Discussions

How to define the value of Help Desk and CM software to the execs

Tags:
+
0 Votes
Locked

How to define the value of Help Desk and CM software to the execs

sshead
I am in the throes of implementing an enterprise level help desk and change management suite and am having issues showing executive staff the value and reasoning behind going this route. I'd like to hear anyones business case on the pros and cons of implementing such software in an up and coming company.

I have a signed PR, but I want to make sure that executive staff fully understand the value and the benefits.

Thanks

Steve
  • +
    0 Votes
    salexand

    You know I've gone around reading all over the net about people asking for any real ROI data on implementing CM or a new Help Desk tool like Remedy or HP's Service Center or even better somebody who has done a wholesale ITSM (ITIL assessment, process definition, introduced audit and control of the key processes like Config, Change, Incident, Service Request, Problem..) and I never see it.

    People ask, I ask, and always the same bottomless silence.

    If you do your implementation, please let me know how it goes. I am trying to get my company to look into doing this but at the same time I am having doubts about it myself. Is it really worth all the effort and trouble? Are we really that bad off? If it costs me $10 to save $9....even if it is "the right thing" or "best practice" or whatever...does it make financial sense?

    I don't know. I am however, very interested.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    Help desk software is easy to justify. It allows you to track calls so no help desk request gets lost. It allows the techs to track their progress on the call, so someone else can pick it up if the original tech gets sick or goes on vacation. It allows techs to search for a previously found solution to a problem and not have to re-invent the wheel. It allows tracking of troublesome systems (hardware, software, or, <<ahem>> "liveware") to target for potential replacement. If properly implemented it can be used with other metrics to evaluate technician performance.

    CM seems like one of those things everyone agrees on in principle, but apparently no one ever takes action to implement. I'm not sure I fully understand it myself. Where I work we've operationally defined it as, "discuss what you're going to do with all effected, do that one thing and nothing else, see how it worked; repeat."

    I too would like to see others comment on the subject.

    +
    0 Votes
    sshead

    ... and ended up taking an FAQ and some information I found around the net to form a four page FAQ on the why's and wherefore's of Help Desk software. The CM portion I can justify easily, especially with SOX in the picture - automation of process = less samples on the audit for instance. I am willing to share this document if anyone is interested. I think I got most of the information from here anyway.

    Steve

    +
    0 Votes
    jmgarvin

    Before you can even contemplate a CMDB, you need to look at Change.

    Here's the kicker though, you REALLY need to get Incident and Problem down first. You need to have that down to a science with strong processes in place and a good management and line team.

    The other big problem is people look at the tools and not the process. I could use BMC, HP, or FrontRange, but fail because I don't have proper processes in place.

    So, good Configuration Management will save you money every single time, BUT you have to have Incident, Problem, and Change down cold before you even try to implement a CMDB.

    +
    0 Votes
    jmgarvin

    The proof is in the pudding. Ask your vendor for testimonials. They'll provide you with all the numbers you could possibly need....

  • +
    0 Votes
    salexand

    You know I've gone around reading all over the net about people asking for any real ROI data on implementing CM or a new Help Desk tool like Remedy or HP's Service Center or even better somebody who has done a wholesale ITSM (ITIL assessment, process definition, introduced audit and control of the key processes like Config, Change, Incident, Service Request, Problem..) and I never see it.

    People ask, I ask, and always the same bottomless silence.

    If you do your implementation, please let me know how it goes. I am trying to get my company to look into doing this but at the same time I am having doubts about it myself. Is it really worth all the effort and trouble? Are we really that bad off? If it costs me $10 to save $9....even if it is "the right thing" or "best practice" or whatever...does it make financial sense?

    I don't know. I am however, very interested.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    Help desk software is easy to justify. It allows you to track calls so no help desk request gets lost. It allows the techs to track their progress on the call, so someone else can pick it up if the original tech gets sick or goes on vacation. It allows techs to search for a previously found solution to a problem and not have to re-invent the wheel. It allows tracking of troublesome systems (hardware, software, or, <<ahem>> "liveware") to target for potential replacement. If properly implemented it can be used with other metrics to evaluate technician performance.

    CM seems like one of those things everyone agrees on in principle, but apparently no one ever takes action to implement. I'm not sure I fully understand it myself. Where I work we've operationally defined it as, "discuss what you're going to do with all effected, do that one thing and nothing else, see how it worked; repeat."

    I too would like to see others comment on the subject.

    +
    0 Votes
    sshead

    ... and ended up taking an FAQ and some information I found around the net to form a four page FAQ on the why's and wherefore's of Help Desk software. The CM portion I can justify easily, especially with SOX in the picture - automation of process = less samples on the audit for instance. I am willing to share this document if anyone is interested. I think I got most of the information from here anyway.

    Steve

    +
    0 Votes
    jmgarvin

    Before you can even contemplate a CMDB, you need to look at Change.

    Here's the kicker though, you REALLY need to get Incident and Problem down first. You need to have that down to a science with strong processes in place and a good management and line team.

    The other big problem is people look at the tools and not the process. I could use BMC, HP, or FrontRange, but fail because I don't have proper processes in place.

    So, good Configuration Management will save you money every single time, BUT you have to have Incident, Problem, and Change down cold before you even try to implement a CMDB.

    +
    0 Votes
    jmgarvin

    The proof is in the pudding. Ask your vendor for testimonials. They'll provide you with all the numbers you could possibly need....