Moving away from HAM Pro

[VernYerem]

Good afternoon!

My org has initially thought HAM and SAM would be useful. It doesn't seem like a cost benefit analysis was done on ITSM Asset management vs HAM&SAM, and we assumed that there were no asset management capabilities with ITSM. Our asset count doubled in the last year, and its licensing cost has us looking at it now.

I'm finding that most of HAM Pro are configurations rather than actual functionality. There is some functionality I do find, like model normalization. No matter how I configure a solution like that, I'll never have the amount of data provided by the normalization feature. Looking for what else we'd lose by moving away from HAM Pro. Are there any tables specific to HAM Pro that we'd lose access too? Other than HAMP OOTB Flows, Dashboards, Workspaces, recommendations, what else would be lost? 

[Michael Scognam]

Hi Ryan,

The team is looking into creating a similar infographic for EAM - check back in with your account team next year! In the meantime, the attached should help articulate the key differentiating factors for EAM. 

[VernYerem]

@Michael Scognam Thanks for the response! You've hit the nail on the head, our planning was inadequate so our asset count more than doubled. I understand most of the value of HAM as I am working towards my CIS-HAM. We were actually looking at using the exclude feature, but it brought up the question "Well, how are we using this at all?". I couldn't seem to find much that we actually use. Normalization has been hit or miss in our environment, only a few of our asset managers use the workspace as they find the tables far less confusing. Why was the workspace confusing? Because it has a lot of stuff that they don't actually do, hinting that we just may not be mature enough for these features. They work in the table and build specific dashboards for what they need to see. Even our implementation partner avoided some of the HAM flows and build flows specific to our processes. They did this because we've been told for the past year to use Service Operations Workspace, so that's what we told our users. Come to find out that the consume asset task doesn't show up there, this was unsat for us. The partner decided to move the actions into SCTASK and advised us to do the same, so we didn't have to continually maintain the SOW. 

Really, I think the biggest problem is that it was unclear to us at the time that ITSM has basic asset management. Leading us to think that HAM was the only option for hardware asset management.