The interface could be better. It's hard to integrate as there's no interface in place for the solutions to interface with each other. It's a bit of a bottleneck. There are other options on the market that make it easier to integrate with other products and get data to flow between them. The customization process is not easy. Customer support often lacks experience.
Micro Focus Service Manager is not very great. It would be better if it had more features. When it comes to features, BMC tops the chart. When it comes to usage, people use BMC more.
Information Technology Service Manager & Technology Integration DevOps at Djezzy
Real User
2022-04-06T10:58:00Z
Apr 6, 2022
I don't see anything lacking. They have a very complete solution. They have all modules needed, including portfolio, procurement, financial, and purchasing modules.
Head of Strategic Ecosystems and Accounts for Pedab Group at Pedab
Reseller
2022-02-09T18:48:34Z
Feb 9, 2022
I think the best recommendation to Micro Focus would be to increase awareness and the marketing for this product. I'm not really sure how intensely they are developing this solution during the last year, but I'm assuming that this is still a strategic offering for Micro Focus. Therefore, I think they should be focusing on creating awareness and increasing marketing knowledge for this product. I think the technology is more than capable, but I think many customers don't know or are not considering it. That's my gut feeling. Something that could be improved is simplifying the area and providing a best practice insulation. Having a modern interface is always important.
Learn what your peers think about OpenText Service Manager [EOL]. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: November 2024.
Principal at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
2020-10-11T08:58:05Z
Oct 11, 2020
We aren't able to take emails that come in and turn them into tickets, especially when it comes to attachments. When an email has an attachment, like a screenshot, it is a very cumbersome process, and it does not work very well. I shouldn't have been paying technicians to cut and paste attachments from an email into the ticketing system. It should do that automatically. Other solutions are able to do that. This is something that needs to be improved. Test manager and knowledge management areas are probably amongst the worst parts of this solution. We try to use this solution for knowledge management, but it is not user-friendly. Therefore, it has limited ROI as you need to spend time to try and fully capitalize on the knowledge management system.
Co-Founder and Director of Services at Continuous Software at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 10
2020-01-26T09:26:00Z
Jan 26, 2020
The reporting is not very strong. it can be improved. Customers need to combine different data from different sources to the same report, but it's quite difficult to do. You have to do it with many different versions. With the new version moving toward the codeless configuration is good, but it's losing flexibility. There should be a larger selection of configuration tools made available to allow some parts of coding to be codeless and others allowing you to make some coding for business rules and workflow. You need some coding ability and functionality. It is difficult to find a customer who doesn't want to make any kind of customizations. It comes with many limits making it very difficult especially with on-premises customers. I like the support but they could improve. In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to reporting and the dashboard. Also, I would like to see the configuration simplified without losing flexibility. The best model that I have seen was with PPM where you can provide some coding with flexibility allowing you to configure to the customer's requirements but having limitations at the same time, but they are meaningful limitations that are easy to negotiate with the customer explaining that it is to prevent it from being a completely customized tool that will be very difficult to maintain, upgrade and update the versions. I would like to see a balance between the two. Flexibility plus simplifying the configuration.
On certain implementations, it can be very difficult to customize and then very difficult to maintain as well. This is because it is quite a complex solution. Users need to be very conscious of how they set up the solution in terms of how they propose and ultimately set up the end terminals to make it easy to use for end-users. The setup on past projects had been quite difficult for two reasons: the first is that it's quite a technical tool so it takes a lot to set it up and customize it. The other issue is that there's a lack of tool experts, which makes it even more difficult to set everything up properly. The solution does not interface well with other products and is difficult to implement. The entire system needs to be redesigned to help improve overall usability and design. When you synchronize or perform a task for event management from external tools, you have issues of performance because synchronization can take four or six hours before there is a solution. It's very hard for the end-user to customize items, but if they were able to, it would be easier for them to arrange specific views and reports that would be more relevant to them.
![OpenText Service Manager [EOL] Logo](https://images.peerspot.com/image/upload/c_scale,f_auto,q_auto,w_40/durwsc3z47nd2vx5dltpkmpv49gk.jpg){kind=small}
The product's technical support services need improvement.
Service Manager would be improved with access to automation.
The interface could be better. It's hard to integrate as there's no interface in place for the solutions to interface with each other. It's a bit of a bottleneck. There are other options on the market that make it easier to integrate with other products and get data to flow between them. The customization process is not easy. Customer support often lacks experience.
Micro Focus Service Manager is not very great. It would be better if it had more features. When it comes to features, BMC tops the chart. When it comes to usage, people use BMC more.
I don't see anything lacking. They have a very complete solution. They have all modules needed, including portfolio, procurement, financial, and purchasing modules.
I think the best recommendation to Micro Focus would be to increase awareness and the marketing for this product. I'm not really sure how intensely they are developing this solution during the last year, but I'm assuming that this is still a strategic offering for Micro Focus. Therefore, I think they should be focusing on creating awareness and increasing marketing knowledge for this product. I think the technology is more than capable, but I think many customers don't know or are not considering it. That's my gut feeling. Something that could be improved is simplifying the area and providing a best practice insulation. Having a modern interface is always important.
We aren't able to take emails that come in and turn them into tickets, especially when it comes to attachments. When an email has an attachment, like a screenshot, it is a very cumbersome process, and it does not work very well. I shouldn't have been paying technicians to cut and paste attachments from an email into the ticketing system. It should do that automatically. Other solutions are able to do that. This is something that needs to be improved. Test manager and knowledge management areas are probably amongst the worst parts of this solution. We try to use this solution for knowledge management, but it is not user-friendly. Therefore, it has limited ROI as you need to spend time to try and fully capitalize on the knowledge management system.
The reporting is not very strong. it can be improved. Customers need to combine different data from different sources to the same report, but it's quite difficult to do. You have to do it with many different versions. With the new version moving toward the codeless configuration is good, but it's losing flexibility. There should be a larger selection of configuration tools made available to allow some parts of coding to be codeless and others allowing you to make some coding for business rules and workflow. You need some coding ability and functionality. It is difficult to find a customer who doesn't want to make any kind of customizations. It comes with many limits making it very difficult especially with on-premises customers. I like the support but they could improve. In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to reporting and the dashboard. Also, I would like to see the configuration simplified without losing flexibility. The best model that I have seen was with PPM where you can provide some coding with flexibility allowing you to configure to the customer's requirements but having limitations at the same time, but they are meaningful limitations that are easy to negotiate with the customer explaining that it is to prevent it from being a completely customized tool that will be very difficult to maintain, upgrade and update the versions. I would like to see a balance between the two. Flexibility plus simplifying the configuration.
On certain implementations, it can be very difficult to customize and then very difficult to maintain as well. This is because it is quite a complex solution. Users need to be very conscious of how they set up the solution in terms of how they propose and ultimately set up the end terminals to make it easy to use for end-users. The setup on past projects had been quite difficult for two reasons: the first is that it's quite a technical tool so it takes a lot to set it up and customize it. The other issue is that there's a lack of tool experts, which makes it even more difficult to set everything up properly. The solution does not interface well with other products and is difficult to implement. The entire system needs to be redesigned to help improve overall usability and design. When you synchronize or perform a task for event management from external tools, you have issues of performance because synchronization can take four or six hours before there is a solution. It's very hard for the end-user to customize items, but if they were able to, it would be easier for them to arrange specific views and reports that would be more relevant to them.
Their end-user interface and technical support features could be improved.
* Pure cloud-based native functionality is lacking. * It lacks templates to support out-of-the-box best practices.