1 of 1 people found this helpful
There is a war going on that you may not be aware of, but find yourself caught in the crossfire. On one side of the battle lines is BMC, they are building a system and telling you not to modify it. On the other side is your company that paid for a highly customizable system that they want to work the way they want it to work, not the way BMC wants it to work. So....your job is to navigate the battle field with as few casualties as possible.
The reason BMC doesn't want you to customize is because it'll make future upgrades more difficult. While this is true, if your company can't/wont use the system as is, there won't be an upgrade later because your company will stop using the tool....so, the best possible world you can live in is to customize as little as possible, document the crap out of all customizations, and move forward from there.
Hi LJ LongWing:
That's so true!
This is what I am experiencing right now.
I become a poor miserable pathetic sandwich between BMC and my company.
One is telling me not to modify it because A,B, C, etc reasons,
at the same time,
the other one asks me must to do it no matter what A, B, C,...etc are.
bloody hell !
It really is simple and is certainly not a "war" as LJ describes, that's an unfair and incorrect description of the scenario.
BMC have spent a lot of research, time and effort in developing a 'best-practice' suite of products that run on the AR System platform. If BMC didn't want you to change it, they wouldn't provide Dev Studio, but they do and this is incredibly powerful as it allows you to alter the OOTB objects, forms and workflow to act in the way that your company requires - there is no limitation to the complexity/size of customisations that you're able to implement, that is true freedom.
Now, the reason that you'll hear from some that "customisation is bad" is primarily because of the issues experienced prior to the introduction of Overlays, simply because of the following:
- Support may have to work harder in the future to help you with parts of the application that you have customised because they won't be OOTB/familiar because of your customisations.
- Upgrades will be slightly more complex, Overlays mean that the upgrade will complete successfully but you/your company will then have to reconcile your customisations against the upgraded OOTB objects.
- Customisations must be implemented with careful thought/logic to avoid performance and data integrity complications.
This is by no means a "war", but simply a responsible company (BMC) wishing for their customers to get the best out of the product. BMC will never tell you not to customise, as they know that each company works differently, but BMC do want you to customise responsibly.
Much of the workflow in the ITSM suite is complex and you'll need help with some elements, but overall you would struggle to find another IT Service Management solution that gives you the flexibility that Remedy ITSM provides.
Now lets help you to solve your original technical query..
To start with managing the customisation that you're looking at now, I would recommend enabling Active Link logs ('AR System User Preference' Form) for your logged in user, then add a Work Detail entry and look at the workflow that fires. Another option is to enable the feature 'Record Object Relationships' and then right-click on the 'Add' button and select 'View Relationships', this will guide you through the workflow that fires on submission.
Can you give us some additional information on what you're trying to achieve? Do you want to add new fields for the user to enter when adding a Work Detail entry?
- jason Cooper is correct that "changing everything" is obviously something that The specified item was not found. does not advice.
- LJ LongWing is correct that "limiting the changes" to what's highly important to your very Org is the best approach.
- Ash Hall is correct that BMC provides the technical framework for you to add/modify things in a secured (yet powerful as Barry explains here) manner.
Usually, best way to make progress is to go back to the business need (not the "technical how")
- What information is currently not collected in the workflow, why do teams need it?
- And how do other companies manage this?
Jason, you may want to make a couple of specific posts, giving a couple of examples (with real Use Cases) so that others give feedback on how their teams succeed.
Note: in the past years, I found out that my quick customization thoughts were not scallable (they were mis-using the datamodel)
A 'war' may have been a bit 'harsh', but a 'battle' at the very least. The battle lines have always been drawn around 'day to day use' vs upgradeability (is that a word?)....and I agree with you that BMC has been working hard for MANY years to make the system more upgradable, easier. Overlays have been a night and day change in how an ITSM system is upraded, and I assume as the model matures, will be even better.
My team spent a few years in that sandwich. A few very miserable few years. The battle allowed us to see the error of our ways (trying to use ITSM) and go back to all custom development. Our organization is very particular about how it works and interacts with its users. People felt handcuffed with ITSM. We have been using Remedy since the late 90's and our users know AR System is very flexible. With ITSM every customization became a debate and battle. This is my experience from an organization that does not care to follow some process just because we are told they are best practices. We have practiced a lot and have found what works for us as an organization.
Regarding overlays, I think they are being oversold a bit. I agree they will be very helpful for upgrades however they are not some magical thing that makes everything automatically easy. I've even had conversations with BMCers trying to convince me that as long as we use overlays we are not customizing but are configuring. I say BS!
We feel the pain same way, you are not alone my friend.
Thanks for you explains and tips for me to go through these complex the workflows.
I have to do lots of research just in case that I won't modify something that should not be changed
which may cause system become unstable.
As Matt Laurenceau suggest, I should make a couple of specific topics to break down these issues.
This is my fault. @_@
Hi Matt Laurenceau :
Thank you for analysis and reminder.
Regarding go back to the business need,
I don't think I have the proper rights to touch this fields for my position currently.
But I think it's a good direction to follow if I can know this product well in the feature.
Hi Jason Miller:
"People felt handcuffed with ITSM", indeed, I think our users have the same feelings.
They complained to me a lot. Basically, they didn't care what this product was designed for,
best practices is a foreign term for them, the only thing they care is easy to use,response quickly ,
want process/flows that they got used to deal with, of cause, the best thing is
we can finish the whole work in remedy even though they have nothing to do with ITSM.
Maybe i was wrong, all of these are my imagination. LoL
Hi Mohammad Rehman:
Thanks for comforting, but I don't feel better. LoL.
My pleasure! So lets crack on with the technical component here, can you let us have some more information on what you're trying to achieve, then lets look at how you can achieve it!
- What fields does the business wish to be added to the Work Info entry?
- Will these additional fields be reported on, if so, by what mechanism?
- Is this just for Incident Management, or for Work Detail entries across the ITSM Suite?
It sounds like we have similar customer/user environments. We should have never tried to go down the ITSM path. We don't have the discipline or support needed to make the change. Fortunately we didn't mind cutting our losses before it was too late (we were close to looking for a different vendor) and going back to the formula that make our users happy (home built apps).
Shame on us for not doing our homework prior to going down the ITSM path and being optimistic that a tool would drive process change. Shame on BMC for not helping a customer determine if ITSM is a good fit and later not helping that flailing customer who is crying out for help. The conclusion our IT executives came to is BMC has a product (and licenses) to sell. (this next sentence is my loose interpretation) If you want a vendor that partners with your company to ensure you are successful, don't chose BMC. By going back to home grown apps we ensure our own success and need very little support from BMC. (maybe our problems were a little before the Customer Success Executive Community was formed/ready?)
With that said and to clarify, I still believe in the ITSM product family along with the other tools that work with the suite (Discovery, The specified item was not found., etc) for companies that A) do want the best practices B) can afford it and C) have IT discipline.
Thanks for all,
Very helpful, all of these suggestions / options are valuable and constructive.