how to justify the costs for migration from SD to SM ?

[Artur]

Hi,

I know the arguments: better functionality, probably better performance, SD will not be supported in the future, etc.

But maybe, just maybe - someone has financial calculations for advantages
of the migration?

I have the situation that there was no budget for the migration for this year,
so we need some tough financial arguments for the migration.

Maybe some Gartner (or other ) analysis ?

I have asked the HP but it may take a looooooong time ....

regards
Artur

[jstagaman]

If Service Desk is meeting their current needs, the what's driving the push to migrate? Staying with Service Desk a little while longer is their least expensive option; it adds no new hardware costs, no development costs, no retraining costs. So long as they can plan to migrate while license exchange to Service Manager is still offered by HP, there is not an apparent financial benefit to rushing to migrate.

In fact, they may be better served by waiting for 7.1 before seriously considering migration. In the demo of the Implementation Accelerator on Thursday, major changes to the look and feel of Service Manager, along with new classification models were demonstrated. HP explained that the IA build will become the standard system build with the release of 7.1. It looks a little more like Service Desk and has some nice improvements relative to 7.01. It is also designed to support a more rapid implementation than the current 7.01 OOB system, and since the plan is that future builds will build on its foundation, they'll likely have easier upgrades too. All of that would likely benefit your customer long term, so rushing to migrate may not be the best approach.

What are the reasons for pushing for a migration now? What is driving the need to argue that somehow migrating this year yields financial benefits?

[Artur]

Hi,

thank you for the information about Implementation Accelerator - I will look for it.

My answer for your questions is simple: politics. Really. In large companies
there is something more then roi etc. - one of them is a politics. Some people
want to show that they are effective and good managers. So called "quick win"

Thank you very much.
Artur

[tommy]

Politics are usually a bad reason for doing something like that.

In my last job I had absolutely nothing to do the last two years because of politics. A manager decided he wanted to score cheap points on cost reduction so he manipulated the costs for running Remedy and based on that decided that because SC was so much more expensive to operate 24/7 the helpdesk needed to change to Remedy (he conveniently forgot that it is not possible to operate a 24/7 system with 0,8 man). 10 months later that project was droped because it turned out that the decision was based on false data.