendor -- and quite frankly not on their own company path - which should be business agenda driven. I find it IMPOSSIBLE for a single-vendor approach to be able to fit the REALITY of today's larger organizations. As witnessed by the size of projects and the length of projects to deploy the single vision. (And then - to address the updates - when they come out) Weird stuff happens: - Forced pricing changes, leverage is to the vendor - and these are against your suite typically - and therefore -- all products at one time - Dropped product RFEs - dropped because it is slowing down all the other products (Next release is 2 years) - Release slowdowns - since everything is tied together - you have to wait for unrelated items to get fixed before the release is out (So - you might care about Incident -- but the next release of Incident is not coming out until Change gets fixed (which is behind schedule) etc...) From a business perspective -- BAD PLAN - IMHO. Do others feel different? Is the Big Suite - a vendor benefit - or a customer benefit? I look forward to the comments. -John -- John Sundberg Save the Date! First Annual KEG - Kinetic Enthusiasts Group Feb. 29th - Mar. 2nd 2012 in Denver CO For more information click here - KEG http://www.kineticdata.com/Events/KEG.html Kinetic Data, Inc. Building a Better Service Experience Recipient of: WWRUG10 Best Customer Service/Support Award WWRUG09 Innovator of the Year Award john.sundb...@kineticdata.com 651.556.0930 I http://www.kineticdata.com/ www.kineticdata.com _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Request for Comments: multi-vendor vs single-vendor
Hi, To take this one step further, any Out-Of-The-Box application will control the customer, but a home-grown application will be all based on customer requirements... If you rely on a platform, like Remedy, you need to adapt your requirements to the limitations of the platform. A. If you have a single vendor with a suite, you will have to adapt more, and wait for the suite to be released. B. If you have multi-vendor OOB applications, you will have to deal with the integrations. C. If you build everything in C, you can get anything, but it will probably take some time and money until you are done... I for one hope that the pendulum will move back toward home grown applications. Maybe not for everything, but at least for some tasks. Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se (ARSList MVP 2011) Products from RRR Scandinavia (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11): * RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing. * RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs. Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se. John, I think the question is less about if the tools you use come from one vendor or not, but how those/that vendor handles the separate products. If as you say that the 'suite' is only released as a suite, and if one portion of that suite is 'hung up' for some reason, they don't release the suite.that can cause issues. But tell me this.when was the last time MS released Word before it released Excel of the same version? To my knowledge it hasn't happened.MS chooses to sell its Office Suite as a suite, and as such, you must wait for all components to be ready before you get the next version. This discussion goes back a bit to last week's discussion regarding interfaces between modules within the same suite. I think it's awesome that there are competitors to BMC in some spaces of the Service Desk arena, but I can't honestly fault BMC for delaying a suite install because some components needing additional tweaking J From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of John Sundberg Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:23 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Request for Comments: multi-vendor vs single-vendor ** What are the thoughts around multi-vendor vs single-vendor? Michael Poole - from our company recently wrote a good blog post on the subject: http://blog.kineticdata.com/vendor-strategy/are-we-living-in-a-one-horse-tow n/ My observations are in-line with the blog post. A single-vendor approach puts companies on the path of the vision of that vendor -- and quite frankly not on their own company path - which should be business agenda driven. I find it IMPOSSIBLE for a single-vendor approach to be able to fit the REALITY of today's larger organizations. As witnessed by the size of projects and the length of projects to deploy the single vision. (And then - to address the updates - when they come out) Weird stuff happens: - Forced pricing changes, leverage is to the vendor - and these are against your suite typically - and therefore -- all products at one time - Dropped product RFEs - dropped because it is slowing down all the other products (Next release is 2 years) - Release slowdowns - since everything is tied together - you have to wait for unrelated items to get fixed before the release is out (So - you might care about Incident -- but the next release of Incident is not coming out until Change gets fixed (which is behind schedule) etc...) From a business perspective -- BAD PLAN - IMHO. Do others feel different? Is the Big Suite - a vendor benefit - or a customer benefit? I look forward to the comments. -John -- John Sundberg Save the Date! First Annual KEG - Kinetic Enthusiasts Group Feb. 29th - Mar. 2nd 2012 in Denver CO For more information click here - KEG http://www.kineticdata.com/Events/KEG.html Kinetic Data, Inc. Building a Better Service Experience Recipient of: WWRUG10 Best Customer Service/Support Award WWRUG09 Innovator of the Year Award john.sundb...@kineticdata.com 651.556.0930 I http://www.kineticdata.com/ www.kineticdata.com _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Request for Comments: multi-vendor vs single-vendor
What are the thoughts around multi-vendor vs single-vendor? Michael Poole - from our company recently wrote a good blog post on the subject: http://blog.kineticdata.com/vendor-strategy/are-we-living-in-a-one-horse-town/ My observations are in-line with the blog post. A single-vendor approach puts companies on the path of the vision of that vendor -- and quite frankly not on their own company path - which should be business agenda driven. I find it IMPOSSIBLE for a single-vendor approach to be able to fit the REALITY of today's larger organizations. As witnessed by the size of projects and the length of projects to deploy the single vision. (And then - to address the updates - when they come out) Weird stuff happens: - Forced pricing changes, leverage is to the vendor - and these are against your suite typically - and therefore -- all products at one time - Dropped product RFEs - dropped because it is slowing down all the other products (Next release is 2 years) - Release slowdowns - since everything is tied together - you have to wait for unrelated items to get fixed before the release is out (So - you might care about Incident -- but the next release of Incident is not coming out until Change gets fixed (which is behind schedule) etc...) From a business perspective -- BAD PLAN - IMHO. Do others feel different? Is the Big Suite - a vendor benefit - or a customer benefit? I look forward to the comments. -John -- John Sundberg Save the Date! First Annual KEG - Kinetic Enthusiasts Group Feb. 29th - Mar. 2nd 2012 in Denver CO For more information click here - KEG Kinetic Data, Inc. Building a Better Service Experience Recipient of: WWRUG10 Best Customer Service/Support Award WWRUG09 Innovator of the Year Award john.sundb...@kineticdata.com 651.556.0930 I www.kineticdata.com ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
