2 out of 5.0, Reviewed 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.
There are far greater solutions with better functionality and features on the market. The promise of this product is not in Service Manager alone, but in the entire Eco System of System Center (SCCM, SCOM, SCORCH, and SCSM) If you are not or do not have the capacity to implement and run all of these, your implementation will fall very short of many of the promises from Microsoft and your sales person. If you do choose to go ahead with this, understand that some aspects of the software are rigid, such as Service Request Area for example. This whole section cannot be modified, so you have to make sure it completely aligns to your service request offerings. You cannot hide or modify, only add to it. In addition, workflow status changes in Service Requests are tied to the Microsoft defined method, and if your processes don't match the design, it cannot be changed or modified. Other things to consider are ticket conversion from one type to another cannot be done without third party tools or custom development. Reporting is beyond lacking and as it turned out for us, we needed a dedicated resource to write reports as it was too complex and time consuming for other staff to manage. Again, basic things you believe should be flexible and adaptable are not.
I cannot comment.
Microsoft bolstered support for the product in 2015 with what was known as the Phoenix blog post stating the product was not dead and there was much in store for the product. Nearly 1.5 years later and we are still waiting to see something.
Ignored the advice from the vendor and LAR regarding the licensing model for this product. Neither of them realized how the licensing applied to the CMDB and as a result costs went through the roof as a result. In addition, we should have gone to RFP putting this product against others.
Perform a complete function test of every single aspect of the software before moving ahead, and going to RFP putting this product against others. Don't assume that since this product has been on the market for years that it has gained in function or features. Fully cost out 3rd party solutions, and understand that these 3rd party solutions may not work past the current version of the product you implement since the supporting vendor community is small. Also, a big red flag was not being able to find a single reference to a successful implementation in all of North America when asked for one. This should have stopped us.
Falls short on almost every developed function. Take into account I'm rating these based on Service Manager as a stand alone application. If you review it with SCORCH (System Center Orchestrator) these are higher as the capabilities increase alot with the workflow.
Support is available, but mostly delivered through standard microsoft support on forums, email, or blog posts. Support from local vendors in our area is very limited.
Integration with other Microsoft products was very easy and transparent. Integrations outside of this ecosystem where heavy, complicated, or impractical.
2 out of 5.0, Reviewed 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.
Weigh the total cost
Cost and integration with other Microsoft products like SSRS, SSIS, ect..
SCSM product support documentation is extremely limited. Lack of commitment from Microsoft to make it a first class product. Must be used in conjuction with middleware product. The TCO (total cost of ownership) is higher when factoring in the cost of middleware. More limited feature set than other more mature products. Maturing organizations may not find it a good long-term solution.
Microsoft should invest more heavily in SCSM so it could be used as a stand alone product. The front end GUI is
Use an integrated Cireson/SCSM solution from the outset of the project and not try to use SCSM from the beginning of the project.
With Cireson, acceptable. Some performance improvements were seen with SP updates.
I wasn't involved with the project prior and during the initial deployment so can't speak to this.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed 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.
Fully understand your use case and requirements. Don't make the decision based on simply cost.
A third party add-on has made the product more useful.
The vendor has not developed the product as much as it could have and is challenging the longevity with changes to the licensing agreement.
More thorough market analysis of other products and benefits.
Understand requirements before picking the product. We chose the product as part of the System Center suite. The Product has matured and has been gaining momentum.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed 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.).
If you are going to implement the product by yourself (the way we did), follow all the technical recommendations. You'll see that the solutions requires a lot of servers (we use 9 until now). But we talk to companies that decided not to follow stricted recommendations and they have serious performance problems. Again, if you're going to implement this product, consider do it together with the Web Portal and Microsoft Orchestrator.
It was easy to customize (we did it with our internal team), good price (when compared to other solutions in the market - unless in our case) and the main thing, Microsoft Orchestrator and the Web Portal, which is the way users see that something is really changing to better.
It could have a Web console for IT people and more reports out of the box. The Web Portal was based on SilverLight on the beggining, but Microsoft has recently launched a HTML5 Web Portal. It demands a big number of servers, so the solution work properly.
We had a good support from local Microsoft team.
We believe we had a very good implementation project (cost, time and money). ITIL implementation and culture change is the key (of course, the tool is also important). It is essential that IT people is commited to follow ITIL best practices, and you can always do more, when it comes to help people understand that. If you are going to implement web portal and automated service (which is a must for me), you must to prepare your team to help users trust that asking for IT services in the web portal is better than talking on the phone. It can help you to reduce helpdesk analysts (it did for us) if you use the web portal as your main channel for requesting IT Services.
1 of 1 peer(s) found this review helpful.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 7, 2015
Overall good process but becomes difficult to maintain if customized. Version management and lifecycle management is awful.
Use check in/out software to manage releases.
Release management effort to customize.
Use out of box functionality.
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 12, 2015
Although the product was easy to deploy we are not getting all of the value from it, as it failed to recognize some assets.
Engage MS directly but watch out for their rate card, it is an expensive resource.
It replaces many other tools and allows remote download and management.
It doesn't seem to pick up all assets.
More added value (free support) to ensure that the product is delivered to our expectations, honouring the promises they make.
I would tie up with MS to ensure that we deployed in a way such that we would gain the full benefits, which may have meant more work up front. This is the key to our operations of an evergreen model and that is why there is a feeling of missing the mark at present.
1 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 8, 2015
Tried to implement Release 2010. Seller assured it is ITIL compliant. It was not (i.e. did not allow a separation between incidents and service requests). It did not allow responses to users from neutral email addresses. Implementation would request a downgrade of services already in use by internal developed software. Some issues solved by Release 2012 (I.E. incidents could be registered separately from service requests). New issue appeared: User needed 4 GB of RAM for the client to run. We as clients were requested to upgrade OS to Windows 7. After 2 years of implementation the project was still a falure.
Avoid MS Service Desk until its technology becomes web-based.
Included a service catalog.
Client-server technology. High and unexpected hardware specifications (for that time). Lack of compatibility with older operating systems (at least with Windows XP)
Better prospective analysis of the client needs.
I would explicitly request web-based application (MS was client-server). I would do a better analysis of MS products.