Clarity SM Reviews

• Functions related to the ITIL process sets for change management
• Request fulfillment
• Incident management
• Knowledge management database

These elements are the most valuable to the organization because they are the areas that have at least rudimentary corresponding business processes and accountable business owners.

The features that are most valuable to me as an SDM administrator are:

• Extensibility of the interface to allow for schema changes
• Form-level modifications to support the aforementioned business processes

Utilization of change management features allowed us to effectively implement both group- and department-level change advisory boards and coordinate the interaction between the disparate management levels.

All areas of every product have room for improvement.

That being said, this product would benefit by allowing individual users more customization, notably around notifications.

On a per-user basis, the individual user should have the ability to determine what notification types they want to subscribe to and how they want to be notified.

On an individual basis, users should be able to modify their interface to change things like the attributes returned from search results or have the ability to show/hide fields on ticket creation screens to support their own or a team’s workflow.

It would be handy to have an option in the interface to disable large chunks of functionality. For example, we do not utilize the application for problem management.

If there were an option to yank Problems out of menus, screens, this would expedite deployments and limit the need for the creation and maintenance of custom test scripts.

The organization has been utilizing this product line for around 17 years. I’ve been using this product line for 15 years. This specific version of SDM has been in use in our environment for a year.

We periodically run into issues with the stability of the application. It rarely necessitates any action on our part.

We opted to deploy on Microsoft Windows and SQL, and occasionally run into issues based on those decisions. I am not sure if they can be attributed to the application, however.

There have not been any scalability issues.

There are basically two buckets: those that are really competent and those that are lacking.

In my experience, 75% fall into the really competent category, which is much higher than other companies I’ve worked with.

CA, given its size, surprisingly does not have 24/7 US-based technical support. As all of our deployments naturally occur outside of regular US business hours, this means that whenever I’m really having an issue, I’m invariably working with someone in India, France, or elsewhere.

I would like to reiterate that these people are usually very proficient in what they do, but because of language barriers, things do not usually go as smooth as I would prefer.

Our organization has utilized CA ticketing solutions AHD, USD, SDM, and Service Desk since I’ve been here.

The installation was GUI-based, and was pretty standard and straightforward.

I had no input nor purview into pricing or licensing.

The solution was already selected.

Ensure that your organization has robust business processes in place for the feature sets that you would like to implement. Organizations that expect the tool to define the business process can expect a very difficult deployment.

Ticket management and the knowledge base are the most valuable features of this solution.

Our managers are able to properly monitor their team activities with CA Service Desk. With knowledge base, the end users are able to fix simple issues.

It could improve in maintainability and customization of features with a better and simpler GUI.

I have used this solution for a year and a half.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

We were using an intranet website, initially. It was very rudimentary and we couldn’t customize it without relying on outsourcing. We switched over to CA Service Desk Manager.

Do not over-customize it, given the fact that it could directly impact the tool's stability and data reliability.

Advanced Availability architecture is hands down the key feature. We can make sweeping changes, to the application or database, with a minimal impact on our user base. Most of the time, the users see no downtime at all.

CA SDM has organized the work for our internal groups to run the IT infrastructure in our company. When you add the workflow engine to the mix, the productivity and process adherence both get greatly enhanced.

There are some functions I have seen from its competitors that I would want CA SDM to have. I also find some of the items to be tedious from an admin point of view.

The pdm_publish process, that adds tables and columns to the database, is an unforgiving key stroke of errors.

A “publish” can run to completion, but if a mistake was made, then the system will stay down, until you figure out what mistake was made and correct it.

I would like to see the process just throw away the mistake and continue cleanly. After which time, it could post a report upon completion that you have to redo the offensive work.

Personally, I have been using this product for eight years. However, the company has been using it for about 12 years. We started out with version 11.2.

Currently, we are using version 12.9 and we will be moving to version 14.1, very shortly.

The system is very stable, but there are some instances where instability has been seen. It typically comes from the external influences or from one, turn-off network interruption, causing us to re-establish a database connection.

There were no scalability issues, thus far. We have 28,000 users in the user database within the system, and it seems to chug along fine.

The initial support was wonderful. Over the past three years, I have seen some degradation in the support, both in terms of the response time as well as the resolution time.

CA has been advised of this issue and they have met with us on this subject. So, they have acknowledged the problem and are trying to make adjustments in order to accommodate it.

This is the first tool of its type that is being used in the way that we are using it.

The initial setup was straightforward, but there are many steps involved. I don’t fault the vendor for this. There are many aspects that require attention as the system is very customizable.

Take the implementation class that CA offers. It is key to have certain aspects figured out ahead of time, as they will impact the system heavily, as time goes on.

Provides effective management of service calls and work assignments. It includes good APIs to extend functionality.

In addition to IT, we also use this product on our business side to manage lobby flow for clients and workflow for our client service staff. The product has allowed us to efficiently manage workflow, measure performance, and analyze customer service measures.

The UI is old and passé. It needs to be intuitive, efficient, and allow users to tailor it to their way of working.

I have used CA Service Desk for fifteen years.

The product is very stable.

The product does scale effectively up to a point. Beyond that, it gets a little complicated to extend it.

I would give technical support a rating of 6/10.

We used Remedy and switched to CA Service Desk for cost and ease of implementation.

The basic setup is easy and straightforward. The product is tailored around ITIL. Business processes need to account for that in order to make the most use of the product.

We think CA pricing is straightforward. They do have a tendency to re-bundle (and sometime rebrand) products and you have to be on top of that. If you build a relationship, working through these things is much easier.

This was an easy choice fifteen years ago.

Look into the SaaS offering from CA and compare. While CA Service Desk has rich functionality and is stable, its skin is old and cumbersome.

The flexible envelope provides an infinite number of ways to customize it.

I can easily say that SDM is the core of our organization. We have integrated a lot of related systems, implemented contract management logic, and some HR functions, such as vacation planning routines.

Rebuilding the visual interface in the same style using modern web technologies can extend the usability of the system for up to 10 years.

I’ve personally used CA Service Desk since 2013.

We did have some stability issues, but with some fine-tuning, supported by CA support and the CA community, we resolved them.

We did have some scalability issues, but with fine-tuning, supported by CA support and the CA community, we resolved them.

Our current version is not within the scope of technical support.

The initial setup was performed by our integrator.

The system covers all of our enterprise needs. However, in order to adapt it to your business needs, you will need to have an experienced staff. Familiarize it with your enterprise and with Service Desk's undocumented methods and routines, such as SPEL, WAND, and overall daemon logic.

Customizability. You can easily make your own tables and add fields. Each customer is different and over time, things change. This product is flexible.

It is scalable and we are a big organization.

The upgrading process needs to be improved. They need more testing with more customers before the release. We are dealing with a lot of defects that should have been caught before the product was released.

I have been using this solution for 17 years.

We have not had any stability issues.

We have not had any scalability issues.

We didn’t have a previous solution.

This product is worth the cost.

I didn’t evaluate any other products. I worked for CA at the time when I first started using this product.

This product is ready to go as is. It can be customized, but you need a dedicated administrator to manage customizations.

• Multitenancy does not require a standalone implementation per customer.
• Reporting and Dashboards are components which allow you to measure customer contracts.

• We can use the same installation for several and independent customers (multi-tenancy).
• ITIL processes.

I would like more flexibility on KPI and SLA definition.

I have used the product for 6+ years.

I did not encounter any stability issues.

I did not encounter any scalability issues.

I would give technical support a score of 6/10.

The high availability setup is more complex, but nothing special.

We evaluated ServiceNow.

It is a stable and good product, with several integrations and an interesting API.

• Incidents
• Request management
• Change management
• Asset management

These are the core processes for organization, as we are more focused on them.

When we started, we did not have a proper service catalog or services, and there were many complaints from end users regarding our services.

CA Service Desk Manager has helped us publish our service and provide better service to our users. That’s why our satisfaction rate has increased over the years.

Mobility is one area: There should be improvements in terms of implementations and content.

Also, they have launched Xinterface, which is very good, but it is restricted to only to incidents and requests. It should be used for changes, as well.

I have been using CA Service Desk Manager for eight years.

We have not had any issues related to stability.

We have not had any issues related to scalability.

Pricing and licensing are affordable compared to other IT system management tools.

We evaluated BMC and HPE.

Make sure that you have your processes ready so that the implementation will be easier.

Some of the features that we really like about the solution is that certain parts of it are pretty expandable and customizable. The support that we get from CA has been pretty good. We haven't had major issues with them, and they're really responsive as well.

The tool itself is an enterprise tool. It fits our needs and we can actually expand it out to the further campus, instead of just having one area of focus or one group using it.

Honestly, we started off just using one part of the solution, just using request management, and then gradually, as they've improved the application, we've actually started to use it more and more. Now, we use it for our change management, our problem management. We started to use the mobile application and the unified self-service. We've started to expand as CA has focused more on their ITSM tool.

This solution has helped align our overall IT and organization strategy because it got rid of shadow systems. Before, because we're the central IT department, every area kind of had their own shadow system or some way of doing change management, or some way of doing request management, or incident management. Basically, we kind of unified all our processes to bring down the cost. Everybody's on the same page. Everybody knows what's going on. Our outages have dropped. Our communication between areas has increased. It's been a huge benefit for us.

Honestly, I would like to see them really change the UI for the user experience for the Service Management piece, or the Service Desk Manager piece, to match the unified self-service, so it looks more modern and more sleek.

It'd be nice if they actually improved the mobile scalability, so if somebody goes to that Service Desk Manager tool, it actually will go right to a mobile website instead of an old PDA-style website. Those are some of the bigger issues that we've been getting. The UI just looks really dated.

System architecture-wise, we changed our solution where, before, they had one type of server setup, which really had some stability issues, but we moved to their new advanced server setup and, so far, so good. We had really good luck with it. We've had some hiccups here and there, but nothing too major.

With the new architecture that we have, scalability is a lot easier. The system's more adaptable now. We could drop in more servers if we need to, pretty easily.

We've used their technical support quite a bit. Their technical support is good, depending on the tech that you get. There're some techs that, as soon as I see the tickets assigned to them, I'm kind of like, "I don't really want to deal with this person," but there's a bunch of them that are fantastic. They'll call you; they'll follow up with you.

I remember one time I was working with one of them, and we had upgraded and just installed a patch, and he walked us through the whole process. Their techs that are fantastic are fantastic, but they also have, you know, just like any organization I guess.

When we first started, we really didn't have a solution. It was kind of easy just to say, "Hey!" We put out an RFP. We had about 15 vendors, and CA was obviously one of the larger ones. We had them come in and give us a demo, and they gave us more bang for the buck. We've been working with them ever since. As I’ve mentioned, with the upgrades, we've had hiccups, but they've been really easy going about sending technical assets if we needed technical assets.

The one thing I like about CA is, they're willing to work with you. Their service is huge. I really don't want to have somebody that's a stickler; that's going to be like, "Oh, well, this is what you got; this is all we can help you with." CA will sometimes, depending again on that technician, they'll go over and beyond, and help you out. Their sales folks are really good. We haven't had any problems with them. We reach out to them if we want a ticket escalated; they'll escalate it for us. They're pretty consistent on their communication with us, so it's really good.

We've been using the tool, the CA tool, for about almost 10 years now. When we initially set it up, it was pretty straightforward because we came from nothing. We didn't really have a service management tool.

We’ve had some hiccups with the upgrades themselves. There were some growing pains. I know they're trying to do a unified installer, and they're trying to make things easier, but they're still not there.

We had one vendor – this is a long time ago – called iET and it made it to the final round. Their issue was, they didn't support Firefox; all they supported was Internet Explorer. They kept on telling us, "Oh, it's on our roadmap, it's on our roadmap." We waited. We delayed for six months until their "roadmap" was supposed to come out. They never did Firefox, so it was pointless; why are we going to only use Internet Explorer?

We had Remedy. BMC Remedy was one of them. They were a little pricey. One of the departments that joined with us had a bad experience with them.

FrontRange was also evaluated. FrontRange was pretty small at that time. They weren't really this big player as they are right now.

Go in with an open mind. CA sometimes has a negative connotation just because it's a big company. Go in with an open mind and work with the sales person. Get one of their technical assets onboard so he can take a look and see what the system can do, because there's a lot more that it can do than what they actually try to sell you. Just go in with an open mind.

If I would have rated it a year or two ago, I would have rated it lower, because I felt like CA just totally gave up on ITSM service management portion. They kind of said, "Oh, well. You know, it's out there and that's it." Honestly, for the last year, they've been really doing a good job. I think they've become more agile. They've been doing a really good job of keeping things up to date, getting the customers more involved. They have a new customer form, where they allow you to vote on features and such.
They still have a way to go for them to catch up to other companies that are out there for their service management tools but I think they're in the right direction.

The most valuable feature is the ability to integrate many processes – like change management, incident management, problem management, CMDB, all of them – in the same tool.

The benefits that we are seeing from the service management is since you can integrate the products, you can make correlations of which changes cause incidents, or which configuration updates have changes or have many incidents over a certain period, and from that, gather more data to work with it.

From the implementation side, it's a tool that you can customize a lot. This customization sometimes, on upgrades and so on, it gives you a really hard time, so I would suggest trying to build a solution that you can operate with the customizations that the product allows you to do.

I would like to see a new UI, and stuff that will keep customizations going on so you don't have to do all of the reworking all over again to keep up with the next product version.

The stability just depends. In small shops, it's very stable, but once you go into big shops, such as banking infrastructure, that have many policies, sometimes there are some challenges there.

It gives the opportunity for growth. If you have more services and more users, you just keep growing and scaling the hardware and the software, and you still get the same response.

The initial setup just depends whether you have training or not. Usually, you just need the first training. After that, you can just follow up with the guidelines that CA has given to you and you can pretty much go through them.

The most important criteria when selecting a vendor like CA is just the recognition; the support provided for it. I want to have support from a company and CA just delivers that.

My rating is basically based mostly on the integration; to try out a new solution, and we chose service management; the process integration. How many solutions can give you that process integration together in just one tool? Most of the tools are just for tickets, incidents, or problems, but they don't give you the whole package together.