OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion
Related Topics
Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE norm.kai...@EGLIN.AF.MIL
Hi list: I apologize for not being a more active participant of the ARS list community recently...work has had me tied up more in red tape than in real development lately.
Anyway, I put this in as off topic, but I think it's only a bit off topic.
I would like to get any and all viewpoints on the subject of implementing ITSM vs. another product or a custom product. Specifically, how do you feel about the following points (some are from a devil's advocate perspective):
- ITSM 7.0 was overhauled from the previous version to be "ITIL compliant". An organization that does not want to embrace the ITIL model, however, is stuck because BMC only supports so many versions back.
Eventually support is dropped on the non-ITIL compliant versions. Thus, doesn't the vendor effectively control your organization's process and not the other way around? What are your thoughts on that?
- ITSM 7.0 has some 26,000 code objects (forms, ALs, filters, and escalations). Doesn't that make the tool nearly impossible to reverse engineer? And a bear to customize?
- Isn't customization unavoidable...especially in large enterprises with longstanding, proven business practices?
- If customization is unavoidable, how do you handle configuration control? That is, how do you know the next version won't wipe out all the work you did on your customizations?
All thoughts and opinions are much appreciated.
Norm ___________________________________________________________________________
Rick Cook remedyr...@GMAIL.COM
To answer your first question, the thing I have always liked about Remedy was that I never had to tell a customer that Remedy couldn't be made to conform to existing business practices. With ITSM 7, I'm not sure that would still be the case. In any event, the corporate ITIL initiative would be the driver on this, not BMC, IMO.
This may be just my opinion, but I think that a lot of companies are having to decide whether to jump on ITSM 7 or stay with 6 for the foreseeable future, and customizing it to fit their needs. For companies not really into ITIL, they just don't see the value add to retrain everyone on a new app. and end up with no discernable value for the money they invested in consultants and training to upgrade.
So I'm seeing two large buckets of work out there - Fresh ITSM 7 installations and ITSM 6 customizations. The first thing I thought of when I saw ITSM 7 almost a year ago was that Remedy PS was going to make a mint doing the installation and customizations, because few customers will have enough staff time to invest in learning it well enough to make anything resembling a major customization to it. The fact that until very recently, only BMC and its partners were able to even get the training on how to install and configure it only cements that impression.
So for those with limited budgets and/or no compelling ITIL initiative, staying with ITSM 6 is probably a better bet. ITSM 7 will cost a bunch to get in place, and a bunch more to change as time goes on. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential upgradeability of the v7 application, which is a complete unknown at this point.
Rick On 1/26/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@eglin.af.mil> wrote: ___________________________________________________________________________
Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE norm.kai...@EGLIN.AF.MIL
Rick: On your point...So for those with limited budgets and/or no compelling ITIL initiative, staying with ITSM 6 is probably a better bet.
My concern is this-Remedy only supports so many versions. When we get to, say, version 8 or 9 of ITSM, BMC drops support for version 6, the non-ITIL compliant version.
Additionally, I don't want to sound cynical, but my impression of ITIL is that it's an industry buzz...like TQM, CMM, CMMI, ISO, QAF, etc. While I understand that there may be great benefits to implementing ITIL, my research indicates that it's a huge commitment and a huge undertaking. And many big enterprises may well balk at the idea of embracing ITIL just because Remedy made their product that way.
It seems to me Remedy took an awful risk retooling ITSM the way they did.
_____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:18 AM To: arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** To answer your first question, the thing I have always liked about Remedy was that I never had to tell a customer that Remedy couldn't be made to conform to existing business practices. With ITSM 7, I'm not sure that would still be the case. In any event, the corporate ITIL initiative would be the driver on this, not BMC, IMO.
This may be just my opinion, but I think that a lot of companies are having to decide whether to jump on ITSM 7 or stay with 6 for the foreseeable future, and customizing it to fit their needs. For companies not really into ITIL, they just don't see the value add to retrain everyone on a new app. and end up with no discernable value for the money they invested in consultants and training to upgrade.
So I'm seeing two large buckets of work out there - Fresh ITSM 7 installations and ITSM 6 customizations. The first thing I thought of when I saw ITSM 7 almost a year ago was that Remedy PS was going to make a mint doing the installation and customizations, because few customers will have enough staff time to invest in learning it well enough to make anything resembling a major customization to it. The fact that until very recently, only BMC and its partners were able to even get the training on how to install and configure it only cements that impression.
So for those with limited budgets and/or no compelling ITIL initiative, staying with ITSM 6 is probably a better bet. ITSM 7 will cost a bunch to get in place, and a bunch more to change as time goes on. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential upgradeability of the v7 application, which is a complete unknown at this point.
Rick On 1/26/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@eglin.af.mil ** Hi list: I apologize for not being a more active participant of the ARS list community recently...work has had me tied up more in red tape than in real development lately.
Anyway, I put this in as off topic, but I think it's only a bit off topic.
I would like to get any and all viewpoints on the subject of implementing ITSM vs. another product or a custom product. Specifically, how do you feel about the following points (some are from a devil's advocate perspective):
- ITSM 7.0 was overhauled from the previous version to be "ITIL compliant". An organization that does not want to embrace the ITIL model, however, is stuck because BMC only supports so many versions back.
Eventually support is dropped on the non-ITIL compliant versions. Thus, doesn't the vendor effectively control your organization's process and not the other way around? What are your thoughts on that?
- ITSM 7.0 has some 26,000 code objects (forms, ALs, filters, and escalations). Doesn't that make the tool nearly impossible to reverse engineer? And a bear to customize?
- Isn't customization unavoidable...especially in large enterprises with longstanding, proven business practices?
- If customization is unavoidable, how do you handle configuration control? That is, how do you know the next version won't wipe out all the work you did on your customizations?
All thoughts and opinions are much appreciated.
Norm __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___________________________________________________________________________
Rick Cook remedyr...@GMAIL.COM
I have to agree with you there, Norm. They took a necessary risk, and we'll see how it turns out. The bottom line is that BMC had a responsibility to make money however they could (within their business model), they saw ITIL as a means to do that, and ITSM 7 appears to be successful for them in that way. Until it isn't as lucrative as some other acronym, I don't see much changing.
ITIL may indeed turn out to be like so many other acronymed initiatives -
time will tell. In the meantime, those companies not embracing it will have a couple of years still in support to make up their minds before going to the expense of upgrading. This is a case where BMC's extended release intervals (12-18 months) work in the customer's favor.
Rick On 1/26/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@eglin.af.mil> wrote: ___________________________________________________________________________
patrick zandi remedy...@GMAIL.COM
Here is BMC's ITIL Best Practives Director's Article from DECEMBER 2006 ---
This might give you some more insight Norm.
http://www.enterpriseleadership.org/listen/podcast-turbitt/view?searc... http://www.bmc.com/BMC/Common/CDA/hou_Page_Detail/0,3464,9926222_1063... look him up here, and select his links as well.. 3 White patpers and a Pod Cast as well..
On 1/26/07, Rick Cook <remedyr...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Patrick Zandi ___________________________________________________________________________
Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE norm.kai...@EGLIN.AF.MIL
It comes down to a question of who should dictate your process, I think-you or the vendor?
Here's the scenario. You have a first-rate operation consisting of 2,000 employees. The way you do business is solid because you've turned high profits for the past ten years. Don't mess with success.
In 2005, you make a significant investment and purchase ITSM version whatever it was at the time. The tool works fine with your business.
In 2006 Remedy announced the tool is reworked to be ITIL compliant. Let's suppose you don't want to mess with success, but you want to use the "best practice" solution. So you train your people on ITIL and embrace it.
In, let's say, 2008, the wind changes and BMC reworks the tool again-this time to embrace XYZ Popular Buzzword Practice. Now you're forced again to change your process in order to make the tool work properly and make sense...all because the vendor-another company looking to sell a product-made a business decision they hope will increase their sales.
It's understood that if Starbuck's realizes that people don't like coffee anymore and want, say, lemonade, Starbuck's will switch to lemonade. In this case, however, it has tremendous repercussions on the end customer...especially if the end customer is a government agency.
_____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:48 AM To: arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** I have to agree with you there, Norm. They took a necessary risk, and we'll see how it turns out. The bottom line is that BMC had a responsibility to make money however they could (within their business model), they saw ITIL as a means to do that, and ITSM 7 appears to be successful for them in that way. Until it isn't as lucrative as some other acronym, I don't see much changing.
ITIL may indeed turn out to be like so many other acronymed initiatives -
time will tell. In the meantime, those companies not embracing it will have a couple of years still in support to make up their minds before going to the expense of upgrading. This is a case where BMC's extended release intervals (12-18 months) work in the customer's favor.
Rick On 1/26/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@eglin.af.mil ** Rick: On your point...So for those with limited budgets and/or no compelling ITIL initiative, staying with ITSM 6 is probably a better bet.
My concern is this-Remedy only supports so many versions. When we get to, say, version 8 or 9 of ITSM, BMC drops support for version 6, the non-ITIL compliant version.
Additionally, I don't want to sound cynical, but my impression of ITIL is that it's an industry buzz...like TQM, CMM, CMMI, ISO, QAF, etc. While I understand that there may be great benefits to implementing ITIL, my research indicates that it's a huge commitment and a huge undertaking. And many big enterprises may well balk at the idea of embracing ITIL just because Remedy made their product that way.
It seems to me Remedy took an awful risk retooling ITSM the way they did.
_____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: ___________________________________________________________________________
Rick Cook remedyr...@GMAIL.COM
Well, I think we're on the same page here, Norm. I prefer to make the software conform to the business, rather than forcing the business to conform to the software. BMC says ITSM 7 can do that, and I think to a large extent it can, though through means that are new to us old-ITSM guys.
That being said, I have seen times when a company's existing business practices were so fractured that the introduction of software that enforced common practices, even different ones than were currently being used, was a good thing, in that it initiated consistency across the organization.
If you already have good, sound business practices, and the buzzwords of the day don't concern you or your customers, why not just build custom apps that you can adapt to your business as it changes? It would be much cheaper in the long run, you wouldn't have 25,000 workflow objects to maintain and document, and you wouldn't need to get outside help, unless you just needed to add some bandwidth to get it done sooner.
Just my $0.02.
Rick On 1/26/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@eglin.af.mil> wrote: ___________________________________________________________________________
Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE norm.kai...@EGLIN.AF.MIL
I have seen times when a company's existing business practices were so fractured that the introduction of software that enforced common practices, even different ones than were currently being used, was a good thing, in that it initiated consistency across the organization.
Agreed! However, I work for the Department of Defense. The DoD is very much like a confederacy. One Air Base does business one way, another does it another way, a third does it entirely different way. Very little common ground. The mentality is, "Let the independent bases accomplish their mission and make their own decisions on how best to run day-to-day business." At the same time the Air Force is saying, "We should have a common IT enterprise management toolset." If you already have good, sound business practices, and the buzzwords of the day don't concern you or your customers, why not just build custom apps that you can adapt to your business as it changes?
You're definitely preaching to the choir here! This is the problem-trying to get the highest up bigwigs to understand this concept. The way the wind is blowing, the mindset at the very top is, "No more custom apps! Everything should be out of the box and vendor supported." _____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 11:27 AM To: arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** Well, I think we're on the same page here, Norm. I prefer to make the software conform to the business, rather than forcing the business to conform to the software. BMC says ITSM 7 can do that, and I think to a large extent it can, though through means that are new to us old-ITSM guys.
That being said, I have seen times when a company's existing business practices were so fractured that the introduction of software that enforced common practices, even different ones than were currently being used, was a good thing, in that it initiated consistency across the organization.
If you already have good, sound business practices, and the buzzwords of the day don't concern you or your customers, why not just build custom apps that you can adapt to your business as it changes? It would be much cheaper in the long run, you wouldn't have 25,000 workflow objects to maintain and document, and you wouldn't need to get outside help, unless you just needed to add some bandwidth to get it done sooner.
Just my $0.02.
Rick On 1/26/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@eglin.af.mil It comes down to a question of who should dictate your process, I think-you or the vendor?
Here's the scenario. You have a first-rate operation consisting of 2,000 employees. The way you do business is solid because you've turned high profits for the past ten years. Don't mess with success.
In 2005, you make a significant investment and purchase ITSM version whatever it was at the time. The tool works fine with your business.
In 2006 Remedy announced the tool is reworked to be ITIL compliant. Let's suppose you don't want to mess with success, but you want to use the "best practice" solution. So you train your people on ITIL and embrace it.
In, let's say, 2008, the wind changes and BMC reworks the tool again-this time to embrace XYZ Popular Buzzword Practice. Now you're forced again to change your process in order to make the tool work properly and make sense...all because the vendor-another company looking to sell a product-made a business decision they hope will increase their sales.
It's understood that if Starbuck's realizes that people don't like coffee anymore and want, say, lemonade, Starbuck's will switch to lemonade. In this case, however, it has tremendous repercussions on the end customer...especially if the end customer is a government agency.
_____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG <mailto:arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG> ] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:48 AM To: arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG <mailto:arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG> Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** I have to agree with you there, Norm. They took a necessary risk, and we'll see how it turns out. The bottom line is that BMC had a responsibility to make money however they could (within their business model), they saw ITIL as a means to do that, and ITSM 7 appears to be successful for them in that way. Until it isn't as lucrative as some other acronym, I don't see much changing.
ITIL may indeed turn out to be like so many other acronymed initiatives -
time will tell. In the meantime, those companies not embracing it will have a couple of years still in support to make up their minds before going to the expense of upgrading. This is a case where BMC's extended release intervals (12-18 months) work in the customer's favor.
Rick On 1/26/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@eglin.af.mil <mailto:norm.kai...@eglin.af.mil> <mailto: norm.kai...@eglin.af.mil <mailto:norm.kai...@eglin.af.mil> > > wrote: ** Rick: On your point...So for those with limited budgets and/or no compelling ITIL initiative, staying with ITSM 6 is probably a better bet.
My concern is this-Remedy only supports so many versions. When we get to, say, version 8 or 9 of ITSM, BMC drops support for version 6, the non-ITIL compliant version.
Additionally, I don't want to sound cynical, but my impression of ITIL is that it's an industry buzz...like TQM, CMM, CMMI, ISO, QAF, etc. While I understand that there may be great benefits to implementing ITIL, my research indicates that it's a huge commitment and a huge undertaking. And many big enterprises may well balk at the idea of embracing ITIL just because Remedy made their product that way.
It seems to me Remedy took an awful risk retooling ITSM the way they did.
_____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___________________________________________________________________________
strauss stra...@REMEDY.ACS.UNT.EDU
I have no problem with the shift to ITIL - at least the concept is well documented, proven, and taught. Our "IT organization" (isn't that an oxymoron, just like "military intelligence"??) could use a little bit of structuring in how it manages work. If the application forces some of that, it is probably a good thing.
You are hitting the nail on the head, as far as ITSM 7 is concerned. Our alternatives are to stick with an older version of the application well beyond its support expiration date (we are already there on ITSM 5.5.1), start developing a complete custom application, or consider other packaged products from other vendors. ITSM 7 is almost impossible to get your arms around - even without ***et my servers are sitting at just over 30,000 code objects; it reminds me of a military helicopter: "50,000 moving parts, all made by the lowest bidder." What makes this complexity even worse, is that no one in the BMC Remedy support organization knows anything about ITSM 7 except for a very few people in application support. Half of the issues we have submitted go to teams who have no understanding of ITSM 7, and can't seem to get it through their heads that the problem is in how ITSM 7 has incorporated some function that they support differently for the rest of the ARS world.
The entry points in the Home Page are a perfect example - the ITSM 7 developers used a method unfamiliar to the regular support staff. Many times the support staff state that they will have to obtain access to an ITSM 7 system just to check out what we are telling them - it's an additional step, and a further delay.
As to customization, I intend to avoid it (because of the new patching model), but we are going to catch hell from our users over the customizations we were able to make and maintain in Help Desk 3, 4, and 5.5 that they will lose in ITSM 7 because they will not be practical to maintain. Some customization will absolutely be necessary - we keep hitting bizarre things in ITSM 7 that are just going to _have_ to be fixed before we can implement it. For example, even in a submitter locked system, requesters cannot update their own tickets unless they were put in through self-service (requester console). The incident console is making the support staff member who creates the ticket the Submitter, instead of the old Submitter=Requester model that enabled self-service updates by email, web links, or other customer interfaces after a ticket was put in on their behalf. This also affects the new Requester Console - it can only see tickets that the customer puts in for themselves (the rarest kind, in our environment), not the ones they called or emailed in to have placed for them. Another flagrant problem is the effect on the Company menus after you have loaded/imported the DSL - suddenly you have to wade through 2,288 Manufacturer entries in order to find the customer or operating company entries in order to locate a customer. The developers forgot to filter irrelevant types of companies out of the menus in the incident/problem/change customer search interfaces, so we will have to customize that too before the app is reasonably useable. I'm sure we'll get the answer that these behaviors are "as designed," which says something about that design process, but if we have to fix them, then we will have to protect those fixes in the future from patches that might return them to the original state. So far we have only been configuring and exploring Incident, so I expect to find other must-fix behaviors in the other applications as well.
On your last point, by far the worst problem is that there is no way to capture the data from days/weeks of application configuration, especially if you plan to use multi-tenancy, if you need to reload the application code with a fresh installation of some module. Usually that means reloading the entire suite since the application updates like 7.0.02 cannot install over an existing installation. Since this application is much more data-driven than ever before, there should be some way of extracting your configuration setting data to an external data store from which you can apply them to a new code install.
Christopher Strauss, Ph.D.
Remedy Database Administrator University of North Texas Computing Center http://remedy.unt.edu/helpdesk/ _____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:06 AM To: arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** Hi list: I apologize for not being a more active participant of the ARS list community recently...work has had me tied up more in red tape than in real development lately.
Anyway, I put this in as off topic, but I think it's only a bit off topic. I would like to get any and all viewpoints on the subject of implementing ITSM vs. another product or a custom product.
Specifically, how do you feel about the following points (some are from a devil's advocate perspective):
- ITSM 7.0 was overhauled from the previous version to be "ITIL compliant". An organization that does not want to embrace the ITIL model, however, is stuck because BMC only supports so many versions back. Eventually support is dropped on the non-ITIL compliant versions.
Thus, doesn't the vendor effectively control your organization's process and not the other way around? What are your thoughts on that?
- ITSM 7.0 has some 26,000 code objects (forms, ALs, filters, and escalations). Doesn't that make the tool nearly impossible to reverse engineer? And a bear to customize?
- Isn't customization unavoidable...especially in large enterprises with longstanding, proven business practices?
- If customization is unavoidable, how do you handle configuration control? That is, how do you know the next version won't wipe out all the work you did on your customizations?
All thoughts and opinions are much appreciated.
Norm __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___________________________________________________________________________
Ben Cantatore Ben.Cantat...@AVON.COM
See my comments below: Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@EGLIN.AF.MIL> Sent by: "Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)" <arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG> 01/26/2007 11:05 AM Please respond to arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG To arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG cc Subject OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** Hi list: I apologize for not being a more active participant of the ARS list community recently?work has had me tied up more in red tape than in real development lately.
Anyway, I put this in as off topic, but I think it?s only a bit off topic.
I would like to get any and all viewpoints on the subject of implementing ITSM vs. another product or a custom product. Specifically, how do you feel about the following points (some are from a devil?s advocate perspective):
- ITSM 7.0 was overhauled from the previous version to be ?ITIL compliant?. An organization that does not want to embrace the ITIL model, however, is stuck because BMC only supports so many versions back.
Eventually support is dropped on the non-ITIL compliant versions. Thus, doesn?t the vendor effectively control your organization?s process and not the other way around? What are your thoughts on that?
-- If you're trying to stay as close to out of the box functionality, then yes to a certain degree it does dictate how your process should work. I think there's enough flexibility through ARS objects (forms, filters, active links, ect) that you can change the ITSM apps to match company's process.
- ITSM 7.0 has some 26,000 code objects (forms, ALs, filters, and escalations). Doesn?t that make the tool nearly impossible to reverse engineer? And a bear to customize?
-- Yes, I'm going through that pain right now.
- Isn?t customization unavoidable?especially in large enterprises with longstanding, proven business practices?
-- If the company is following industry best practices, shouldn't be drastic changes, but all sorts of minor customizations will probably be needed.
- If customization is unavoidable, how do you handle configuration control? That is, how do you know the next version won?t wipe out all the work you did on your customizations?
-- Standard Naming conventions, good documentation, avoiding using reserved IDs, adding rather than modifying, exports and backups, using your own ID rather than the Demo account to modify objects so your name/last modify date shows.
All thoughts and opinions are much appreciated.
Norm __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___________________________________________________________________________
Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE norm.kai...@EGLIN.AF.MIL
* Standard Naming conventions, good documentation, avoiding using reserved IDs, adding rather than modifying, exports and backups, using your own ID rather than the Demo account to modify objects so your name/last modify date shows.
Certainly you want to apply the best practice configuration control techniques of Remedy...my point is, with a tool as big as ITSM plus without knowing intimately what the vendor has changed, added, and/or deleted, the configuration control piece is much, much harder with a vendor-supplied product than with a custom build.
_____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Ben Cantatore Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:37 PM To: arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** See my comments below: Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@EGLIN.AF.MIL> Sent by: "Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)" <arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG> 01/26/2007 11:05 AM Please respond to arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG To arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG cc Subject OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** Hi list: I apologize for not being a more active participant of the ARS list community recently...work has had me tied up more in red tape than in real development lately.
Anyway, I put this in as off topic, but I think it's only a bit off topic.
I would like to get any and all viewpoints on the subject of implementing ITSM vs. another product or a custom product. Specifically, how do you feel about the following points (some are from a devil's advocate perspective):
- ITSM 7.0 was overhauled from the previous version to be "ITIL compliant". An organization that does not want to embrace the ITIL model, however, is stuck because BMC only supports so many versions back.
Eventually support is dropped on the non-ITIL compliant versions. Thus, doesn't the vendor effectively control your organization's process and not the other way around? What are your thoughts on that?
-- If you're trying to stay as close to out of the box functionality, then yes to a certain degree it does dictate how your process should work. I think there's enough flexibility through ARS objects (forms, filters, active links, ect) that you can change the ITSM apps to match company's process.
- ITSM 7.0 has some 26,000 code objects (forms, ALs, filters, and escalations). Doesn't that make the tool nearly impossible to reverse engineer? And a bear to customize?
-- Yes, I'm going through that pain right now.
- Isn't customization unavoidable...especially in large enterprises with longstanding, proven business practices?
-- If the company is following industry best practices, shouldn't be drastic changes, but all sorts of minor customizations will probably be needed.
- If customization is unavoidable, how do you handle configuration control? That is, how do you know the next version won't wipe out all the work you did on your customizations?
-- Standard Naming conventions, good documentation, avoiding using reserved IDs, adding rather than modifying, exports and backups, using your own ID rather than the Demo account to modify objects so your name/last modify date shows.
All thoughts and opinions are much appreciated.
Norm __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___________________________________________________________________________
Ben Cantatore Ben.Cantat...@AVON.COM
"Certainly you want to apply the best practice configuration control techniques of Remedy?my point is, with a tool as big as ITSM plus without knowing intimately what the vendor has changed, added, and/or deleted, the configuration control piece is much, much harder with a vendor-supplied product than with a custom build." Not going to argue with you there, in all the versions of remedy I've worked with, the app upgrades have never been easy. I would love to see some intool support that somehow "flags" what's been added/changed.
Migrator in my opinion should fill that role, but is sadly lacking in many aspects.
Overall, I think its easy to conclude, wether you decide to use ITSM 7 or not, you have hard decisions to make. There is no silver bullet that will make everyone happy.
Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@EGLIN.AF.MIL> Sent by: "Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)" <arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG> 01/26/2007 02:04 PM Please respond to arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG To arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG cc Subject Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** n Standard Naming conventions, good documentation, avoiding using reserved IDs, adding rather than modifying, exports and backups, using your own ID rather than the Demo account to modify objects so your name/last modify date shows.
Certainly you want to apply the best practice configuration control techniques of Remedy?my point is, with a tool as big as ITSM plus without knowing intimately what the vendor has changed, added, and/or deleted, the configuration control piece is much, much harder with a vendor-supplied product than with a custom build.
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Ben Cantatore Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:37 PM To: arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** See my comments below: Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@EGLIN.AF.MIL> Sent by: "Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)" <arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG> 01/26/2007 11:05 AM Please respond to arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG To arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG cc Subject OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** Hi list: I apologize for not being a more active participant of the ARS list community recently?work has had me tied up more in red tape than in real development lately.
Anyway, I put this in as off topic, but I think it?s only a bit off topic.
I would like to get any and all viewpoints on the subject of implementing ITSM vs. another product or a custom product. Specifically, how do you feel about the following points (some are from a devil?s advocate perspective):
- ITSM 7.0 was overhauled from the previous version to be ?ITIL compliant?. An organization that does not want to embrace the ITIL model, however, is stuck because BMC only supports so many versions back.
Eventually support is dropped on the non-ITIL compliant versions. Thus, doesn?t the vendor effectively control your organization?s process and not the other way around? What are your thoughts on that?
-- If you're trying to stay as close to out of the box functionality, then yes to a certain degree it does dictate how your process should work. I think there's enough flexibility through ARS objects (forms, filters, active links, ect) that you can change the ITSM apps to match company's process.
- ITSM 7.0 has some 26,000 code objects (forms, ALs, filters, and escalations). Doesn?t that make the tool nearly impossible to reverse engineer? And a bear to customize?
-- Yes, I'm going through that pain right now.
- Isn?t customization unavoidable?especially in large enterprises with longstanding, proven business practices?
-- If the company is following industry best practices, shouldn't be drastic changes, but all sorts of minor customizations will probably be needed.
- If customization is unavoidable, how do you handle configuration control? That is, how do you know the next version won?t wipe out all the work you did on your customizations?
-- Standard Naming conventions, good documentation, avoiding using reserved IDs, adding rather than modifying, exports and backups, using your own ID rather than the Demo account to modify objects so your name/last modify date shows.
All thoughts and opinions are much appreciated.
Norm __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___________________________________________________________________________
Carey Matthew Black black....@GMAIL.COM
Norm, I see this problem from a few perspectives. And I think it helps to look at specific scenarios too. So let's look at a few simple observations.
1) If the business is working "just fine" then why change anything?
I would include in that conversation a discussion of why upgrade anything?
I think it is a false statement to say that you can not get support from BMC for ITSM v4 (even on ARS v7) today. I think it just takes more "Professional Services" than what your annual support contract would pay for. :) [ And just to be clear, your annual support pays for exactly zero hours of "Professional Services" each year. ] 2) If your business is "not working" and the higher ups want it to "work differently" then changes will be made. ( If the higher management actually have any authority to effect real change.) Now here is where it gets real sticky.
If Part A of your company is working well enough to "break even" and Part B of your company is loosing money then does that mean that Part B should adopt Part A's business practices? My answer is .... it depends. :) Even if Part A is making tons of money than Part B is loosing tons of money it still may not be the best decision to re-tool Part B with Part A's practices. Sometimes it really does take a full fracture of the company to get Part B to figure out what they are doing wrong. ( Or to realise that the accounts were just cost shifting all of Part A's losses to Part B and Part B was actually making money when it does not have to share the burden that Part A was "not honestly claiming to be theirs" too.) But, again, if the management want change, then it will happen. Even if the change is for the worst in the short term.
3) Business are not all unique. (Really, they are generally very similar.) Sure, there are different types of business. (for example: Services vs Manufacturing ) And there are even different market segments and forces to be sorted out. However, once a given market matures and stabilizes there are generally "best practices" that are formed for a given market. Yes they change over time due to changing market forces, but you get the idea. The companies that stay in business making... "Bicycles" tend to do almost the same basic things.
Which nets them enough money to keep doing what they have been doing.
Often business that are failing will turn to their competitors to try to figure out what they are doing wrong as compared to their competitors! (Differences like that are often the definition of a "anti-best practice".) 4) In a mature business, best practices (policies/procedures) are documentable in ways that lead to common terminology. (We all call "Sales" that for a reason. Same is true for "Marketing".) And those business functions are well understood in most business markets. IT is becoming a fairly standardized part of any business. So there are bound to be good and bad practices forming for how any business should manage that part of their business.
And finally...
5) ITIL is not something that BMC controls. ITIL is much bigger than any single company. It's origins and life cycle is driven by a conglomerate of business that all do "IT things" for themselves, and maybe for other companies too.
6) Choosing to use a standard today does not mean that you have to keep chasing that standard. There is nothing wrong with saying that ITIL v2 was "ok" for you, but "v3" is just silly. (Again. No reason to upgrade when things are going just fine.) 7) ITIL history lesson: + ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITIL * Started in the 1980's. (and continually updated) * It was originally created by "Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) of the UK Government". To help them manage their growing IT needs/resources.
* In December 2005, the OGC(Office of Government Commerce) issued notice of an ITIL refresh(ITIL v3) which is planned to be available in Spring 2007.
* ITIL is often considered alongside other best practice frameworks So at the end of the day Norm. The UK government built ITIL(v1), but it was not widely adopted or considered util the 90's(v2). So I guess that in the 2000's would be about the time that some of the USA government agencies would get around to looking at it. (Just a bit of humor. :) 8) And there is always the thought that whatever you are doing (that you think it working) must be "good enough for the next guy too".
However, that might not be the case in reality. It might be working just fine for you due to specific conditions that are unique to you/your business too.
Or there could be a more general pattern that you have not seen in what your doing that really is a lot like what "they" are doing too.
Just with a few different political/personal tweaks.
So my summary is this: I think the point of ITIL is to be that "general pattern" for IT stuff.
Given that 1000's of smart, effective, and successful people have spent years of their life/work to beat the general case patterns out of IT and to document them, then I can only say that if that "shoe does not fit you" that you should go join the ITIL team and tell them they are all wrong or that they missed whatever market force/unique reality that you have identified. That way ITIL v4 will be better and might help 1000's more people too.
--
Carey Matthew Black Remedy Skilled Professional (RSP) ARS = Action Request System(Remedy) Love, then teach Solution = People + Process + Tools Fast, Accurate, Cheap.... Pick two.
On 1/26/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@eglin.af.mil> wrote: [snip... ect...] ___________________________________________________________________________
Rick Cook remedyr...@GMAIL.COM
I remember Doug saying that Remedy would release tools to us that did exactly that, but I haven't heard if they actually were released.
Rick On 1/26/07, Ben Cantatore <Ben.Cantat...@avon.com> wrote: ___________________________________________________________________________
Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE norm.kai...@EGLIN.AF.MIL
A few points: Why upgrade to version 7 if version 5 (or any version you're currently running) is OK? Because of support. While I'm sure that if you bring Remedy (or any vendor) bags and bags of money for "Professional Support" sure, you'll get support for their deprecated version. However, if you're expecting the standard support you get just by buying the product and paying the bucks for a standard support agreement, you can forget it. And the idea of paying the bags of money defeats the purpose of using an OOTB solution to begin with.
I certainly don't disagree that ITIL, implemented right, is a good thing.
However, in order for it or any other business model to work, EVERYONE involved in the business from top on down must be trained on it and 100% committed to it.
Here's the issue. Many top managers in the DoD have no concept of what ITIL is. A top manager just asked me yesterday, "What is that?" Management's thought process is this: "Our ***et tracking sucks. We don't know what we have. Let's buy something that lets us fix that problem." The way they see it is just like what you do at tax time. You need to do your taxes, so go to CompUSA and buy TurboTax. Pull it out of the box, follow the instructions, and boom! Your taxes are done.
To them, the same with ***et management or help desk or change or whatever.
Need an ***et management solution? Buy something! Pull the CDs out of the box, read the directions, and you're done! They don't realize how high a cliff they're jumping off when they decide on a product like ITSM.
Perhaps BMC should sell ITSM as an ITIL solution more so than as an ***et, change, service desk solution.
Rick Cook remedyr...@GMAIL.COM
One hole in your logic, Norm, is that customizations to apps aren't really supported anyway, because they're changes to the supported workflow. I mean, you will often get a tech who will try to help you, but that's only up to a point, and not many have the expertise any more, and fewer probably have the time. So the options really are to go on an ITSM 7 platform that can't be fully supported yet by anyone, or a customized v5 or v6 platform that you can basically support yourself. Or, of course, a completely custom-built app that would be supported in-house.
I was recently in contact with a company who got sold ITSM 7, and had the implementation botched. They are now in a real pickle, because ITSM 7 resources aren't easy or cheap to find (or willing to try to clean someone else's mess up), they don't have qualified in-house resources, and their budget to get it working was mostly shot by the failed implementation. From the sound of it, they probably could have gotten along just fine with v6, which is currently better supported, has more people qualified to help with it, and is quicker and cheaper to implement.
On the business/ITIL issue, that customer story illustrates a substantial part of the problem - most BMC sales reps basically sell only ITSM v7 as an option, unless pressed to the wall for a different option (some may try to sell PS to build custom stuff). Whether they were told to not sell v6 after v7 was released or not, v7 is what's being pushed, regardless of whether it is the best fit for the customer. Why? There is far more money in selling v7, and if there's one common motivator among sales people, it's money.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just something we need to remember.
Rick On 1/26/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@eglin.af.mil> wrote: ___________________________________________________________________________
Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE norm.kai...@EGLIN.AF.MIL
Right. One overarching thought now among top management is, "In-house development is too expensive. Let's buy an OOTB solution and just let the vendor support it. Then get rid of the in-house folks." So here are the loose conclusions I've always drawn: * The OOTB solution is not a 100% solution. Customization is inevitable.
* The vendor is under no commitment to support customizations...in fact it could work as a buyout on their part, as in: "Well, we don't know WHAT'S wrong with your system...you modified our code." * SOMEONE locally has to maintain your customizations and keep the thing running.
So ultimately, where are your savings????
_____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:35 PM To: arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** One hole in your logic, Norm, is that customizations to apps aren't really supported anyway, because they're changes to the supported workflow. I mean, you will often get a tech who will try to help you, but that's only up to a point, and not many have the expertise any more, and fewer probably have the time. So the options really are to go on an ITSM 7 platform that can't be fully supported yet by anyone, or a customized v5 or v6 platform that you can basically support yourself. Or, of course, a completely custom-built app that would be supported in-house.
I was recently in contact with a company who got sold ITSM 7, and had the implementation botched. They are now in a real pickle, because ITSM 7 resources aren't easy or cheap to find (or willing to try to clean someone else's mess up), they don't have qualified in-house resources, and their budget to get it working was mostly shot by the failed implementation. From the sound of it, they probably could have gotten along just fine with v6, which is currently better supported, has more people qualified to help with it, and is quicker and cheaper to implement.
On the business/ITIL issue, that customer story illustrates a substantial part of the problem - most BMC sales reps basically sell only ITSM v7 as an option, unless pressed to the wall for a different option (some may try to sell PS to build custom stuff). Whether they were told to not sell v6 after v7 was released or not, v7 is what's being pushed, regardless of whether it is the best fit for the customer. Why? There is far more money in selling v7, and if there's one common motivator among sales people, it's money.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just something we need to remember.
Rick __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___________________________________________________________________________
Carey Matthew Black black....@GMAIL.COM
Norm, There is no application that can solve the problem of ignorant management.
Part of my comment about buying Professional Services (and it not being covered by your support contract) is that you have to understand what that support contract is actually buying you.
IMHO (and this may only be MY opinion.) the Remedy Support Contract really paid for: ) Development investment for the next version to be built -- This is very different than the right to download and use the software in my head.
) Upgrades to the next version -- This is just the media, download bandwidth, etc...
) ability for management to think they can ask questions of the vendor - Some people call that "support", but it really is not.
) ability for customers to "submit RFE's" and "Bug reports" -- Yes you heard me.. I think we PAY for that too.
What it absolutely does not buy you: (Again ...IMHO) ) Any commitment that the Vendor will teach you anything.
This includes but is not limited to: - What the product does. Before or after you buy/install it.
- How to tailor it to your needs (config choices, or more "serious" changes like customizations) - What the future holds for the product you purchased ) Any commitment to support you as a "in-house" development team.
- And this one is the one that really burns my britches. ARS is a development platform that you can use by just buying the server and User licenses. But... Good luck asking them how to get the ARServer to do "X" unless it is in the standard docs. It is like pulling teath to get them to BUG anything that is OBVIOUSLY different than the docs, much less just logically/pragmatically WRONG behaviour.
) Any commitment that they will be supporting your current OS/RDBMS/software version into perpetuity. They will move on, and if you do not. Well that standard contract just will be of less and less value to you. ( Nor does it guarantee that the other vendors for the OS, RDBMS, hardware, etc... will continue to support those parts too.) But before I finish this email let me comment on this sub-thread too.
"Customization is inevitable." I have to disagree. Buying a product does not mean that you have to alter it. Weak management decisions that lead to a dependency on a Vendor to "support it" should also lead to the realization that "the vendor needs to have written it for me to be able to blame them for any problems".
The decision to use an OOB to "cut internal resources" and then expect to be able to use "custom" code is tantamount to "wanting to have your cake and eat it too". Life just does not work that way.
--
Carey Matthew Black Remedy Skilled Professional (RSP) ARS = Action Request System(Remedy) Love, then teach Solution = People + Process + Tools Fast, Accurate, Cheap.... Pick two.
On 1/26/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@eglin.af.mil> wrote: ___________________________________________________________________________
"Watson, Matthew (Melbourne)" mwats...@KPMG.COM.AU
Hi Rick, Norm, On the ITIL thread - no toolset should be calling itself "ITIL compliant" - the OGC (who own ITIL) do not offer any test or certificate of ITIL compliance (http://www.itil.co.uk/faqs.htm#97 <http://www.itil.co.uk/faqs.htm#97> ). The more correct term would be "ITIL aligned", and when I last looked on the BMC website I couldn't find any reference to "ITIL compliant" (except for one old press release for ITSM 5).
ITIL does not have to be a huge commitment or undertaking - although a glance at ITSM 7 would scare many customers into thinking it is, but this is just how BMC have chosen to approach it. Other toolsets approach it in different ways, and for many customers their approach to the BMC toolset is "why buy a bulldozer when a shovel will do" (I've actually heard this term used frequently in toolset discussions). Even independent of toolsets, many people will interpret ITIL in different ways as well and adopt it to their needs (it is after all just a framework at this stage...).
Don't forget ITSM 5.x was put through the Pink Elephant "PinkVerify" service and deemed ITIL 'compliant' as well - so version 7 is not the first version of align to the ITIL framework.
Matt ________________________________ From: Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE [mailto:norm.kai...@EGLIN.AF.MIL] Sent: Saturday, 27 January 2007 3:37 AM Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** Rick: On your point...So for those with limited budgets and/or no compelling ITIL initiative, staying with ITSM 6 is probably a better bet.
My concern is this-Remedy only supports so many versions. When we get to, say, version 8 or 9 of ITSM, BMC drops support for version 6, the non-ITIL compliant version.
Additionally, I don't want to sound cynical, but my impression of ITIL is that it's an industry buzz...like TQM, CMM, CMMI, ISO, QAF, etc. While I understand that there may be great benefits to implementing ITIL, my research indicates that it's a huge commitment and a huge undertaking. And many big enterprises may well balk at the idea of embracing ITIL just because Remedy made their product that way.
It seems to me Remedy took an awful risk retooling ITSM the way they did.
________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:18 AM To: arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** To answer your first question, the thing I have always liked about Remedy was that I never had to tell a customer that Remedy couldn't be made to conform to existing business practices. With ITSM 7, I'm not sure that would still be the case. In any event, the corporate ITIL initiative would be the driver on this, not BMC, IMO.
This may be just my opinion, but I think that a lot of companies are having to decide whether to jump on ITSM 7 or stay with 6 for the foreseeable future, and customizing it to fit their needs. For companies not really into ITIL, they just don't see the value add to retrain everyone on a new app. and end up with no discernable value for the money they invested in consultants and training to upgrade.
So I'm seeing two large buckets of work out there - Fresh ITSM 7 installations and ITSM 6 customizations. The first thing I thought of when I saw ITSM 7 almost a year ago was that Remedy PS was going to make a mint doing the installation and customizations, because few customers will have enough staff time to invest in learning it well enough to make anything resembling a major customization to it. The fact that until very recently, only BMC and its partners were able to even get the training on how to install and configure it only cements that impression.
So for those with limited budgets and/or no compelling ITIL initiative, staying with ITSM 6 is probably a better bet. ITSM 7 will cost a bunch to get in place, and a bunch more to change as time goes on. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential upgradeability of the v7 application, which is a complete unknown at this point.
Rick On 1/26/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE ** Hi list: I apologize for not being a more active participant of the ARS list community recently...work has had me tied up more in red tape than in real development lately.
Anyway, I put this in as off topic, but I think it's only a bit off topic. I would like to get any and all viewpoints on the subject of implementing ITSM vs. another product or a custom product.
Specifically, how do you feel about the following points (some are from a devil's advocate perspective): - ITSM 7.0 was overhauled from the previous version to be "ITIL compliant". An organization that does not want to embrace the ITIL model, however, is stuck because BMC only supports so many versions back. Eventually support is dropped on the non-ITIL compliant versions.
Thus, doesn't the vendor effectively control your organization's process and not the other way around? What are your thoughts on that?
- ITSM 7.0 has some 26,000 code objects (forms, ALs, filters, and escalations). Doesn't that make the tool nearly impossible to reverse engineer? And a bear to customize?
- Isn't customization unavoidable...especially in large enterprises with longstanding, proven business practices?
- If customization is unavoidable, how do you handle configuration control? That is, how do you know the next version won't wipe out all the work you did on your customizations?
All thoughts and opinions are much appreciated.
Norm __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ********************************************************************** The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail with the subject heading "Received in error" or telephone +61 2 93357000, then delete the email and destroy any copies of it. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it.
KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or error-free, as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
KPMG, an Australian partnership, is part of the KPMG International network. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International provides no services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is a legally distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. See www.mimesweeper.com for more information.
********************************************************************** P ___________________________________________________________________________
Rick Cook remedyr...@GMAIL.COM
Quite right, Matt - I was going to mention the compliance/aligned issue, but it didn't seem as relevant as some other things of mention.
The bottom line is that there are three ways that BMC can help a company align its applications to ITIL standards, ITSM 7 for a full-on implementation, ITSM 6 for a less complex one, and completely custom apps for any level from zero to full. I wonder to what degree BMC's sales strategies mention all of those options to new Remedy customers.
Rick _____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Watson, Matthew (Melbourne) Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 2:36 PM To: arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** Hi Rick, Norm, On the ITIL thread - no toolset should be calling itself "ITIL compliant" -
the OGC (who own ITIL) do not offer any test or certificate of ITIL compliance ( <http://www.itil.co.uk/faqs.htm#97> http://www.itil.co.uk/faqs.htm#97). The more correct term would be "ITIL aligned", and when I last looked on the BMC website I couldn't find any reference to "ITIL compliant" (except for one old press release for ITSM 5).
ITIL does not have to be a huge commitment or undertaking - although a glance at ITSM 7 would scare many customers into thinking it is, but this is just how BMC have chosen to approach it. Other toolsets approach it in different ways, and for many customers their approach to the BMC toolset is "why buy a bulldozer when a shovel will do" (I've actually heard this term used frequently in toolset discussions). Even independent of toolsets, many people will interpret ITIL in different ways as well and adopt it to their needs (it is after all just a framework at this stage...).
Don't forget ITSM 5.x was put through the Pink Elephant "PinkVerify" service and deemed ITIL 'compliant' as well - so version 7 is not the first version of align to the ITIL framework.
Matt _____ From: Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE [mailto:norm.kai...@EGLIN.AF.MIL] Sent: Saturday, 27 January 2007 3:37 AM Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** Rick: On your point.So for those with limited budgets and/or no compelling ITIL initiative, staying with ITSM 6 is probably a better bet.
My concern is this-Remedy only supports so many versions. When we get to, say, version 8 or 9 of ITSM, BMC drops support for version 6, the non-ITIL compliant version.
Additionally, I don't want to sound cynical, but my impression of ITIL is that it's an industry buzz.like TQM, CMM, CMMI, ISO, QAF, etc. While I understand that there may be great benefits to implementing ITIL, my research indicates that it's a huge commitment and a huge undertaking. And many big enterprises may well balk at the idea of embracing ITIL just because Remedy made their product that way.
It seems to me Remedy took an awful risk retooling ITSM the way they did.
_____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:18 AM To: arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion ** To answer your first question, the thing I have always liked about Remedy was that I never had to tell a customer that Remedy couldn't be made to conform to existing business practices. With ITSM 7, I'm not sure that would still be the case. In any event, the corporate ITIL initiative would be the driver on this, not BMC, IMO.
This may be just my opinion, but I think that a lot of companies are having to decide whether to jump on ITSM 7 or stay with 6 for the foreseeable future, and customizing it to fit their needs. For companies not really into ITIL, they just don't see the value add to retrain everyone on a new app. and end up with no discernable value for the money they invested in consultants and training to upgrade.
So I'm seeing two large buckets of work out there - Fresh ITSM 7 installations and ITSM 6 customizations. The first thing I thought of when I saw ITSM 7 almost a year ago was that Remedy PS was going to make a mint doing the installation and customizations, because few customers will have enough staff time to invest in learning it well enough to make anything resembling a major customization to it. The fact that until very recently, only BMC and its partners were able to even get the training on how to install and configure it only cements that impression.
So for those with limited budgets and/or no compelling ITIL initiative, staying with ITSM 6 is probably a better bet. ITSM 7 will cost a bunch to get in place, and a bunch more to change as time goes on. And that's not even taking into consideration the potential upgradeability of the v7 application, which is a complete unknown at this point.
Rick On 1/26/07, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE <norm.kai...@eglin.af.mil> wrote: ** Hi list: I apologize for not being a more active participant of the ARS list community recently.work has had me tied up more in red tape than in real development lately.
Anyway, I put this in as off topic, but I think it's only a bit off topic.
I would like to get any and all viewpoints on the subject of implementing ITSM vs. another product or a custom product. Specifically, how do you feel about the following points (some are from a devil's advocate perspective):
- ITSM 7.0 was overhauled from the previous version to be "ITIL compliant". An organization that does not want to embrace the ITIL model, however, is stuck because BMC only supports so many versions back.
Eventually support is dropped on the non-ITIL compliant versions. Thus, doesn't the vendor effectively control your organization's process and not the other way around? What are your thoughts on that?
- ITSM 7.0 has some 26,000 code objects (forms, ALs, filters, and escalations). Doesn't that make the tool nearly impossible to reverse engineer? And a bear to customize?
- Isn't customization unavoidable.especially in large enterprises with longstanding, proven business practices?
- If customization is unavoidable, how do you handle configuration control? That is, how do you know the next version won't wipe out all the work you did on your customizations?
All thoughts and opinions are much appreciated.
Norm __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ********************************************************************** The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail with the subject heading "Received in error" or telephone +61 2 93357000, then delete the email and destroy any copies of it. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it.
KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or error-free, as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
KPMG, an Australian partnership, is part of the KPMG International network.
KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent firms operating under the KPMG name.
KPMG International provides no services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is a legally distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. See www.mimesweeper.com for more information.
********************************************************************** P __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___________________________________________________________________________
"Opela, Gary L Contr OC-ALC/ITMA" Gary.Opela....@TINKER.AF.MIL
The problem is that ITIL is an idea, a philosophy, and remedy has gone and made it an application.
Carey mentions "Sales" and "Marketing" but surely not all people in sales all use the exact same application to do their work. You don't see all cashiers across the world use the same register, do you?
If you could apply a philosophy, or a way of doing things, to an application, then OOTB solutions would be great. The root of the problem is that, while in reality ITIL is a great philosophy, there is more than one way to follow it.
Making everyone use the same OOTB application in order to follow the ITIL philosophy would be like making two companies in the same industry operate their stores identically, from the layout of the store, the items carried, the prices priced, to the hardware and software used to run the business.
I think the real problem with ITSM is not that it is not customizable, not that it is not flexible, not that it is hard to upgrade (all of these which are true), it is that you are trying to make thousands of companies, that while they get their jobs done using the same industry standards, work the exact same way and that will never work.
ITSM is a great solution if you are a start-up company and are looking for a way to sculpt your business. However, again with the idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", if you are already using ITIL standards, or if you have such a level of customization that it won't be ITSM whenever you're done, then there's really no point in purchasing it or its expensive support.
However, the problem is not necessarily always with the people like us realizing all of the above concepts. Whenever you have such good sales people as remedy has, and they are talking directly to the decision makers instead of to the people who have to enforce those decisions, then you'll have people purchase things because they were told "well, this is what everyone else is doing." You know, it would be nice if remedy's support staff was as good as their sales staff :-) _____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CG/SCWOE Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:10 PM To: arsl...@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: OT: ITSM Total Cost of Implementation Discussion A few points: Why upgrade to version 7 if version 5 (or any version you're currently running) is OK? Because of support. While I'm sure that if you bring Remedy (or any vendor) bags and bags of money for "Professional Support" sure, you'll get support for their deprecated version. However, if you're expecting the standard support you get just by buying the product and paying the bucks for a standard support agreement, you can forget it. And the idea of paying the bags of money defeats the purpose of using an OOTB solution to begin with.
I certainly don't disagree that ITIL, implemented right, is a good thing.
However, in order for it or any other business model to work, EVERYONE involved in the business from top on down must be trained on it and 100% committed to it.
Here's the issue. Many top managers in the DoD have no concept of what ITIL is. A top manager just asked me yesterday, "What is that?" Management's thought process is this: "Our ***et tracking sucks. We don't know what we have. Let's buy something that lets us fix that problem." The way they see it is just like what you do at tax time. You need to do your taxes, so go to CompUSA and buy TurboTax. Pull it out of the box, follow the instructions, and boom! Your taxes are done.
To them, the same with ***et management or help desk or change or whatever.
Need an ***et management solution? Buy something! Pull the CDs out of the box, read the directions, and you're done! They don't realize how high a cliff they're jumping off when they decide on a product like ITSM.
Perhaps BMC should sell ITSM as an ITIL solution more so than as an ***et, change, service desk solution.
...
| To Top |