Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) Reviews

The KACE K1000 is primarily used for patching or pushing out software that needs to be pushed out. The KACE K2000, the deployment server, is primarily used to image new and older computers.

I should be updating the image at least once a month. The reason why I am taking so long right now is because we didn't have access to it through our VPN, and I am mostly working from home. They just opened it up so I could work with it from home, which is great.

We keep on updating Quest KACE because we really use it. The patching is maintained by a different person, and he is constantly updating the software all the time. I should be doing the same thing too, and that's on me. However, I get busy with the email server, people calling in, etc. From now on, I am going to take time slots and mark myself up busy, just so I can do it. It's a lot easier working on it from home than when I'm at work, because people walk up on you and ask you to do stuff, then lose what you were just doing.

We always do the asset management first, then we image the computer. After it is imaged, it gets all the updates that it needs through the other KACE (the patch management). It makes life a lot easier. 

The most valuable is being able to use one image for several different instances. Because we only put one to three images on those instances, it saves a lot of space.

It pretty much provides a single pane of glass with everything we need for endpoint management of all devices. We have several different ways that we do stuff, e.g., for remoting in, we use Bomgar, and for asset management, we use ServiceNow.

They could make the booting solution easier for different things, e.g., easier to insert drivers. They could make it easier to create a new image and put it onto the server. Those would be some nice solutions. They could make it so that somebody who has no knowledge at all can do it. That would be really nice. Because every time, until I get it memorized, I still need to go back to the training, the manual, or Google it to figure it out again. If they would make it a lot easier, to where a nine-year-old could do it, that would be really cool. If they made it easier, I could have more people managing the images on the server, instead of just one or two people.

On the patching, the Systems Management appliance, I noticed whenever there is something new that the vendor has to do, he always has to call KACE for help with it. That could be made easier.

We have been using Quest KACE for quite a few years, since 2014 or 2015.

I have never had to reboot it, except for when I have had to update the server. If it is having problems, and I have to troubleshoot, then I will need to reboot, but that is usually the image and has nothing to do with the server. The server is very stable. I have not once had to reboot because the server crashed.

We have four people who have been trained on both servers: 

• Two people are mostly working on the patching, KACE Systems Management. 
• Two people, including me, are mostly working on the Systems Deployment Appliance.

There are 10 people in my group using the server to image. In another department, there are another two users who know how to manage the server, but they don't mess with the server networking. They only manage their image that they have on there. When I put in a fresh, new image, I inform them, saying, "Hey, I have this new image tested. You are more than welcome to start using it so I can start deleting older images."

If they would make it easier and more intuitive, then it would be easier to show other people how to do it. Right now, I have to send them to training, which costs us a lot of money.

They have very good customer support and technical solutions. When I have a little issue, I call them and they fix it right away. I don't have to wait three or four weeks unless it is something out of their scope, then it takes longer. However, if it is in their scope, it gets fixed right away, for whatever I need. It is the same with the K1000. Whenever they need somebody, they have to call back that same day or the next day, depending on the urgency that we have placed on KACE.

Because I have so many different other jobs, I am still learning how to upload images, etc. I have to go over the classes, then listen how to do this and that. Instead of trying to call Quest every single time to do something, I try to just relearn it myself.

We used to use straight SCCM and found KACE way better because SCCM is all Microsoft. A lot of times Microsoft is not intuitive at all on third-party software, so you can only really update the Microsoft software. When we went from a SCCM to KACE, it was way easier because it's easier to update a software or even install a brand new software.

KACE has made our life much easier since we got off the Microsoft solution. The Microsoft solution was a lot harder to image over different ports and stuff. They would only have this one place where we could do all the imaging. Now, we have a whole building where we can image from. This means that we can image from our storage area, where we have a place to do our imaging. We can also image right at our desks, which is a lot easier. Once I get up to speed on updating the image and adding new software, then it will be so much easier for everybody else because the Microsoft solution always did the image in a weird way. They didn't have all the drivers for all the things that we have. With KACE, you can actually insert the drivers and make it work.

The SCCM solution for imaging was a nightmare. It wasn't a very good solution at all. With some of Microsoft items, we would need to just make a whole image of that model, which would take up more space on the server. With KACE, you just use one or two images. We have one department who uses this one model in all their trucks. They like it to be a certain exact way, where the icons and in the exact place with all the same this and that. For that one, we just make an image of that whole thing. Because we have the terabyte solution, it doesn't put a dent on the storage at all. With the terabyte solution, because we have that on the patching too, we don't have to think about whether we are using up too much space. I can go there once a month and clean up everything instead of having to be on top of it. It is just way better.

We still use SCCM for certain things that we have to do which need to be blanketed out and are easy enough solutions for them.

The initial setup was very complex. It took hours of training. We found out at the beginning that we did it backwards. We were supposed to do the KACE Systems Management first, then do the Systems Deployment Appliance. We did it backwards because we didn't know about KACE Systems Management. That made it a little harder.

I would like it if they could make it easier, not a million steps to do one thing. Because once you have the image on there, it is tested, and it works, then it's great. All you have to do is update the rest of the software, but just getting the image onto the machine and making sure it works, that is the hardest part.

The initial deployment took about a week or so. We deployed it, then we had to learn it.

I was the project manager on the deployment of the solution. I was involved in learning about it, getting a demo server going, purchasing it, and then deploying it once we purchased it. So, I have been involved from day one.

On a weekly basis, KACE saves us hours. On a monthly basis, it probably saves us a day or two. Because it is easier to use, patch, and manage than our previous solution, where I didn't even have the opportunity to be one of the people to manage it. Then, with KACE, we were able to switch it over to our service desk, divide KACE K1000 and KACE K2000, and cross-train, so we could have more people managing the servers.

Overall, the solution has increased our IT productivity as well as the other department's. Since they are using the solution, we bought them a license, which has increased their productivity immensely because they were doing everything from scratch with no imaging solution. They were just taking a brand new machine and setting it up, which just takes hours. Instead of the 45 minutes that it took to image a machine and run the patching and stuff (which may be another hour), which may take up to eight hours total to do a machine. Now, when you have all the software updated, it takes less time (45 minutes) because there is less patching to be done.

We need it, so we have to pay the price. It is what it is. If you need a gallon of milk, then you have to pay the price for it. You don't want to buy the cheap stuff. You want to buy the stuff that is organic and good for your body, which doesn't have all this other junk in it. You want it clean for your body. Quest has done that for our deployment and management systems.

We did other vendors, but we didn't like them. The other solutions were too complicated and some didn't have good enough security for our system, since our security is super tight.

We first heard of a KACE when Dell EMC owned it. Then, we got more information on it. When the person who was going to do the project management couldn't do it anymore, I asked if I could be the project manager on it. I pushed it right through.

KACE promised us stuff and have kept their promise. Microsoft promises us stuff, but they don't keep their promises.

It is a great service.

It is semi-easy to use once you have it in, but I always have to go over what I have already learned. Because after so long, if you're not doing it every day, you forget it. You have to keep relearning it.

My advice is to check it out. They are always willing to do a demo server, then you can check it out and work on it in a sandbox. 

For whoever gets trained, make sure they train somebody else along with them. They need to keep on top of it. Don't just let it sit there because it will break after a long time. The images get so old that they don't work anymore. You have to reimage it, etc. Just keep on top of it at least once a month and update everything. When a new software comes in, update that right away. You need the Management System, but install that first, then do the Systems Deployment Appliance. If somebody else is doing the Management System, keep in touch with them.

We have a system where every time there is a patch, then I get an email so I can know what patches to do, so I can update them on the deployment. Then, it doesn't have to wait for patches. That is the whole solution of doing it. You don't want to have to image something, then wait. If there is extra third-party software that you can't put on the server, then you could at least get that all installed and have it out the same day. With KACE, I have been able to image something and have it out to the customer the same day or next day, which is impressive when you are trying to serve out computers. People really are impressed when you just open a ticket and get it done.

I would give it a nine (out of 10) because it needs to be a little easier. It saves us so much time and the imaging part of it is really easy to use.

We have used it as a help-desk ticketing system, a software deployment platform, a patch management platform, and a hardware inventory platform.

KACE is incredibly wide in terms of what it will do for you. In certain cases, it's too much for my small businesses. Most of the companies that I support are anywhere from ten to fifty people. Whereas, KACE is such a large piece of software. It has its advantages as well as disadvantages for my businesses. It's just too big.

I think KACE could be designed a little bit more intuitively in terms of administration. Their knowledge-based articles are very good. But one of the things Microsoft does well is that they bake in a lot of the instructions and make the UI design a little bit more intuitive. So if you're flowing through something, the need to go back to the manual with Microsoft and it is not as heavy as it is with KACE. It is not necessarily always a good thing, but I would say KACE feels like an old-school piece of software. You need to make sure you've got the manual open while you're utilizing it.

Now I am trying to get the right size solution for my small businesses.

I have been using this solution for around eighteen months, probably. We just upgraded to version thirteen from eleven.

They are nice and stable. I would rate it nine out of ten.

I can't say I have had many experiences in making it scalable. With my businesses, I have never had to grow from fifty to a thousand employees.

I have used their technical support before. They are good. You pay a lot of money for their support and updates, but they do assist you when necessary. I have had positive experiences with them.

For the size of the company that I typically support, it's hard for me to say yes. I think I'm trying to kill a fly with a shotgun while utilizing KACE.

Coming from a small business standpoint, they're really expensive for the number of users. But that's not necessarily a knock against them. They're producing a piece of software for a particular segment. I just do not think they necessarily designed their virtual appliance and their support for a ten-person company. They are expensive, but are they unjustifiably expensive? I can't say that.

In my opinion, what KACE does better than Intune is third-party patch management. I think that Microsoft Intune and KACE both have the same technical functionality. But Microsoft Intune takes quite a bit of scripting in third-party management. Intune is always a lot cheaper and offers a lot of their packages as well. You have to consider what you need and what you are paying for. I would say that's the big difference between the two so far for my particular use.

Do a lot of research and make sure it fits your use case. If you're a small business, the likelihood of it being worth it to you in my opinion is minimal. If you've got a large environment where you can dedicate technical resources for managing the KACE system, onboarding and offboarding users monthly, and supporting a good number of devices and applications then maybe it works. But for a small business, is the juice worth the squeeze? I don't know.

I would like to rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use it for the asset management of all our computers, servers, desktops, and laptops that are internal and external. We have multiple offices who use it to deploy some of our software. It is the system that we use for our help desk when people have issues.

We were using a physical server with a physical device up until the end of last year. Now, it is a virtual device but we are still hosting it internally.

It gets everybody on the same standard, standardizing software and versions. That is one of the key things to it. Everybody has the same version of stuff. It helps with reporting by seeing who doesn't have that same version and the help desk side of having one place for people to put in their help or technical support requests. 

It has one place where we can look at the history. For example, if several people are having the problem, we can go look at how we solved the problem last time. So, it provides us with historic data.

There is one place for a lot of different things. If somebody has a problem with their computer, they will put in a ticket. From there, we will know who it is and the assets assigned to them, because there is one place to go look for what we are talking about and with whom we are talking. Just having one place for everything is really convenient. For example, we are able to deploy software to hundreds of computers. We don't need to go to each individual device.

It seems to do what we need it to do. It is pretty intuitive.

In regards to managing computers, our help desk, and handling help desk tickets, it is a single pane of glass for what we need. This includes the reporting and our asset management, e.g., when we loan things out. This is one of the key reasons that we are keeping it. It is not six different systems.

We use it for IT asset management, software asset management, and patch management. These features are all very important for us. Without each one of them, it would be problematic. It is easier to use them all in one place. We do not need to jump to different systems or technologies to do things because we could do it from this solution.

The customization of the interface needs improvement for things like end user tickets. While the functionality is good, some of that UI stuff does need improvement. Though, I don't receive a lot of complaints about it.

Some of the reporting could be a little more intuitive. This is something that could be worked on.

You really need to take the training. There is a learning curve when using it because it is just different from other things. 

There are some newer things coming out where it won't cover quite as much with some of the Microsoft Azure stuff.

I have been using it for at least eight years.

The stability is good. There were some people who were hesitant to go onto the VM, but we did have a physical appliance. We haven't had any issues with it, hardware-wise or software-wise. There have been the occasional questions, but it is reliable as far I am concerned.

It has scaled for us. We are not using thousands of machines, but we are definitely double what we were, and it wasn't even noticeable.

We have hundreds of people putting tickets in. There are six help desk admins who are using it to administer and handle help desk tickets

We have a support contract with them. If there is a critical issue, I can call them and talk to somebody. 

The technical support has been pretty good. We haven't had any huge issues. There have been a few questions here and there over the years. When I have needed stuff, e.g., if there is a big upgrade, I will definitely reach out and call them to get a little background on what is going on and what to expect when we do it. They have been receptive to that. They have gotten back to us quickly.

When we switched over to the VM, we had some issues at first. We called them. We definitely were able to talk to somebody right away. 

They have been receptive and helpful. The people that I have talked to have been very helpful and knowledgeable. They have understood the issues and got through them quickly, which is definitely a positive.

I would rate technical support as nine out of 10 because there is always room for improvement.

Positive

We used Track-It! for some of our components previously, which definitely didn't do everything. In that case, it was just for asset management, not even for the help desk stuff. We switched to Quest KACE for what it offered and all the capabilities of what it did.

We watched quite a few demos, then we did a mini demo onsite where we applied it to a handful of computers for testing.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was well-documented. It was one of the better solutions that I have had to implement.

The deployment took about a week, then we did another week of monitoring. If we would have pushed it, then we probably could have been done in a couple days.

When we bought it, there was an implementation period. We were one-on-one with somebody who walked us through the setup process. A little after that, we customized some stuff a bit more for our environment.

It definitely saves us all kinds of time and value.

For a software solution in the past doing this stuff, it would probably take us a week to get software deployed everywhere. Now, we are able to do it in a couple nights with just a variety of things, e.g., people not restarting computers. It saves us well over half the time because we are not having to touch individual things or micromanage them.

It definitely frees up time. We are not doing redundant things on multiple machines, which frees us up to do other stuff. It makes us more responsive and able to come up with solutions faster when fixing some people's problems.

We definitely looked at a few options. When we got it, one of the key things was the pricing. It was good compared to some of the other solutions. Some of the other solutions were just astronomical in price compared with KACE and didn't necessarily have the ease of use either. So, we chose Quest KACE for its easy-to-use features and cost.

Quest KACE's ease of use is good, and it has gotten better. It was never bad. Compared to other solutions that we looked at, Quest KACE was nicer and easier to use, but there was definitely a learning curve. 

We are still using it. We are not even thinking about using anything else, e.g., Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager (formerly System Center) which is way easier to use. 

I would recommend watching demos and getting hands-on demonstrations.

We are in talks about getting the solution's Systems Deployment Appliance (SDA). It is on our wish list.

I would rate the solution overall as eight out of 10. The reporting and UI could be improved. Some of the other solutions are a little more user-friendly.

Every day, we do patching and updating of Windows Drivers. We also have to activate new software packages from firewall or VPN to Adobe software on a regular basis. We then use it very often and gladly to exchange files from directories, so people don't ask, "Please change this document to this document." We would rather do this through the system, exchanging various documents inside it. 

We do inventory to see whether:

• A machine is working fine, e.g.. hardware load.
• Systems are regularly shutting down. 
• A monitor is closed on a laptop.

This is exactly how the system works.

We are currently using the K1000 appliance. We now have it as a standalone, using it for software distribution.

We also have a hardware appliance. It is not worse than the last version of the hardware appliance. We don't have a virtualized one yet, but we are going in that direction.

Quest KACE Systems Management provides a single pane of glass with everything that we need for endpoint management of all devices. It allows us to run multiple processes in parallel, i.e., parallelization. We have been able to assign a lot to many users at once. So, if somehow there is a critical error or a software is not working properly, then we mostly notice this on one user but can transfer the effect/result to all of them right away. That has worked very well because we don't have an internal environment to work with, which is why it is a good thing that we can achieve a lot and distribute it simultaneously.

When we had to quickly switch from Office 365 to an Office local installation, which we used to have, people were cut off from the Office 365 license from now on because we no longer paid for it. We then got a call from a department, “Our 12 employees need our university Office application that we used before." That could be implemented very quickly. People didn't have to come to us, we didn't have to go there, and everything was done without seeing each other. This was very good and flexible, and no effort was needed.

The environment is worth it when rolling out new software, and we test it on this device.

We use the system every day because there is always something that someone needs. We just take a look to see if the system is working fine.

I have an “extended arm” through this agent, where I can distribute things very quickly, even to people who are in their home office and need some software. I can assign it. Then, in a short time, if the Internet works for the remote station, everything is available as quickly as possible. Logically, this is one of the greatest and most comfortable things for me.

In terms of updating and customizing, the solution is very good and flexible.

For patch management that we do in an automated way, it is great. We just check whether everything works and is done automatically. Therefore, it provides a great help.

I still need better communication about which processes are really due and which processes are currently being processed. According to the initial setup service provider, there is still no real management or overview on KACE where you can really see 100 percent of what is going on as well as what is going to be processed next and whether I can influence the overall process. It could really help me if I knew, e.g. exactly in 10 minutes my colleague will be supplied with this or that software. I haven't found this yet. If they could add this, that would be cool. It is still missing and I haven't yet found something like this.

Sometimes, if you copy and paste someone incorrectly, then you can also assign the wrong software and that can then lead to problems where you distribute the wrong software.

We have been using this solution since 2017.

The stability is indestructible.

We haven’t been scaling much. We don't have full utilization and are under 300 clients, and its scalability works.

We have two administrators and 140 users. Some users have two PCs, but most have only one PC.

The technical support has these pages, subpages, etc. If we can't find it on the Internet, then we go through Software Factory GmbH.

We did not previously use another solution. We only have experience with KACE Systems Management.

The deployment took three weeks. It's a service, so sometimes it takes awhile. The fragmented architecture that we have is a wide variety of PC systems, which was another problem. We still have different locations. In order to re-inventory them and get an overview of what is missing everywhere, we needed a strategy to make all the software identical, even if the hardware was different. This can be mapped well with this software.

We had the initial setup done by a service provider, which was ok. However, there were still a lot of question marks. Another company really helped us later. We also used another service provider who was once a technician at Quest, working as self-employed. We came very far with him and that gave us another boost, so we achieved more productivity after he showed us a few tricks.

We are now dealing with Software Factory GmbH from Nürtingen. They are very professional and have a solution for all our problems. It does cost extra, but Software Factory GmbH from Nürtingen really knows their business. They are much better than the provider for the initial setup.

Internally, two of us were required for deployment, a colleague and me.

It has definitely proven itself very well. For at least a year now, all changes have been noticed, e.g., decentralization. Because we are in three locations, I used to always have to travel somewhere to configure various things and could do everything only that way. So, it saves time in this case. It is a very good solution.

I can reach people now that I couldn't have reached previously. We are saving about 25 percent in time.

We buy consulting fees from Software Factory, then we pay extra for it.

We did not evaluate other options. Our service provider back then recommended KACE Systems Management as a very good product.

My colleague who knows other software distribution systems says this solution does not rank equally with others. He would move them to third place. I am very happy with the environment. If my colleague could decide, he wouldn't buy this solution. He would buy different software.

Spend more money on training so you can use the product to its fullest.

There is always increased usage during this coronavirus time. Almost every day, we have an increase or decrease in hardware as most people are now changing their laptops for desktop computers.

I would rate KACE somewhere near a nine (out of 10) because I am missing more control in it. 

Foreign Language: (German)

Was ist unser primärer Anwendungsfall?

Jeden Tag machen wir das Patchen und Aktualisieren von Windows Drivers. Außerdem müssen wir regelmäßig neue Softwarepakete von Firewall oder VPN bis zu Adobe-Software aktivieren. Wir verwenden es dann sehr oft und sehr gern, um Dateien aus Verzeichnissen auszutauschen, damit die Leute nicht fragen "Bitte tauschen Sie die Vorlagen gegen die Vorlagen." Wir tun dies lieber über das System, indem wir verschiedene Dokumente darin austauschen.

Wir führen auch Inventarisierung durch, um zu sehen, ob:

• Die Maschine funktioniert einwandfrei, z.B. Hardwarelast.
• Die Systeme werden regelmäßig heruntergefahren.
• Ein Monitor ist auf einem Laptop zugeklappt.

Genau so funktioniert das System.

Wir verwenden derzeit die K1000-Appliance. Wir haben es jetzt als Stand-alone und wir nutzen sie zur Softwareverteilung.

Wir haben auch noch eine Hardware-Appliance. Es ist nicht schlechter als die letzte Auslieferung von der Hardware-Appliance. Wir haben noch keine virtualisierte, aber wir gehen in diese Richtung.


Wie hat es meiner Organisation geholfen?

Quest KACE Systems Management bietet eine zentrale Schnittstelle mit allem, was wir für die Endpoint Management aller Geräte benötigen. Es ermöglicht uns, mehrere Prozesse parallel auszuführen, d.h. Parallelisierung. Wir konnten vielen Benutzern auf einmal viel zuordnen. Wenn also irgendwie ein kritischer Fehler vorliegt oder eine Software nicht richtig funktioniert, dann bemerken wir dies meistens bei einem Benutzer, können die Wirkung/das Ergebnis jedoch sofort auf alle übertragen. Das hat sehr gut funktioniert, weil wir keine interne Umgebung bei uns am arbeiten haben, deswegen ist es wirklich sehr gute Sache, dass wir viel erreichen und gleichzeitig verteilen können.

Als wir schnell von Office 365 auf eine Office-Lokalinstallation umsteigen mussten, die wir früher hatten, wurden die Leute von nun an von der Office 365-Lizenz abgeschnitten, weil wir nicht mehr dafür bezahlt haben. Dann bekamen wir einen Anruf von einer Abteilung: „Unsere 12 Mitarbeiter brauchen unsere Hochschul-Office-Anwendung, die wir benutzt haben.“ Das ließ sich sehr schnell umsetzen. Die Leute mussten nicht zu uns kommen, wir mussten nicht hingehen, und es wurde eben alles sozusagen ohne dass man sich sieht erledigt. Das war sehr gut und flexibel, also kein Aufwand.

Die Umwelt lohnt sich beim Ausrollen von neuer Software und wir testen sie auf diesem Gerät.

Wir nutzen das System jeden Tag, weil es immer etwas gibt, was jemand braucht. Oder wenn wir nur reingucken, ob das System funktioniert.


Was haben wir am wertvollsten gefunden?

Ich habe durch diesen Agenten einen „verlängerten Arm“, wo ich sehr schnell Sachen verteilen kann, auch an Leute, die im Home-Office sind und Software benötigen. Ich kann es zuordnen. Dann in kurzer Zeit, wenn das Internet für die Gegenstelle funktioniert, ist alles schnellstmöglich verfügbar. Logischerweise ist dies für mich eine der tollsten und bequemsten Sache.

In Hinsicht auf Aktualisieren und Anpassen ist die Lösung sehr gut und sehr flexibel.

Für das automatisierte Patch-Management ist es großartig. Wir prüfen nur, ob alles funktioniert und das wird automatisch erledigt dann. Daher bietet es eine große Hilfe.


Was kann verbessert werden?

Ich brauche noch eine bessere Kommunikation darüber, welche Prozesse noch einstehen und welche Prozesse gerade bearbeitet werden. Nach Angaben des Ersteinrichtungsdienstleisters gibt es bei KACE noch keine wirkliche Verwaltung oder Übersicht, wo man wirklich 100 Prozent sehen kann, was gerade läuft und was als nächstes bearbeitet wird und ob ich den Gesamtprozess beeinflussen kann. Es könnte mir wirklich helfen, wenn ich wüsste, z.B. genau in 10 Minuten wird mein Kollege mit dieser oder jener Software versorgt. Das habe ich noch nicht gefunden. Wenn sie das hinzufügen könnten, wäre das toll. Es fehlt noch und ich habe so etwas noch nicht gefunden.

Manchmal, wenn Sie jemanden falsch kopieren und einfügen, können Sie auch die falsche Software zuweisen und das kann dann zu Problemen führen, wenn Sie die falsche Software verteilen.


Wie lange habe ich die Lösung verwendet?

Wir verwenden diese Lösung seit 2017.


Was halte ich von der Stabilität der Lösung?

Die Stabilität ist unverwüstlich.


Was denke ich über die Skalierbarkeit der Lösung?

Wir haben nicht viel skaliert. Wir haben keine volle Auslastung und haben weniger als 300 Clients, und die Skalierbarkeit funktioniert gut.

Wir haben zwei Administratoren und 140 Benutzer. Einige Benutzer haben zwei PCs, aber die meisten haben nur einen PC.


Wie sind Kundenservice und technischer Support?

Der technische Support hat diese Seiten, Unterseiten etc. Sollten wir etwas im Internet nicht finden, dann wenden wir uns an die Software Factory GmbH.


Welche Lösung habe ich vorher verwendet und warum habe ich gewechselt?

Wir haben vorher keine andere Lösung verwendet. Wir haben nur Erfahrung mit KACE Systems Management.


Wie war die Ersteinrichtung?

Der Einsatz dauerte ca. drei Wochen. Es ist ein Service, daher dauert es manchmal eine Weile. Die fragmentierte Architektur, die wir haben, besteht aus einer Vielzahl von PC-Systemen, was ein weiteres Problem war. Wir haben noch verschiedene Standorte. Um sie neu zu inventarisieren und einen Überblick darüber zu bekommen, was überall fehlt, brauchten wir eine Strategie, um die gesamte Software baugleich zu machen, auch wenn die Hardware unterschiedlich war. Dies lässt sich mit dieser Software gut abbilden.


Was ist mit dem Implementierungsteam?

Wir haben die Ersteinrichtung von einem Dienstleister durchführen lassen, was ok war. Allerdings gab es noch viele Fragezeichen. Eine andere Firma hat uns später wirklich geholfen. Wir haben auch einen anderen Dienstleister eingesetzt, der früher als Techniker bei Quest tätig war, dann selbstständig gemacht hat. Wir sind mit ihm sehr weit gekommen und das hat uns einen weiteren Schub gegeben, so dass wir mehr Produktivität erreicht haben, nachdem er uns ein paar Tricks gezeigt hat.

Wir haben es jetzt mit der Software Factory GmbH aus Nürtingen zu tun. Sie sind sehr professionell und haben eine Lösung für alle unsere Probleme. Kostet zwar extra, aber die sind wirklich sehr auf Zack. Sie sind viel besser als der Anbieter für die Ersteinrichtung.

Intern waren zwei von uns für den Einsatz erforderlich, ein Kollege und ich.


Was war unser ROI?

Es hat sich definitiv sehr gut bewährt. Seit mindestens einem Jahr sind alle Veränderungen, wie z.B. die Dezentralisierung, aufgefallen. Da wir an drei Standorten sind, musste ich früher immer irgendwo hinfahren, um verschiedene Dinge zu konfigurieren und konnte alles nur so machen. Das spart in diesem Fall also Zeit. Es ist eine sehr gute Lösung.

Ich kann jetzt Leute erreichen, die ich vorher nicht erreichen konnte. Wir sparen rund 25% Zeit.


Wie sind meine Erfahrungen mit Preisen, Einrichtungskosten und Lizenzierung?

Wir zahlen Beratungshonorare von der Software Factory, dann zahlen wir extra dafür.


Welche anderen Lösungen habe ich in Betracht gezogen?

Andere Optionen haben wir nicht in Betracht gezogen. Unser Dienstleister hat KACE Systems Management damals als sehr gutes Produkt empfohlen.

Mein Kollege, der andere Softwareverteilungssysteme kennt, sagt, dass diese Lösung nicht gleichrangig mit anderen ist. Er würde sie auf Platz 3 schieben. Ich bin sehr zufrieden mit der Umgebung. Wenn mein Kollege entscheiden könnte, würde er diese Lösung nicht kaufen. Er würde andere Software kaufen.


Welche anderen Ratschläge habe ich?

Geben Sie mehr Geld für Schulung aus, damit Sie das Produkt vollgablich nutzen können.

Es gibt immer eine erhöhte Nutzung während dieser Corona-Zeit. Fast jeden Tag haben wir eine Zunahme oder Abnahme der Hardware, da die meisten Leute jetzt ihre Laptops gegen Desktop-Computer austauschen.

Ich würde KACE irgendwo in der Nähe einer Neun (von 10) bewerten, weil mir mehr Kontrolle fehlt.


Welche Version dieser Lösung verwenden Sie derzeit?

K1000

We use the solution for managing our fleet of approximately 1,500 devices. This includes Windows patch management and version control, scripting deployment to workstations as well as managed software deployment to groups and individuals. 

It is also used for creating reports for software use, patching records, and auditing the workstation fleet. We like being able to create custom reports based on any number of internal fields, and the ability to have custom inventory fields too. With it, we can deploy complex software solutions in a controlled manner.

Quest KACE has provided us with a managed environment that surpasses all expectations. The information available via KACE is up to date, critical to our normal operations, and has become the go-to tool of our IT teams for extended support. In our classroom environment, it has saved a lot of time in software deployment.

Having a full report of our estate, which version of Windows is running, whether the device is encrypted, is running the latest AV solution, when the support runs until, et cetera, has been vital. It allows us to maintain a service desk that has all of the most up-to-date information on all workstations.

Full auditing of the Windows estate is the most valuable aspect for us. We are aware this solution can do Apple and Linux-based integration too, however, we simply haven't had the time to explore this so far. 

The managed software deployment is great. We like ensuring a single managed solution can be deployed - rather than having to do a custom install, which is time consuming and error-prone.

Scripting deployment for configuration, removal, or reporting is helpful as well. This has allowed us to ensure we are currently using our workstations and they are correctly implemented for end-users.

The solution needs to add:

• Automated software deployment, rather than manually having to create uninstall packages and running this against a number of manually entered devices. 
• Driver feeds for devices outside of Dell ownership.
• The ability to push out managed feature updates from Microsoft in a more seamless way.
• The ability to integrate quickly with workstations to push out tests/patches.

There is a Resolve issue whereby some workstations no longer report/check-in after a recent update. This is now an open case with Quest Support.

There is a Resolve issue whereby we cannot migrate between VMware hosts.

We have been Quest KACE customers for approximately five years now. We have used the K1000 for device management and K2000 for asset deployment.

The stability is great - it simply never fails!

Scalability is very good. We've been able to expand several times, expanding the number of devices covered with ease. We have also utilised the cloud-based MDM solutions, however, this isn't something we've maintained a licence for due to internal staffing resources.

We have successfully moved away from a hardware-based solution and moved into a virtualised VMWare estate. This has allowed us to integrate the backups of this product within our organisational estate, plus allowed us to migrate the services across various parts of our network, without having to physically change the location of the hardware. This is a great solution for us and removed any hardware blockers that were in place previously and to take advantage of the virtualisation advantages without any major changes to our client estate.

We previously used Acronis to do very basic duplicate systems.

The solution is very easy to get set up and push out clients to our workstations for deployment. It is now used as our only solution to image and deploy workstations!

As with many platforms, the more you can put in, the better the solution will function. The time taken to deploy complex packages can be time-consuming, but this is outside of the KACE environment directly.

Licencing has been quite simple throughout. We have successfully expanded our support numerous times, including additional features and devices.

We did not previously evaluate other options. 

We use KACE SMA and KACE SDA. We use all but a few of the features that both appliances have to offer. We are in a VM environment with the KACE SMA, however, we use a physical appliance for the SDA.  

The ticketing system, real-time inventory, patching, software license, and imaging are commonly used. We also use this for scans - with this and aggressive patching we have been able to pass several outside pen tests. Scripts are used to push out software so the clients don't have to wait and it takes the pressure off of the technicians.

The solution has helped with real-time inventory, advertising and pushing out software, patching, and oval and SCAP scans. We can get the majority of what we need with this product and do not have to spend money on something else. 

In terms of imaging, we don't have to have an image for every model of Dell computer we have due to drivers. The SDA pulls and installs the correct drivers for each model. 

Post-installation tasks make it easy to add or remove software to images without having to download, change the image, and upload them back onto the server.

The streamlined processes and procedures are great. Automating processes is helpful. Patching is huge as it's set it and forget it for the most part. Real-time software and hardware inventory is great. 

We can track software licenses in one place. We can have a ticketing system and be able to create processes so that when one ticket closes, the next one is assigned in the process. 

Being able to add and remove software from images without having to recreate the image every time is helpful. 

Being able to create labels to group items we want to keep track of makes it very easy for us. 

The notifications (up to 60 days pre-renewal for contracts) are a great way to know when a renewal is coming instead of finding out last minute. 

The ticketing system works for us and we like using it. That said, some processes that seem like they should be simple either can't be done or are cumbersome in setting them up. I managed a different ticketing system previously and we were able to have certain questions come up for the client based on the category picked. It was easy to set up and use. Being able to auto have a KB article with questions needed for certain categories easily auto inserted into the ticket based on category was also an option. 

There may be a good reason why some things are not easily able to be done, yet it needs work to compete with some of the other ticketing systems out there now.

I've been using the solution since 2010.

We had a few different solutions. We had an access database we were using for ticketing and inventory, and patching was manual. Imaging was with a product that required an image for every different model of computer we had.

The setup was straightforward.

We worked with a vendor team, and they were excellent.

We can do more with less staff. And, unfortunately, due to budgeting, we now have fewer staff.

The cost is reasonable. I would definitely take the JumpStart training that is offered as it helps to get you started.

We evaluated an in-house system, School Dude, and a ticketing system that is no longer in business.

Our primary use case for using this product is as a ticketing solution. 

This product made the job easy to do without having to go put hands on the machines.

I love the integration with Bomgar. It really helped a lot.

The way we were set up, we had multiple campuses across multiple counties. And even with just our downtown campus, you're looking at fifteen different buildings, a hundred different classrooms, and offices everywhere. So for us, the ability to push an image to a machine, wake that image up, and just blast a new image to a computer without even having to touch it, and then push the software to that machine. This just made things so much more convenient for us and so much more efficient than having to go find that machine, pull that machine out, take it back to the shop, and repair it from there.

Just having those tools made the job so much easier and so much more efficient. But they really just don't need the people that they used to have ten years ago.

The biggest problem we had with Quest KACE, with the K2000, imaging becomes a problem when you start to try to go beyond doing more than thirty or forty machines at a time. We initially tried to do that virtually and it just, it wouldn't work.

But that one physical appliance was enough to get us through and once we got the one K2000 physical appliance that was plenty to handle imaging whatever we needed. As far as the K1000, our original purchase was underpowered. We really didn't have the box we should have had for over three thousand nodes, but when it came time to upgrade that box, we got a box that was much more in tune to having over three thousand nodes on that system and it's been doing fantastic for almost three years now. We haven't had any problems.

Overall, the stability has been pretty good. We we were using the Quest KACE on the front end, and then we had a Samba share on the back end that we were using for storage for all of our imaging and for all of our software. There were some issues with how we were doing things on the Samba side versus how they were connecting that to the K box, so there was some issues, but it wasn't anything that was Quest KACE's problem and Quest KACE has done everything that could possibly do to help us work the bugs out. But ultimately it was mismanagement on our end of people not knowing what they were doing and how they were supposed to be administrating the box.

It was really just as simple as buying the licenses as we needed it. As far as man power goes when I first started there, there was four technicians doing roughly 3,300 machines.

They were always fantastic. We dealt mainly with one tech support representative, and he was always spot on. We had some issues early on that I guess they didn't anticipate, and we worked closely with Dell, when Dell owned it, to work out some bugs that were huge for Dell. And because we were early adapters, we were kind of like Beta testers for some things that they eventually got a chance to role out to everybody else.  At first, USB imaging didn't work and then we worked with tech support for a while to get that ironed out and once we got that taken care of, it all got rolled into a new update and then it worked. The tech support staff was just phenomenal.

When I first started at my office, everything was done through Novell. At that time, we didn't have the ease of pushing software and remoting into the devices as we did with Quest KACE.

We also used another solution that wasn't exactly secure - it was touted as a secure solution but there had been some issues. It had been hacked before. And we were starting to get into an area where we were having outside vendors ask us for access into our network, so that started to become a concern for us.

It was easy. The team of the company came in, and helped us set it up.

The initial implementation was through Dell. They were excellent.

If the professionals make a recommendation, consider it. Really, seriously, consider it, because there were some things we didn't do with Quest KACE that we should have, and it  really hurt us in the long run. Even going back as far as active directory, there was some things that we didn't do with active directory that we were told by Microsoft engineers that this is what you need to do with active directory. Six, seven years later, we're looking at a network of two hundred almost VLANs. So, implementation of KACE was fairly smooth for us. If we would have done things exactly the way they would have told us to, which would have included flattening the network, like the Microsoft engineer told us to do when we went to active directory, things would have been even more smooth. We wouldn't have problems with wake-on-LAN, we wouldn't have problems with our scripting, we wouldn't have had problems with our SAMBA share. It would have been so much easier down the road to listen to the professionals and do exactly what they suggested we do, but because we had people who thought they were smarter than the professionals, we had some pains with implementation.

Nothing against Microsoft, but everybody I talk to, who has ever dealt with Microsoft SCCM, has ever dealt with Quest KACE. And, in comparison, it's just more user friendly, easier to integrate and it's just such a more elegant solution. It may be more expensive, but you get what you pay for, you know?

We also looked at Spiceworks. A lot of people on our team liked it because it is a free product. They were still working on their whole footing, trying to get everything worked out with that. But with Quest KACE, t had so many other things to offer. You know, with the ability to include the K2000 and K3000, which interested us.

The only hiccups we had were some power issues, where the box was a little under-powered early on. But, as far as having instances of bugs, or anything like that, the box ran great, as long as we left everything alone.

I primarily use this solution to deploy software, to deploy patches, to deploy drivers, and to do software package updates. I'm not using all of the functionality that it has but another thing I do is push out Windows upgrades. Rather than doing them all at once, I push out the feature updates.

It is set up on a VMware virtual machine.

When I first joined the company, the director and the other help desk associates were going to each computer to do updates and patches. At the time, we had 274 computers in the building, and I felt that there had to be a way that it could be automated.

One of the problems is that in order to get the updates completed, we were coming in on Saturday, which meant that they had to pay us overtime to get things done. When I started digging, I realized that you could use the SDA for automatic deployments and things of that nature. I was able to configure it to do what I needed to do.

I set up certain floors to be deployed during the night. The schedule was to complete 30 or 40 computers a night until they were finished. Then, when my director came to ask how the progress was, and I told him that the job was complete, he was shocked. It used to take them between two and three months to do the same thing.

Especially with the pandemic, where one day I have an employee in the office to work but the next day I don't, Quest has been instrumental in completing these tasks. With a couple of mouse clicks, I can get the job done.

The single pane of glass for managing devices is helpful because it allows me to perform updates and control things without having to disturb the doctors or nurses. The update process is transparent to them.

This solution provides us with IT asset management, software asset management, compliance, and patch management. This combination of features is important to us because we are able to perform all of these tasks without interrupting anybody's workflow. The most important thing is that we don't want to interrupt a doctor when they are with a patient and without Quest, if something critical needs to happen then I might have to wait to get into the office. During this time, the system could be vulnerable. Using a system with all of these capabilities and being able to use it after hours is key in IT.

The system makes it easy to update and configure things in our environment. If you get stuck then there are well-thought-out KBs available, and you can also ask people in the community. Personally, it has made my job easier. It's not as hands-on and it's more auditable.

Quest has absolutely saved me time, which I would estimate to be between two and three hours a day, easily. With the automations, things flow the way I need them to flow. When Windows updates come out on Tuesday, rather than deploying them on the weekend, we deploy them to all of the computers every Thursday. Because there is no more work to do on the weekends, it saves the company money, especially in overtime.

The automation helps on both ends. For one, you don't have the labor costs that you have to pay for in overtime. A lot of the things that we used to have to do by hand, I can now automate through the system. Then, at the same time, the work is getting done at the time you set it for. There is no "people factor", where they may not move as fast as expected. It happens, for example, that as people get tired, they get slower. Automation greatly diminishes the time that we spend going from one desk to the next. When I do it with the click of a button, everything is going to be done at that exact moment. 

The most valuable feature is the ability to deploy Windows features during off-hours times, through all of the machines at one time versus trying to systematically do them either by area or by floor. I can set one floor to automatically update on Thursday, the next one on Friday, the next one on Saturday, and so forth until I get everybody done. Doing it this way doesn't negatively impact my productivity, nor does it affect anybody else. Updates can be done in the middle of the night.

Using this system is pretty straightforward. When I first joined the company and started using it, a lot of it for me was reading the knowledge base to find out what it was capable of doing. Originally, the only things that they were using it for were popups and ticketing. When I took over, I started the software deployment, driver deployment, updates, and those types of things.

I still don't use the system to its full potential but I now use at least 90% of it.

The systems deployment appliance (SDA) is one of the main features that I use on a regular basis. A lot of the time, I won't do a feature update using the software deployment function. Instead, I will build an image on the SDA. That way, as I need to deploy it, I can do so at will. It gives me the ability to deploy to 10 machines at a time, which means that I can complete most of the stuff that I need to do over a period of time. It's as easy as can be; I'd say that it's as simple as cutting butter.

I would like to be able to deploy an image to more than 10 computers at a time. When we have to do a rebuild on these machines, although it is rare, I would like to be able to do more than 10 at a time. With the current limit, it slows me down because I have to set up 10, then the next 10, and so forth.

My client started working with Quest KACE Systems Management in 2014 but personally, I began using it in 2016.

I have not had a problem other than just recently when I started having issues with a library and a few of the files being corrupted. But, whenever I've called technical support, they've been generally on the spot for getting things fixed, and getting me back up and running. As such, it hasn't really affected my environment much.

My downtime, the first time they had to fix it, was about a day. The most recent time, I wasn't down but I could tell that they were working. Overall, the issue with corrupted files hasn't affected me.

In an environment like this, where you can't afford to be down, it is critical that you have premium support. It is definitely a factor that should be considered when purchasing other products.

The scalability is fantastic. You can add to it and there are lots of things that you can do but it's overkill for us at the clinic.

There were two of us administering the solution and there are about 274 endpoints. Since the other administrator recently quit, it is only me doing the job at the moment.

The technical support people are awesome. In the beginning, I dealt with a few of them that seemed like they just didn't want to be there, so I just would hang up with those people. Lately, in the last couple of years, I have not had any problems. Everybody I've dealt with has been happy to be on the call and glad to help.

We use Quest premium support and the biggest thing that stands out to me is that it's available 24-7. Sometimes, things will happen outside of the eight to five range and when it does, I need that ability to be able to call them and get someone on the phone. That's the major value for us.

There are other pluses with premium support but given that we have moved it from a physical appliance to a virtual appliance, right now it's just the 24-7 support that is important for us. Having the premier support had added value to our overall investment with Quest. It's worth what you pay for it because they are literally there. In a mission-critical system, such as a clinic, you can't have wait periods of two to four hours before technical support starts working on the problem. When a patient system or a lab system is down, you can't wait around for somebody to figure out if and when they're going to call you.

They did not use a similar solution prior to Quest KACE.

When the person who set up Quest first joined the company, he wanted to modernize things. People were leaving post-it notes or written notes on everyone's desk, and he wanted to implement a system to improve the clinic's way of doing business.

When he implemented the system, he implemented it with Active Directory to make it more fluent so that when something happened, they didn't have to go from one desk to the next desk.

I was not with the company for the initial setup, although I have spoken with people about it. What I have been told is that when the system was first purchased, they paid for support to help walk them through the setup. I have not heard that it was difficult but I do recall that it took some time to get everything configured.

We purchased KACE through a reseller, Netrix.

It was deployed in-house by my former director, with assistance from technical support. At that time, it was Dell technical support.

One person is enough for maintenance because it is not hard at all. Click a button and it's updated. You also have to make sure that your host is updated. It's pretty simple.

If I was on the outside looking in, where I had never dealt with it before, based on everything it does I would think it is quite complicated to operate and keep functional. It's definitely the opposite of that.

Our clinic's ROI is a saving in time and money. Prior to having this solution, we were sometimes in a position where there would be three of us working on it, and we'll all be working overtime. When you take that away, it is a big saving. For example, I have been here for five years and if I were putting in two weekends a month over the entire time, it is a lot of money that has been saved.

In terms of pricing and licensing, my advice is that you need to assess what you need and then look at what they offer. It's easy to get caught up in the things that you want, but don't really need. You really want to assess what's best for your environment and to plan it very well.

Ideally, if there is a project manager available then they should help with the planning because you want your end goal to be in line with what you are trying to do. A reseller will try to sell you everything under the sun, so it's important that you plan well and know what is required in your environment. 

I don't believe that the company evaluated other products. My understanding is that the reseller we used made the recommendation and we went with that.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to take your time. I suggest doing it on a Saturday but if your production is in an area that can't be down because you have to sync with Active Directory, then choose a time where you won't interfere with anybody's ability to work. It may require rebooting your DC and that is something that can't be done without affecting people in your environment.

For organizations running two DCs, it probably won't affect them at all. However, in our situation, where we use single sign-on, we really want to make sure that any downtime doesn't affect our users.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this solution is to read the knowledge base.

We had a transitionary period where I was taking over and my director was leaving. The system needed to be updated but part of the system was not paid for. Once it was updated, I found out that they no longer support physical servers, so we had to move it to a VM. That was a bit cumbersome but the important part that I learned is to keep your licenses current. If they expire because you are behind in paying for them then it puts you in a more difficult position when you renew.

Overall, this is a good solution that saves us time and effort. Other than the limit of having only 10 images deployed at once, I don't see anything else that I want to improve. I control everything through VMware and I'm pretty good at it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.