Jan 13, 2017
My overall experience with SCCM was really great as it really helps me to spend more time with family than in the Data Center
Dec 12, 2016
We went with SCSM due to the low cost. We are a very low maturity environment in the ITSSM space, and simply wanted a replacement for an aging Unix ticketing system. Since we already owned SCSM due to Configuration Manager and Operations Manager, we choose it as a low cost solution without much investigation. The deployment was only in North America, but with planning for eventual global deployment. We found that either Terminal Services or a 3rd party would be required to go global - we went with Cireson for their web based Analyst portal. Without this, performance of the console is *terrible* over a WAN link globally. We bought a bundle of Cireson apps and I would highly recommend them for anyone considering using Service Manager. We use an Outlook plugin (create ticket from email, view queue from Outlook), web based analyst portal, and some notification management packs as well. Service Manager is very difficult to use "out of the box." If you are not doing anything but ticket management, it can be okay, but is still cumbersome. If you are doing advanced automation, it is all possible, but other tools are probably better. For example: Service Level Objectives are supported, but they rely on a calendar for working hours. But there is no way of tying calendars to working queues, etc, so to have an accurate SLO, you need one SLO for # of working time zones * # of priorities. If you work in 7 countries and have 5 different priorities, you are making 35 SLOs. Want to report on them? 35 workflows tying Support Group, Metric, Calendar and SLO. Everything is like that. Very in depth technical configuration for every action - you feel like you are fighting the system. That said, we are a year out from implementation. It does meet our needs, and day to day is ok.
Dec 12, 2016
SCCM has provided us a more efficent means of creating and deploying standard Windows images, and distributing software en masse. The latest version is a great improvement over our old instance of SCCM 2007. However, restrictions from our central IT department has created additional work, as we needed to reevaluate and change many of our procedures we used in 2007.
Dec 9, 2016
Overall a great product. The user community is where this product really shines, multiple top level resources available online for free.
Dec 2, 2016
We worked with Mirosoft to implement the upgrade to our environment. The consulatant was well qualified and did a great job of assisting us with every aspect of the process.
Nov 10, 2016
We implemented this as an ITSM in part because the alternative was considered 'too expensive' and Service Manager was 'free' as part of our MS EA agreement. We also were already using SCCM and SCOM and the additionof SCSM seemed to make good sense. However a free elephant still eats a lot of peanuts! The reality has been that we have had to make considerable internal investment in the upkeep, configuration and running of what is essentially a realtively immature product. I has definitely been made better with addition of add-ons from Cireson and consultancy support from Systemology - however this free elephant is eating a lot of peanuts!
Aug 9, 2016
This solution on paper looks to meet most organizations needs, however functionally it falls very short. I truely believe that if Microsoft adequately funded this product and team that they would have something great, but they are years behind their competition in features, functionality, and stability. Microsoft's approach to this product is to provide a basic framework to clients, and then rely on 3rd party solutions to fill in the gaps in the design. While this is great for Microsoft, clients of this product will find that the 3rd party solutions may meet or exceed the project budget to implement. Often the solutions provided by these 3rd parties are functionality you would expect a product of this cost with a company such as Microsoft to have built into the product itself e.g. linking users with/to support groups OR converting a service request into an incident or vice versa. Only one 3rd party vendor in the space seems to offer a complete package to fill in those gaps, Cireson, but their solutions may be very cost prohibitive if you've already spent the majority of your Capex/Opex for your project on the product implementation.
Jul 7, 2016
SCSM as a stand alone product is not a viable option for our organization. It requires middle ware add-ons (Cireson) to provide a functional and intuitive user interface. When used in conjunction with Cireson SCSM fits out needs as an organization and is a cost effective solution. Other industry leading ITSM tools have a better feature set but higher cost.
May 11, 2016
The Product was immature and performance was an issue in the beginning. As patches and new versions were released the product became more usable.
Apr 1, 2016
We are satisfied with our implementation of System Center Service Manager. We did it together with Microsoft Orchestrator (which gave us automation of IT Services) and the Web Portal (the way that users deals with Service Manager and shop for IT Services). It's clear that implementing an ITSM tool is not an easy task, since it envolves culture change (in many cases it's done together with an introduction of ITIL). It could take 2 or 3 years of hard work to IT people starts working under the best practices. We believe that system center service manager can help you to achieve that goal, despite of good and bad points (as any other tool). License cost and internal customization played a big role in our choice. It was cheaper when compared to other solutions, considering the license agreement we already had. We did it all internally with our team and after one year the system performance is great and the number of automated IT services is increasing every month (creation of AD accounts, email, unlock, reset password, etc.).