Serviceaide ChangeGear Reviews

It's quite a complete entry into the SaaS ITSM market with a reasonable price point.

We do not use the product ourselves in production, but provide support and expertise on it for our customers.

Importing data with relations is difficult and could be better.

I've used it for one-and-a-half years.

We encountered no issues with deployment.

We encountered no issues with stability.

We encountered no issues with scalability.

We are providing support ourselves, but the third-level support of CA is great.

The basic functions are usable out-of-box, so there's no need to configure a lot.

We are the vendor team.

It's price is very competitive if there are only a few licenses needed.

Monitoring Infrastructure.

Monitoring multiple environments and platform independent.

Few probes need improvement in their function and the way they get deployed for monitoring.

3 Years.

No Major issues but slightly delay in response if configuration changes after deployment.

No.

No.

Customer satisfaction service provided by the vendor.

I would give 4 out of 5.

Yes I did but I ended up with unreliable solution and stuck with platform dependencies.

It is pretty straightforward as it has number of different ways to communicate with the end client that makes me feel very comfortable with is flexible product to work on.

Approximately but not constant to $65,000.

Managed by the company finance as I’m a Technical Product Manager and not familiar with Finance in exact figures.

Yes I did. That was Nagios but it platform dependent and there I had to switch to Nimsoft.

This is the best product for Large Infrastructure companies/organizations to monitor their infrastructures/servers etc.

We primarily use the solution for processes in management, incident management, and problem change configuration service requests.

The solution is a highly mature product. Because of this, it can stand up to any other product on the market.

The solution does not align as modern service solutions do. Seamless integration is no available among the processes.

Their service management application needs a lot of work. It’s in a really bad state right now.

They brought on a new interface that clumped all the processes and features of the solution into one. Still, it’s not really compatible with other solutions. Because of this, its rating has dropped in Gardner.

The solution needs to improve its reporting features. The user interface needs a lot of improvements.

The product needs to implement a cloud platform solution, which is lacking so far.

Their workflow engine is still segregated. It’s not embedded. If you need to do some workflow approvals, you cannot do them directly on the service desk. You have to go into Outlook and do an approval or you have to go in through another screen to handle the approval because the workflow engine they have is a separate product.

The solution is fairly stable, regardless of the version clients use. The serious challenge the solution faces, however, is that CA is not investing in the service management suite.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support has lost a lot of customer confidence. Being a partner, I’ve dealt with support tickets for months at a time, which is unacceptable. It’s something CA has to do a lot of work on to improve. Customers are unhappy.

If you are going with an out-of-the-box implementation, there isn’t too much difficulty with the setup. The configuration is always a challenge, however. You need to do a lot of customization based on customer requirements. Implementation can get quite complex depending on if you have to set up a lot of different databases, etc.

I’m a partner with CA Technology. We have clients that are working on various versions, including 11, 12, 14, and 17.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I’d rate the solution six out of ten.

Event-based.

Automatic tasks.

Flexibility to customize.

Four years.

No issues.

No issues.

Not applicable. On-premise or cloud, I do not need it.

Great. CA Technologies support is excellent.

Yes, many.

The initial setup was easy.

We did the implementation ourselves (in-house). 

I do not know.

Not applicable.

Many.

We like the fact that all the tools interconnect. We can do everything from Service Catalog, such as create change orders, without having to use our ticketing system. It automatically ties it in to it.

For example, for our new-hire process, we have it set up to automatically add our new users to the system. Our people can then go in and we have groups set up that they can say, "Okay, I want this", and it goes and grabs all the services and automatically creates the tickets to create the group. It makes the process a lot easier.

We're real small. We probably only have about 50 people in our IT department now. We used to be a lot bigger. We have about 2,000 employees, so there are 50 of us doing the work of a larger team.

Using the self-service functionalities we have been able to eliminate a lot of the support phone calls, and actually reduce a lot of our help desk staff. We no longer have to have a 24-hour help desk, because our employees can create the tickets themselves. Then, we get an alert and we don't have to do anything. So we've saved a lot of money doing it that way.

There are a few things I would like to see.Service Desk has a quick profile feature, where you can pull up everybody's environment, including all their assets, their ticket history and everything else. When I go in to actually look at their contact, I would like to see that same information, instead of having to go to two different places for it.

I think they could update some of the interface. It doesn't look as pretty as some of the other ones. I would like it to be more visually appealing. And they could make it a little bit easier to do customizations.

Also, I think Service Catalog could be a little more user-friendly to the end user. It's fine for somebody who's more technical, but I think sometimes my end users, who are in the newspaper and they're usually older and have a little more trouble with it. But, they've really done a good job of improving everything lately.

There's always room for improvement. It used to be much harder to get support and the tool didn't tie in as well to their other products. You'd have to jump through so many hoops to get it to work.

Stability is fantastic. I never have any problems.

The scalability is great. Also, they finally added the ability to cluster your services server. So if one goes down, it can automatically fail-over. Which was not possible before; I used to have to do it manually.

And now you can automatically do fail-over between the services. Plus, we can use the Process Automation Management tool for more than just service management. You can create your own virtual servers using PAM.

Technical support has been fantastic. Honestly, I've had a lot more luck with CA technical support than I've had with the consultants that we've paid lots of money to come out to our sight. They've really improved technical support. They have the CA community now and it's much easier to find things.

We were actually using a web-based solution. The impetus to go with CA was because we took our help desk and all of our support back from IBM. We found out we could save more money by keeping it on-site. And we could have better control of our assets, and everything else. So that was part of it. We were using ManageNow or something like that. I've used many other ticketing systems before as well. CA IT Service Desk does the most.

Plus, they have multiple solutions. They don't just have one web-based product. I can actually have my product and customize it the way I want to without going through them.

When choosing a vendor we want good support.

We've been using Cloud Service Management since 2009, so initial setup was much more complex back then.

We've gone through many iterations and we're now on the latest one. It's gotten progressively easier. With previous versions, if I was going to do an upgrade, I was like, "Oh, it's going to crash." I would have to do a system backup, because I knew I was going to have problems. Now, I don't have to worry about it. I know I can do an upgrade that night and the next morning my system will be up.

Remedy was really cost crazy. We thought about moving to ServiceNow, but it cost twice as much. The cost of Cloud Service Management isn't outrageous.

We also looked at Remedy and ServiceNow. There was another one, but it's been so long I can't remember which one.

Aside from the cost reasons for going with CA, the CA sales people were really good. We liked the fact that we could tie in all of our asset systems and we didn't have to get anything additional. Then we got Spectrum and everything to support it as well.

Make sure you take the training classes that they offer. When you have somebody come out to your site, make sure you sit with them and learn everything you can, because you're going to need that info later. We've had consultants come out for multiple products, and I always make sure to sit with them and go through everything. And they're also very good about what they do. They give you full documentation, so you can refer back to it after they leave.

It provides us with a very easy and flexible UI for CA Nimsoft Service Desk 7.

This product can totally automate service desk functions where very little phone and email interventions are required for resolution of tickets such as incidents, change request, problem tickets, etc.

Deployment and setup is a major difficulty and it could have been made easier.

The deployment was very difficult to handle. It's an unnecessarily difficult process that requires third-party assistance to do correctly.

It has been stable. We haven't had any issues with instability.

There have been no issues scaling it.

It was very complex and very difficult. It wasn't straightforward at all.

You should make an agreement with CA for deployment and setup support. Without it, deployment and setup are very complex and difficult.