Clarity SM Reviews

I've stood it up and I've configured it and got it working.

What I like about it are the features that allow me to integrate with Service Desk Manager and Process Automation, and to build creative solutions based on the integration with other CA products.

Although we've implemented Catalog, we haven't used it in production yet. We built a prototype and what we want to use it for is to take over our request management system, because right now we do requests in Service Desk. I think Catalog is going to provide us more of a cart-type system.

Catalog gives us that cart view if you want to submit a request for service. Right now we are using Service Desk, but we would like to put the request management system in Catalog. It gives us a better buy and it gives us a more friendly view of ordering requests.

I can't think of any areas for improvement with the product itself, though when I stood it up, the documentation was not as straightforward as it could have been. But I figured it out without much issue.

No issues with deployment.

There's really nothing for me to talk about in terms of stability as it's not yet in production even though I've stood it up and configured it.

We haven't tried to scale it yet, but I don't anticipate any issues.

I've never opened an issue with regard to Catalog.

We're using Service Desk as our request management system, but we'll be moving away from it to Catalog.

I don't think I needed anybody's help to stand it up. I think the documentation walked me through what I needed to do.

I stood it up myself.

Change management. We use it to control changes throughout the company. Developers submit change orders and it flows through to QA, and then on to our production deploy. We use CMDB to be sure we understand the impact to changes. So, the focus is for auditing and reducing changes that break things. That's how we use it.

It's performed well. It's a reliable product. 

It keeps all of our changes in one spot, so it's easy for management to see any given changes that are happening, and how they cross pollinate with CMDB.

• The auditing
• The view it provides into who's doing the work
• How long it's taking to do the work, where the black holes are in terms of the work

I've heard about the xFlow. I'm looking for the improved user interface. A lot of people complain about the amount of time it takes to do things in Service Desk. It's a very old product, 20 years, so there is a lot of legacy there, hard to shift. 

We would love to be able to do more on our mobile app for our technicians that wander the floors. We don't use the mobile app because its very difficult to use. I understand there are upgrades in the works there. 

If I had to choose, it would be more around the user interface than the mobile experience.

Stability is good. We've had a couple of outages but it's not a chronic problem.

In terms of scalability, I don't know if you can get integration. There have been complaints about integration with other tools. A lot of people wish that Service Desk had more of a REST API interface instead of SOAP. Some of our networking guys - we're trying to drive automation - and the enterprise, would like to see an easier way to interface with Service Desk.

When selecting a vendor, what's important to me is

• a company that's financially stable
• I like leaders in their industry; I think CA is one of those
• a company that is agile and responsive to our needs.

I give it a seven out of 10, only. The three that I'm not giving it is just because it is such a legacy product.

I would tell colleagues to evaluate everything. One of the reasons we are going to be reluctant to remove from Service Desk is because it is so entrenched, it would be such a big deal. However, if I had a clean slate, I would advise someone to evaluate all the competitors. Service Desk is not perceived as one of the better products in this space. It serves us well but I would tell them to evaluate ServiceNow and some of the other products.

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.

The most important part is the user experience. CA Service Desk Manager provides a great and helpful experience. It's a tool with constant updates and always thinking about and looking out for the user.

It's a powerful tool that is able to do everything. Anything you need, CA SDM can help.

CA Technologies have been improving the customer experience when we're talking about UI, probally it's comming soon a great UI about usability.

It's comming with v17 a great functionality about upgrade - it's easier than ever.

I've been implementing the solution for more than a decade, in different companies of different sizes and in different industries. It's adaptability is incredible; you can codify and change almost everything. Therefore, the solution is working for our needs.

The solution could include in your own license other products to help your own customers embrace more disciplines to their needs.

With a small licensing of these products, it's possible to present all the power of the power of suite.

I have used it for more than a decade.

Usually everything's OK.

I have never encountered any stability issues.

I encountered a scalability issue with an older version. Nowadays, it is better.

Customer service is really good.

CA Support is improving its work. The support workers have a lot of experience, and they think fast to solve our problems.

I previously used other solutions, but they were not as powerful. I'm working as a single MSP and work with different solutions.

It's as easy as a Windows install. You can check on CA Communities.

Using CA Service Desk, the companies grow up.

I do not know. I never can compare these numbers.

No comment. Ask me privately.

I can help you to check and evaluate options; compare the solutions. Therefore, the first step is: Compare the same thing with the same thing, apples to apples, but I cannot tell you which is the better choice of fruit.

1. Ease of customization

2. Modules of integrated ITIL managers

3. Integrated remote access to tickets

The product update process has been improved, and I like that they have included advanced high availability. Also, the process of adding new customers using multi-tenant is relatively simple.

They need to improve the High Availability, and the native integration between CA Service Desk Manager, CA Process Automation, CA Service Catalog and CA Unified Self-Service.

We have been using it for nine years, and currently have two customers with older versions of SDM. The products have been installed on site without multi-tenant.

The implementation of solutions using secure protocol is always complicated. It is not simple to set up, as it requires changes to specific files. It could be simpler.

There were no issues with stability.

It's been able to scale for our needs.

High. Collaborates with gains in maturity.

It's excellent. All there agents are willing to help, even involving other teams in more complex cases.

No.

It's simple, as we used the manufacturer's documentation (Green Book).

My advice is to define the scope of use and only then plan how best architecture. The secure protocol issues, high availability, and the use or not of a homologation environment generate operating and financial costs.

The ROI was satisfactory, but I would advise you to review the scope, as several solutions for simple things can have a high cost, for example, why use CA Infrastructure Management (Spectrum, eHealth, NetQoS) when Nagios could serve your customer demands well.

Plan a Homologation Environment and possible uses for other areas of the organization other than IT. These points are extremely important and can impact the management and maintenance of the product.

We also evaluated ServiceNow to reduce infrastructure costs, but some CA Service Desk Manager features do not exist in ServiceNow, even though it is a more expensive solution.

My advice is to get to know the product very well in relation to ITIL processes. A lot of customization only exists because we do not know the product at that level. The manufacturer's documentation "Content Pack for ITIL" is required reading even if the company is not a service provider.

I am enthusiastic about ITSM solutions. In addition to CA products, I know of LANDesk Service Desk, OTRS, Octopus, Zendesk, Microsoft System Center Service Manager, Axios Assyst and BMC Remedy. All of these solutions are excellent and have lots of documentation with the best implementation practices, both the system and the ITIL processes. I always recommend studying these documents before any customization.

• The TWA option for CA CMDB along with the simulation of CI and relationship data in GRLoader.
• The MDR button on the CI page, which directly takes you to the integrated MDR Source.
• The Visualizer, which automatically affects the map based on relationships.
• Personal Response, which is helpful in following a standard format across teams.

We implemented this for a customer. The major improvement in functions is their ability to track, report incidents, problem, changes and configuration management.

There is no documentation available from CA for SPEL code; I hope they make this available, so that we can customize it more 

CA Service Desk Manager used a SPEL code to perform different action in the tool. To create a new action or condition generally know as macros (type: action macro, condition macro etc) knowledge of SPEL code and how to use it important. Unfortunately CA does not share any document around it hence we as administrators cannot customize it much like we can in servicenow, remedy etc. So if they can make it available, we could tune or optimize CA SDM as per specific requirements and it will help the tool to sink in the organization implemented. 

The process of adding new columns in the DB and publishing it from the front end is a lengthy activity. I hope they make adding columns and tables in DB easier. 

Creating a new custom column in servicenow is a child's game as you can do everything from the UI. No service restarrt, code execution etc needed. However, in CA SDM the process of adding a new column is a little lengthy with service restart and few steps needed, hence this is where they can improve upon.

• There is no documentation available from CA for SPEL code; I hope they make this available, so that we can customize it more.
• The process of adding new columns in the DB and publishing it from the front end is a lengthy activity. I hope they make adding columns and tables in DB easier.

It pretty much does the work it’s intended to.

The most valuable feature is its integrated nature. Compared to other service catalog and business process management suites, which are highly flexible, what you give up in those is the integration with other feature-set functionalities, platforms, and modules that would make up the rest of your IT organization. Hands down, the premier feature of the CA platform is the integrated nature of that platform. It's designed to work together.

Try managing the expectations of 180,000 users as if they were just one. That's how much it's improved our functioning.

I'd like to see CA continue to invest in the initial engagement of my end-users with Service Catalog. I would like to see CA continue to invest in form, design, and functionality.

From a developer's perspective, the biggest weakness is what you can and cannot do. I'd like to see CA continue to invest in reducing a need for technical staff to engage in process automation, vehicle limitation, and product design. I don't like to see developers in 2015 writing code for things that other companies have already figured out for a while.

Service Catalog and the Business Process Management suite over the last 20 years have gone through unbelievable instability. Over time, you have all these vendors that are consolidating up into the large players. Provision was bought by Metastorm, Metastorm was bought by OpenText, Lombardi was bought by IBM. That's instability. CA needs to invest.

From our end-users' perspective, it's fairly, very IT. This is obviously coming out of IT's solution. If you're looking comparably and relatively across Service Catalog that runs in the process management space, CA fell behind. They need to invest. They have been and they may need to continue to, so there's huge weaknesses in form functionality. Form design, form functionality. There's huge weaknesses with respect to your general approach to a committed processes to automation. I still require very technical developers where I shouldn't have to in 2015. This is nothing that they haven't heard, and they're already responding. They are investing. They need to. If they're going to play in the States, they're going to need to keep investing.

I don't get involved in that. That would be more the development team and support team.

I wasn't involved in the implementation.

Understand what you're buying.

If you're talking about just implementing Service Catalog and committing service delivery processes and automation, the organization can take the approach and adopt the strategy of, we're going to go and listen to our customers about what services they want and listen to our operations staff about how they want to operate and how they want to speak and how they want to do things. And that's a very highly flexible Business Process and Management suite. This is not that. This is, essentially, an ERP system for IT. There's going to be a certain element where the delivery team is almost informing, I know that's a horrible word, but informing, influencing the conversation of what we are doing to adopt a CA-driven data module. We are going to adopt the way in which CA intends IT to run its IT organizations, and we are going to implement a framework here. That's a very different approach. It needs to be an executive-supported and executive-understood.

Our primary use case for Clarity is to manage portfolios and projects, and to manage the software. 

The most valuable feature are the time sheets, it's a very powerful tool.

The report solutions are a little short and that could be improved. It's possible that part of the issue is the customization because we had the tool customized for our clients. Clarity is also quite an expensive solution and it would be helpful if the cost was reduced. 

I've been using this solution for eight years. 

The initial setup was complex, it's possible that the integrations between this tool and other tools like Quality Center, ALM may have made the setup more difficult. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of 10.