SD7 MR1 Stability and the Future of SD

[Migration User]

Hi everyone,

I've been tasked with configuring SD7 for deployment across the company's user base. Feature wise it seems ok even though I'm new to the Altiris applications. Obviously they are some fundamental differences between 7 and 6.5. My issue is the stability of SD7 MR1. On a number of occassions while submitting tickets using the advance mode errors occur. Other times when selecting additional contacts the description information is lost. Admittedly MR1 is a big improvement over the original release but stability or availabilty (for lack of a better word) is still an issue. Using SD7 MR1 it is obvious that this solution is not yet complete and some may argue that it is not production ready. Why I do not expect a new release or any release to be 100% perfect one does expect a high degree of quality.

My main issue is not rolling out the platform to the users, but rather rolling out a platform that can not provide the high level of support services the users have come to enjoy from the previous Altiris HelpDesk release. Initially users will only be accessing SD via emails (inbound email monitoring) until the web protion of this service is production ready. As a result I have a few questions with respect to SD and its release cycle.

It would be helpful for me (and prudent for Symantec) to identify as accurately as possible dates for future relases and I would be very interested in future release cycles and solution roadmaps. While new features are important more importantly at this stage is the bugs or unintended features that have bed corrected. So my question is;

Can I get a road map for the SD7 platform with expected dates and bug fixes as well as intended features?

Symantec needs to be more open with open beta testing because over the last few months I've felt like I'm using beta software.

At the end of the day SD has great potential but it requires the community to make this a profitable avenue for Symantec. We want to work with Symantec as end user customers and partners now we need Symantec to work with us as partners first and foremost and as customers.

[Migration User]

The system to which the help desk technicians enter their tickets, needs to be able to perform as quickly as the calls that are coming in.  Two minute wait times for certain windows, and errors when entering tickets (via advanced) is unacceptable when we were sold a "better" solution than what we currently have.  I agree there needs to be some sort of roadmap of future releases, patches, updates, or whatever.  Even a 'known issues' area so that we know that these areas are to be resolved and that we don't have to just "deal with it".

[Migration User]

I think most of us understand that products will have issues.  I won't be scared away from ServiceDesk just because Symantec is honest about ServiceDesk's faults.

[Migration User]

Hi all,

Thank you for your posts regarding ServiceDesk.  There are a few items posted here, so I'd like to try to summarize and add a few comments:

1. Errors occur on Submit Incident (Advanced).  What kinds of errors are you receiving and what is triggering this?
2. Description information is lost when adding additional contacts.  My understanding is that this was addressed in MR1, which it sounds like you are on.  I recall this issue being reported previously.  I was unable to reproduce this on my own MR1 server, however you should certainly submit a support case if this is occurring in your enviornment. 
3. Initially users will only be accessing SD via email.  What concerns do you have from an end-user perspective (usability, performance, etc?).  I ask because many customers I have spoken with are looking forward to exposing the portal because of its rich user experience.  If this isn't the case in your enviornment, I'd appreciate your feedback to understand how we can improve this.
4. Two minute load times for certain windows.  One of the biggest performance issues we had in the pre MR1 release was the Submit Incident (Advanced) form.  This was addressed in MR1, and the load time is now extremely fast.  Two minutes is certainly excessive -- can you describe your environment (CPU, RAM, etc).
One note here, when the Submit Incident (Advanced) form is first loaded and initialized, it does take several seconds.  Subsequent load times are much more responsive.  There is an easy way to adjust the cache timeout interval for this form if it is a form you use infrequently.

Please feel free to email me directly -- if you have Support cases open against these issues, please reference those as well and I will help track them down for you. 

Will Lewis
Product Manager, ServiceDesk

[Migration User]

The first error was taken from the web page telling me there was an error after clicking the reating ticket button. Ther others were issued during the ticket creation. No logs are supplied when the text disappears. The 2nd listed error was actually created when the advanced window was lauched. Note there is no guaranteed way to repeat this error.



Error Details 
Error Message:
Index was outside the bounds of the array.
 
Message Stack:
at System.Array.InternalGetReference(Void* elemRef, Int32 rank, Int32* pIndices)
at System.Array.SetValue(Object value, Int32 index)
at System.Collections.Hashtable.CopyKeys(Array array, Int32 arrayIndex)
at LogicBase.Core.Data.OrchestrationData.get_RootNames()
at LogicBase.Core.Data.OrchestrationData.Commit()
at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.AbstractDialogExecutionEngine.HandleCleanup(TLExecutionContext context)
at LogicBase.Core.ExecutionEngine.AbstractExecutionEngine.RunEngine()
at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.AbstractDialogExecutionDelegate.FollowLink(AbstractDialogExecutionEngine engine, DialogState state, IMultiPathComponent component, IData data, String path)
at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.ASPXTerminateDialogExecutionDelegate.HandleEndInteraction(AbstractDialogExecutionEngine engine, ComposerForm page)
at System.Web.UI.Control.PreRenderRecursiveInternal()
at System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint)
 



Taken from the configuration and logging tool:


Application Name: SD.DataServices
Process ID: 2592
Date :Feb-23-2010 03:15:32 PM
Log Level :Error
Log Category :LogicBase.Components.Default.Logging.CreateLogEntryComponent
Machine Name: xxxxx
Message:
Error on AllFixedAssetCatalog  Logicbase.Components.Generated.Reporting.AllFixedAssetCatalogItems  AllFixedAssetCatalogItems  dbd10b6e-e175-424e-a934-10636fc4849b  System.Web.Services.Protocols.SoapException  Server was unable to process request. ---> Value cannot be null.
Parameter name: g  System.Web.Services.Protocols.SoapException: Server was unable to process request. ---> Value cannot be null.
Parameter name: g at System.Web.Services.Protocols.SoapHttpClientProtocol.ReadResponse(SoapClientMessage message, WebResponse response, Stream responseStream, Boolean asyncCall) at System.Web.Services.Protocols.SoapHttpClientProtocol.Invoke(String methodName, Object[] parameters) at Symantec.Workflow.Core.ReportMgmtWS.ReportManagementService.RunReportWithParameters(String reportGuid, String nameValuePairs) at Logicbase.Components.Generated.Reporting.AllFixedAssetCatalogItems.Run(IData data) at LogicBase.Core.ExecutionEngine.SinglePathProcessComponentExecutionDelegate.Execute(IData data, IOrchestrationComponent comp, String& outputPath, IExecutionEngine engine, TLExecutionContext context) at LogicBase.Core.ExecutionEngine.AbstractExecutionEngine.DoRunComp(IOrchestrationComponent comp, IData data, TLExecutionContext context)

 

Application Name: SD.Feeder.TechnicianIncidentForms
Process ID: 2592
Date :Feb-23-2010 03:16:58 PM
Log Level :Error
Log Category :LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.DialogHttpHandlerBase
Machine Name: xxxxx
Message:
Error starting/continuing dialog model execution System.IndexOutOfRangeException: Index was outside the bounds of the array.
   at System.Array.InternalGetReference(Void* elemRef, Int32 rank, Int32* pIndices)
   at System.Array.SetValue(Object value, Int32 index)
   at System.Collections.Hashtable.CopyKeys(Array array, Int32 arrayIndex)
   at LogicBase.Core.Data.OrchestrationData.get_RootNames()
   at LogicBase.Core.Data.OrchestrationData.Commit()
   at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.AbstractDialogExecutionEngine.HandleCleanup(TLExecutionContext context)
   at LogicBase.Core.ExecutionEngine.AbstractExecutionEngine.RunEngine()
   at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.AbstractDialogExecutionDelegate.FollowLink(AbstractDialogExecutionEngine engine, DialogState state, IMultiPathComponent component, IData data, String path)
   at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.DialogExecutionDelegate.HandleInteraction(AbstractDialogExecutionEngine engine, DialogState state, IOrchestrationComponent component)
   at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.DialogHttpHandlerBase.System.Web.IHttpHandler.ProcessRequest(HttpContext context)

 

Application Name: SD.Feeder.TechnicianIncidentForms
Process ID: 2592
Date :Feb-23-2010 03:17:16 PM
Log Level :Error
Log Category :LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.DialogHttpHandlerBase
Machine Name: xxxxx
Message:
Error starting/continuing dialog model execution System.IndexOutOfRangeException: Index was outside the bounds of the array.
   at System.Array.InternalGetReference(Void* elemRef, Int32 rank, Int32* pIndices)
   at System.Array.SetValue(Object value, Int32 index)
   at System.Collections.Hashtable.CopyKeys(Array array, Int32 arrayIndex)
   at LogicBase.Core.Data.OrchestrationData.get_RootNames()
   at LogicBase.Core.Data.OrchestrationData.Commit()
   at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.AbstractDialogExecutionEngine.HandleCleanup(TLExecutionContext context)
   at LogicBase.Core.ExecutionEngine.AbstractExecutionEngine.RunEngine()
   at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.DialogHTTPHandler.StartSubDialog(HttpContext context, DialogSession session, String modelId)
   at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.DialogHttpHandlerBase.System.Web.IHttpHandler.ProcessRequest(HttpContext context)

 

Application Name: SD.Feeder.TechnicianIncidentForms
Process ID: 2592
Date :Feb-23-2010 03:17:33 PM
Log Level :Error
Log Category :LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.DialogHttpHandlerBase
Machine Name: xxxxx
Message:
Error starting/continuing dialog model execution System.IndexOutOfRangeException: Index was outside the bounds of the array.
   at System.Array.InternalGetReference(Void* elemRef, Int32 rank, Int32* pIndices)
   at System.Array.SetValue(Object value, Int32 index)
   at System.Collections.Hashtable.CopyKeys(Array array, Int32 arrayIndex)
   at LogicBase.Core.Data.OrchestrationData.get_RootNames()
   at LogicBase.Core.Data.OrchestrationData.Commit()
   at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.AbstractDialogExecutionEngine.HandleCleanup(TLExecutionContext context)
   at LogicBase.Core.ExecutionEngine.AbstractExecutionEngine.RunEngine()
   at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.AbstractDialogExecutionDelegate.FollowLink(AbstractDialogExecutionEngine engine, DialogState state, IMultiPathComponent component, IData data, String path)
   at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.DialogExecutionDelegate.HandleInteraction(AbstractDialogExecutionEngine engine, DialogState state, IOrchestrationComponent component)
   at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.DialogHttpHandlerBase.System.Web.IHttpHandler.ProcessRequest(HttpContext context)

 

Application Name: SD.ChangeManagement
Process ID: 2592
Date :Feb-23-2010 03:18:03 PM
Log Level :Error
Log Category :LogicBase.Data.Definition
Machine Name: xxxxx
Message:
System.Exception: XML data structure was edited by hand and is corrupt.  An object reference exists but object was removed
   at LogicBase.Framework.ObjectStorageContainer.GetObjectData(String id)
   at LogicBase.Framework.ObjectReadStream.ReadRelationshipConverter(ObjectStorageValue objValue, Type type, ObjectStorageRelationshipTypeConverter converter)
   at LogicBase.Framework.ObjectReadStream.ReadConverter(ObjectStorageValue objValue, Type type, ObjectStorageTypeConverter converter)
   at LogicBase.Framework.ObjectReadStream.ReadValue(ObjectStorageValue objValue, Type type)
   at LogicBase.Framework.ObjectReadStream.GetValue(String name, Type type)
   at LogicBase.Core.Data.DataDefinition.ReadFromStream(ObjectReadStream info)

 

Application Name: SD.ChangeManagement
Process ID: 2592
Date :Feb-23-2010 03:18:03 PM
Log Level :Error
Log Category :LogicBase.Data.Definition
Machine Name: xxxxx
Message:
System.Exception: XML data structure was edited by hand and is corrupt.  An object reference exists but object was removed
   at LogicBase.Framework.ObjectStorageContainer.GetObjectData(String id)
   at LogicBase.Framework.ObjectReadStream.ReadRelationshipConverter(ObjectStorageValue objValue, Type type, ObjectStorageRelationshipTypeConverter converter)
   at LogicBase.Framework.ObjectReadStream.ReadConverter(ObjectStorageValue objValue, Type type, ObjectStorageTypeConverter converter)
   at LogicBase.Framework.ObjectReadStream.ReadValue(ObjectStorageValue objValue, Type type)
   at LogicBase.Framework.ObjectReadStream.GetValue(String name, Type type)
   at LogicBase.Core.Data.DataDefinition.ReadFromStream(ObjectReadStream info)
 

[Migration User]

P.S. As a customer it would be very helpful if Symantec management is aware of the fact that its customers would like to be more involved with respect to releases and testing. Knowing what is going on with our corporate software solutions such as decisions and directions being taken as to the future of these applications. For right now I'd like to know when the next release is envisioned. Whether its a maintenance or patch release. I'd like to know what bug is being fixed or what solution is being tested for what anomoly. I think the service found in these forums is EXCELLENT but the blackbox surrounding Symantec releases and information needs to be removed.
 

[Migration User]

When you open the project, it asks which .dlls to use when opening the package, and we used the new ones instead of the old ones. 

[Migration User]

Error Details

Error Message:  Index was outside the bounds of the array.

Message Stack: at System.Array.InternalGetReference(Void* elemRef, Int32 rank, Int32* pIndices)  at System.Array.SetValue(Object value, Int32 index)  at System.Collections.Hashtable.CopyKeys(Array array, Int32 arrayIndex)  at LogicBase.Core.Data.OrchestrationData.get_RootNames()  at LogicBase.Core.Data.OrchestrationData.Commit()  at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.AbstractDialogExecutionEngine.HandleCleanup(TLExecutionContext context)  at LogicBase.Core.ExecutionEngine.AbstractExecutionEngine.RunEngine()  at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.AbstractDialogExecutionDelegate.FollowLink(AbstractDialogExecutionEngine engine, DialogState state, IMultiPathComponent component, IData data, String path)  at LogicBase.Core.Models.Dialog.ASPXTerminateDialogExecutionDelegate.HandleEndInteraction(AbstractDialogExecutionEngine engine, ComposerForm page)  at System.Web.UI.Control.PreRenderRecursiveInternal()  at System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint)

[Aryanos]

Thanks for that post Stu. SD7 has a lot of potential but the usability and performance issues has really hindered it in my opinion. We've had this product in test since it was released last year but the experience of trying to get it installed and working properly has been such a hassle. There are a few functions missing that should be in there (such as automated ticket assignments to workers in a queue in round robin) that others already have out of the box.

Hopefully Symantec will keep us informed on the continued development of SD7 and what is to come in the future for this product. We would really like to move to SD7 soon but won't until these issues get resolved.

[Migration User]

Thanks Stu, I personally have prasied the potential of this solution to others despite the short comings I've faced. I'm sure we all appreciate the effort that went into this not to mention the inclusion of ITIL process integration which is a big selling point for me. I'm glad to hear that the primary focus is on fixing the core. At this stage stability, reliability and performance are more important than features as users will get frustrated and refuse to use the system if they see it is unreliable.

At the heart of this conversation from my point of view is similar to what Aryanos has stated. We want ... no ... WE NEED ... to be kept informed with respect to the development of SD7. I'm certain if we're forced to run SD7 for 3-6 months with these issues and no solution in sight a call will be heard to replace it. If however we're aware of the work going on including core fixes, patch development and testing, default workflow documentation, target release dates even Q&A then the likelyhood is less. At the end of the day it's all about support and as I mentioned in a previous post that while I think these forums are excellent (especially when used in conjunction with the knowledge base) support also has to include a certain expected level of communication with customers and potential customers. It is by communicating effectively that Symantec can be a leader in then same ITSM processwhich can only bode well for its products.

Anyway thanks again Stu. Now if only we had some idea when these fixes would be tested, released and what they're fixing that would really make my day :-)

[Aryanos]

I'm glad that Symantec acknowledges that there are issues with the product and working hard on getting them fixed but as cnar77 has stated, it would be very beneficial for Symantec to inform the users what fixes are coming and what they have in store for the future of SD7. As Symantec representatives continue to sell this product to businesses, more people will be trying to implement it in their environment but will encounter the same difficulties and issues that early adopters had/is experiencing  which in turn makes the product look bad.

I'm not trying to dwelve on the negatives but this product has so much potential to be something great and I would like to see it live up it. Hopefully Symantec feels the same way and try their best to get this product to where we want it to be.

[Migration User]

I work for a mid sized company and we have been in the planning and design phase of a Service Desk 7 implementation for a couple months now and we have run into a number of the same issues that others have mentioned.  I am encouraged by the participation of the Symantec employees on this thread escpecially the honest post by Stu. 

As of today we are strongly leaning toward putting our project on hold unitl the product issues have been resolved (hopefully in the 7.1 release or future maitenance release) and limping along on our aging Helpdesk system. 

[Migration User]

Hello All,

First, I have been using Altiris 6 products, especially Helpdesk Solution, as a technical especialist since more than 4 years now and have started working on the new release 7 of Servicedesk since it's first relaesed.

From my experience I can tell that I totally agree with Stu and all the others in that the new Servicedesk 7 is considered an extreme movement to real ITIL and process management compared to the previous Helpdesk solution. It  really has much more of amazing features and components that were really required and were a big suffer in the previous version.

However, I disagree with most of you in that "We are glad that Symantec acknowledges for the issues and working on getting them fixed..."

I believe that a company as large as Symantec should not release any product unless they are 1000% sure that this product has no CLEAR issues. I'm not talking here about usability or stability, or even performance issues. I'm talking about major issues, or call it Buggs, in the product.

Even if we say that they had to release it to get feedback from users and discover any hidden buggs, I think in that case it should have been released as Beta version or something. This tells users and clients that they still cannot depend on it totaly as it is still in the development phase.

Also, there is no enough documentations or technical guides for some configuration items or troublshooting guides for common issues.

I'm telling that because I'm actually sufferring now from this in one of my projects. My client recommended to go for Servicedesk 7 because of the announced amazing features as compared to Helpdesk.
This project started more that 8 months ago, and till now, Still we have not finished the implementation. I had to do re-installation many times to fix issues in previous installations. I have faced other multiple issues with the product customization and configuration and spent time to find solutions for them or woraround. Some of these issues are related to Interface customization. Others are related to Active Directory Synchronization mapping, and so on.


So, What I really require from Symantec is at least to provide us with complete technical guides for all of the features and customizations available in the product, so that we can at least feel it's power.

We know it's a very powerful product. However, from a client point of view, it's too complicated to statisfy business requirements.

[Migration User]

I know that SD7 hasn't been out too long, but is anyone successfully running SD7 successfully in their organization with no issues? 

[Aryanos]

NT

[Migration User]

ServiceDesk 7 was an incredibly aggressive development effort for its first release.  Tthe workflow platform on which it was delivered underwent a massive overhaul concurrent with the product development. The decision to build a full ITIL, process-driven helpdesk, on workflow, with a massive feature set was based on industry analyst feedback that was really presented as a minimum or baseline for what we would need to be competitive in the enterprise ITSM space. We felt we needed to go the distance or leave it alone.

This product really does provide greater capability in almost every category than helpdesk 6, yet we consistently hear from our HelpDesk 6 savvy customers and partners that its feature set is just ok or even lacking. This is because we did not do a one-to-one port of features from its predecessor. The two products are not really even comparable. There are alot of reasons for this, and they are certainly debatable. I can assure you that we are addressing the HD6 migration path.

We were very ambitious with the initial iteration. As a result, we have a product that is really competitive, feature wise but we have had some challenges with stability. We, on the development team, are now focused exclusively on addressing the stability, and useability of our product. In the next release, which will still be a 7.0 version, you will see some new content but it will be directed at fixing core shortcomings of the user experience.

The specific errors you posted have already come up through support channels and will be fixed in the next release.

Stu

[Migration User]

I see the revised statement, I still just don't understand how this gets from development through QA into a final product.  Did nobody have issues when it was tested?  I feel like we do all the testing for Symantec. We now find ourselves in a position where we have purchased this software, maintenance, licensing, etc, and can't even go live with it.  That's a really tough pill to swallow...

Mustafa, we find ourselves in the same position as you, as administrators, we NEED something moving forward that tells us exactly what we can expect from the next patch, release, fix whatever so that we can map out our implementation project plans accordingly.  If we find out that a core component that was sold to us (ie. AD mapping) isn't where we need it to be, we can at least hold off until it's ready.

I don't know what we would do without this forum by the way, personally I really appreciate everyone's feedback and comments (including symantec) regarding this and other issues!

[Migration User]

I've had SD7 MR1 in production for the last week. We decided to roll it out in a limited capacity utilising the email monitor facility. They are the usual annoyances mentioned in this thread that make using this package difficult. However they are others that can onldy be identified when you have varied users using the sytem. One issue I'm looking into is the notifying those who have been re-assigned a ticket. The only notification is in the web console indicating a new task.

At this stage I need to know what is on the road map. I need to know when the next release is scheduled and what is supposed to be fixed in that release. Also since like many I've made component modifications to some flows (additions & subtractions of components) it'd be nice to see what if anything will potentially break.

Right now Stu Perkins is perhaps the #1 reason why I'm sticking with this solution despite my many frustrations. How long my patience will remain is however determined by the continued patience of others.

[Migration User]

Cnar77 have you tried using the Escalate action to re-assign tickets in the ticket process view that seems to notify the re-assignee.  I assume you are using the assignments link that is available after clicking on the task in the ticket and I am having the same result of it not notifying the re-assignee.

[Migration User]

I'm actually referring to the tickets view where I list tickets by analyst for example. I have the support 1 group which is assigned tickets by default that do not match higher priorities/impacts.
 
So on the tickets page with the sort order at list open incidents by analyst I select the drop down box and select assign task to user/group. The page updates and places check boxes next to the tickets which I can select. After selcting the ticket(s) I click on do action next to the dropdown box and I pick theuser to complete the reassignment process and click set assignment.

Anyway this was outside the scope of this thread. More inline with the posting is I'd really like to know what to expect from the next release including when I should expect it and what fixes have been done. Maybe symantec should use an open bug tracking system. Open in the sense that allows external users to view the progress of bug reports. Something likehow bugzilla works.

[Migration User]

I agree with you, Mustafa.

Symantec has released this product to encourage customers to adopt Workflow Solution, not to help them to handle their ticketing needs.
Every feature, and/or bug that is mentioned in this thread is not actuelly a bug, but a development error in the workflow solution, and could be fixed by modifying this or that project.
The problem is that WF solution is a developer tool, not an administrator one, and then is lot to complicated for the commom administrators.

David

[Migration User]

That's a pretty bold statement to direct toward the people who worked on ServiceDesk, who put effort into designing a more powerful service management solution.  I don't think you really mean that they just want to sell you a Workflow license.

[Migration User]

Well, I have to say that, if this was true and Symantec is just aiming at populating their Workflow solution, it would be a real disaster and a big shock to all Symantec customers/partners.

I really hope it is not true.



However, i agree that the WF solution is directed to developers rather than administrators, which is also is another weak point,as I think.
I believe that the whole Altiris business line should be targeted to system administrators as it's full of administration tasks, and most of system administrators do not have development experience.

An important note here need to mention is that I'm a senior .Net developer, and I believe that I have a good experience with development environments. However, still I face some issues in working with WF projects. This maybe because of the lack of detailed technical guides or documentations for developers.

[Migration User]

Hello,

My statement is not directed toward people who are working on ServiceDesk, which is an incredible developper challenge (a kind of "Lego StarWars" if you prefer), but toward a global editor strategy which combines internal business needs (how to make some ROI on Altiris and Transparent Logic products they bought three years ago) and classic development, where the code is hidden.

Would you accept to buy SEP or BESR if you had to re-develop a part of it?

I have integrated some SD7 in the fields, and I can tell you that the least thing you want is that your customer wants to add a new email notification or change an SLA delay (and I don't talk about multiple time zones...), settings which were easy to implement and very reliable in the HD6, and are one click far in the competition products. I do not mention here AD integration, which has been underestimated from the beginning.

Every time I show this product, I get OH! and AH! on ITIL processes which are really impressive, but soon, the customer understands that he will have to hire a dedicated tech/developer to maintain the whole thing.

It is not because the corners are round and colors are pretty that the product is easy to manage. As a senior Altiris consultant, I'm used to "complicated" tools. It is normal to handle a complicated tool (Altiris Notification Server) when you deal with a complicated situation (an IT park). But my opinion is that it is not normal that functional needs as critical as Service Tickets management depends on the technical mastering of the tool on which it is developped.

Would you buy a car or a piece of furniture made of Clipos? Regular IT Administrators deal with reality, not with a developer vision of their day to day work.

Best Regards,

David

[Migration User]

Well, I have to say that, if this was true and Symantec is just aiming at populating their Workflow solution, it would be a real disaster and a big shock to all Symantec customers/partners.

I really hope it is not true.

However, i agree that the WF solution is directed to developers rather than administrators, which is also is another weak point,as I think.
I believe that the whole Altiris business line should be targeted to system administrators as it's full of administration tasks, and most of system administrators do not have development experience.

An important note here need to mention is that I'm a senior .Net developer, and I believe that I have a good experience with development environments. However, still I face some issues in working with WF projects. This maybe because of the lack of detailed technical guides or documentations for developers.

[Migration User]

I'm just posting to let you all know that the issue reported at the top of this thread has been fixed for the upcoming maintenance release. Also, I wanted to let you all know that we hear you. Here is a summary of our development focus over the next two release cycles:

1. Improve performance around ticket creation. We know that loading the ticket cration screen is not as fast as it could be, particularly if the cache is being reloaded. This can be mitigated by adjusting the cache time on the Init Data embedded model inside this project. Overall, we think performance is good across the portal, but it can be better. We are still optimizing.
2. Improve ergonomics for call center environments. We've made some changes for the upcoming maintenance release that we think are a dramatic improvement in this area.
3. Make common customizations easier. We understand that most customers do not want to have to open the designer every time they want to change a notification or routing rule. We are in the process of extracting these types of customizations up into the main user interface as simple rules engines. Workflow will still be available as an extension, if you need additional flexibility.
4. Upgrades. We are making several changes that will make upgrades much smoother. We think moving common customizations out of the designer will help this as well.

Beyond the next two releases we're already designing modifications to improve SLA and global operations concerns, as well as introducing a number of fulfillment request processes for common incident types.

[Migration User]

Thanks for the post, Stu.  A common question I hear on these forums is, "Does anybody know when SD will be patched to 7.1?"  Do you know the rough timeline for the improvements you mentioned above?  Currently the advice I give out to people asking about ServiceDesk is "wait for service packs."

[Migration User]

Top of the Morning

Stu, thanks for the update.  Your point 2 is intriguing.  I have always thought that SD7 main focus was towards a Self-Service Environment and not necessarily a Support Center Environment (where your end users are calling your Support Center and your Techs are opening the Issues).. Might you expand on ".....improved ergonomics for call center environments...."

Again, thanks for the update

[Migration User]

For us, no matter how much we give to the user base to provide a "self service" environment, the majority of our end user population is going to call the help desk.  That's just the way it is, and we need to have a stable environment around this support model IN ADDITION to attempting to change the culture to a more "self service" type of system.  We're just not there yet....

[Migration User]

I agree with you, Matt,

A Service Desk must behave as a SPOC (single point of contact) that can be used through all the available media: phone (manual input by operator), web and mail.
As it collects every interaction between "customers" (aka users) and IT services, it must be as fast and reliable as a messaging system.
The Service Desk software is the ERP of IT services, thus should not be subject to fancy developments nor "supersized" devlopment strategy, which may remain in labs until they are not prototypes anymore.

Best regards,
David

[Migration User]

Hi All,

May be we will have to wait for the SP5 as it happened with Helpdesk 6.

Wait and see.

Cheers

Fabrice

[Migration User]

Hi Stu
Can you please give us an idea on the timeframe for the next service pack?

Thanks
Alistair

[Migration User]

Just outsource the team who answer the phone to India. That'll soon stop them pesky calls :-)

[Migration User]

Gee this post is turning into a novel !!

Anyway, i have serious concerns where this product is going too. Yeah management might like the new flash UI and sure it even has more ITIL than ever before (So Symantec finally have a serious "ServiceDesk" offering, welcome to the club lol).

Now my questions:
Has anybody handed this tool to a REAL ServiceDesk or better yet call center? I will get flamed for that one but seriously staff need to get in, update and get out. This new tool requires 12 clicks just to update all the different components!! Assigned, status, contact .... all in separate windows seriously poor.

Why all the post backs and separate screens, sorry for the tongue in cheek but there is this "new" technology called AJAX !! 

Another gripe is the seperate databases used to manage users !! This is a really poor judgement call made by Symantec . They have a CMDB umm I think ...

Anyway that's my vent and i would be interested to see what Symantec have to say.

Any idea on the time frame for the next maintenance release ??

Also are there any plans to make this product scalable?

PS. I am actually trying to be constructive here however I am surprised at the deficiencies of a product that could provide a market leading edge.

[Migration User]

Hello,

No you are not alone!

Here is what I can say:

If you are not a developper, nor your customer has a dedicated developper to handle the solution, there is no great chances to satisfy anybody with it: it is slow (even with a big server (8 proc. 32GB RAM), hard to tweak (actually, hard to "deconstruct"), and, yes, buggy. It is also designed for BIG IT teams. Most of the time, there is more roles to populate than people in the IT room.

But:

If you are a developper with Workflow skills, this is your day: you can:
- tweak the AD connector
- optimize the projects
- do great interface and forms
- etc.

David

[Migration User]

Reading connect i would think that your view is very common David.

Symantec, how is this customer concern being dealt with? I know i will talk with my sales manager because its not right. 

I am a medium shop that requires a tool i can innovate with, not a tool that requires tweaks and programming skills and to hold my tongue right just to use it.

Has Symantec hired interface design experts to look at this tool and see if improvements could be made?

Lastly to the connect community, does anyone know of another ServiceDesk product that has ITIL functions and integration with Altiris ?

[Aryanos]

Sorry to bump this thread but just wanted to know from those that have put SD7 in production how it has been and what positive/negative things have you experience so far?

[Migration User]

Hello,


Having installed it for three customers (in a software maintenance context):

Bad points:
- high developper competences requested (not suitable for an IT-admin) even to apply "simple" changes
- elevated hardware pre-requisites
- poor performances even on a well sized hardware, due to the logic of the workflow engine
- bad connectivity with AD
- lots of bugs in the built-in projects
- complex installation due to a "non-altiris" architecture of the workflow engine

Good points:
- nice look and rendering, very popular
- quite good reporting and dashboards for operators
- no activex, full html
- infinite functional capabilities (as long as you have a developper with you)

My conclusion:
It is a developper product, not an admin product, that is bundled in an offer with some ready to use workflows that need to be modified in every case.
Symantec should have continue  the Helpdesk Solution, which has never looked better than today (but EOL next year).

Cheers,
David

[Migration User]

SD7-MR2 is much more stable and refined than MR1 which is what the initial posting spoke to. They are a few issues that I have to agree with especially the connectivity to AD as opposed to using the CMDB in Notification Server (NS). I don't think web 2.0 will ever be as fast as its predecessor so some degradation is expected but one would have expectred greater performance. The real strength of Altiris is that it attempts to follow the ITIL framework for IT Service Management which has some advantages. But once again I have to quip about Notification server as I don't see why AD syncing with SD7 was even contemplated when a lot of the power underneath the hood is in NS. You'd have to see it to believe it.

I'm also opposed to activex due to the IE only prerequisite so for me that is not a negative. This keeps the solution platform independent allowing organizations that have support teams on alternate platforms such as linux or Solaris to be able to use SD7. The downside once again is NS which seems to only work well with IE.

[Migration User]

For what it’s worth, we will be going live at the end of the month.  As many, we didn’t fully realize the amount or work that was going to be involved in setting things up. What would have been nice is a workflow that matched v6 helpdesk features, instead of going with the lowest common denominator with Itil out of the box ( while it sounds nice on paper, who in the real would could do that ? ).
 
Being so ‘open’ to customizations is a doubled edged sword and I can see great potential for down the road, but it will be a long road traveled.
 
We have around 900 techs, 30k end users with about 20k tickets a month so we should have a good idea of how things will go pretty soon after startup.

[Aryanos]

Thanks everyone for your feedback. I've played around with MR2 in our test environment and it does feel more stable and faster than the previous iterations. Nurb4000, it looks like your environment will be the ultimate test for SD7 as it seems to be quite large and expansive. If you can provide some follow up feedback after a month or so of implementation it would greatly be appreciated.

[xalamu005]

I see the 'keeping informed' advise went well...

[xalamu005]

My organization has been awaiting the upgrade from HD6 to SD7 for some time now, and this is very useful information.  I have implemented NS7 and DS7 within the last year, and have been, since, riddled with issues.  Therefor, I am waiting until I hear the SD7 is in good standing, or be left with an unusable suite of tools for a while (AGAIN).

 

Anyhow, anyone have a further updates into how the SD7 integration is going so far?

[Migration User]

Service Desk 7, though it is sold as a full featured product, is actually a development project bundled with a development tool (workflow server and workflow studio).

It means that the usual terms of "upgrade", "update", "release" do not apply to it, as the tiniest modification in the delivered workflows transforms the build-in product into a customized one.

What they call "MR2" is no more than another version of the initial development project while the Workflow server is still in its 2006 version...

 

[Migration User]

Guys,

What is coming with the 7.1 is really better, giving more access to settings than changing Workflow using the Designer.

SD7 is a strong product based on the strong 7.0 engine now (We in Fabemara were working with the 6.0 then 6.5).

SD7 integrates a fully ready to use problem, change and release management.

Please refer to the customization guide to know how to adapt your Workflows in order to support upgrades.

 

Best regards,

 

Fabrice

[Migration User]

I'm sorry but after working with 7.0 for some months now, i have to disagree on several points.

As far as I'm concerned, it is not a finished out of the box 'ready to use product', unless you magically happen to conform to what the developers had in mind as the 'ideal process', and can accommodate its bugs and limitations.  For most of the world its a starting point, and something that will require a good amount of code modification to fit the needs of nearly all businesses of any complexity at all.  Not that this is a bad thing, but i think its unfair to represent it as anything else.

I am also not so sure about the 7.0 engine being as solid as you are suggesting, as i have seen a lot of flaky behavior under moderate load that i attribute to the engine, not the service desk Workflow which has its own issues.

And while i have not seen 7.1, as to be honest trying to adapt and support 7.0 in production has taken far too much of my time, there is no way that it can be 'upgrade friendly' once you start customizing your code, which you pretty much have to do if you want to actually use it. I do not fault Symantec for this part, as its the nature of custom code, regardless of the platform.

I know this sounds like a slam on the product, but it is not, as i do think it does have promise for the long term. The problem is that its not really stable enough for prime time, and requires far too much custom code to make usable in a real world environment. I think if they took a step back, retooled, and sold this as a 'framework' with the upfront advice about the time required to make it work then it would be much better and have a lot fewer unhappy customers.  They also should have called it 1.0, not 7.0 as that was a bit misleading to people that have not been around Altiris for the long haul like we have, and didn't know the true history of things. You expect a rock solid mature product by 7.0, which this is not, nor is it revision 7.