If you were talking to someone whose organization is considering ITRS Geneos, what would you say?
How would you rate it and why? Any other tips or advice?
Follow the standards that ITRS provides. Their support is second to none and they will always guide you in the right direction. At any given time we have at least 20 users connected to all the gateways, and that's not everybody because we're a global company. It's when the offices are open that people connect to it. They are the NOC users. They're all in Manila and they watch the screens and make sure if anything is alarming that a ticket is opened for the correct group. We have some of our system engineers who are looking at it for server-level errors. We also have production engineers who are responsible for the trading applications. They are also looking at the consoles to see if anything's alerting.
One of the really distinguishing and good things about ITRS is that it is a small company and they are extremely helpful. They have been extraordinary to work with in every respect: true customer service and a genuine care about the customer, which is not what I normally find from monitoring-tool vendors. It's a tremendous tool and the company is so easy to work with that even if you just want to try it out or see what it can do for you, they make it very easy to do that in a no-risk situation.
It's a very good tool to use and everybody is very happy with it. We are looking forward to more features. Not all the data that is being captured is currently being stored completely in the right ITRS dashboards. There is a project in progress for collecting the data and storing it for capacity and numbers purposes. We have seen a demo related to data collection for capacity planning and it looks very useful, as do the capacity reports. But that project is still in the roll-out phase and will take a couple of months. The next feature we are looking at rolling out is the integration with the ticketing tool. That is planned for the next four to five months. We are now looking at integrating small things into ITRS. If any incident or issue comes up, the first thing we ask is, "Why isn't it part of ITRS? How can this be integrated into ITRS?" Any small activities, challenges, or issues which we foresee in our day-to-day operations, we look at how we can implement them in ITRS. This is a more proactive kind of approach. So it's not only for current alerts but we can also implement things for the future in ITRS. I would rate ITRS at nine out of ten. Everything is being monitored by ITRS. The reason it's not a ten is that, because it's an integral part of all our operations, if anything fails in ITRS, we're not sure where we would go. We are almost over-dependent on ITRS.
It would be sensible to use experienced staff. Although I say you can get up and running with little or zero experience, and then go on the journey yourself, if you want to get up and running quicker, then use experienced staff. It's not essential, you don't have to, but if you have a choice... I don't necessarily mean experienced in terms of the product itself, Geneos. Use staff that has higher experience in production support and in seeing problems first-hand. They're the ones who will know what to set up and monitor. Use someone who has real-world experience in seeing what those problems are, and maybe even supporting it themselves. They need to be at the call face or inside of the call face, and the daily problems. Don't use a developer in the back room who just gets a problem ticket every so often, but someone who is involved in the firefighting so they can see the real problems that you're trying to solve. Those real problems include having issues being picked up in a timely manner, and what's needed to quickly focus on where the problem is. Someone in a back room who receives a problem ticket isn't going to understand all the processes that have been followed to raise that problem ticket. You need someone at the call face who sees all the arguments between the different teams, each one saying, "It's not my problem." They need to see people scratching their heads and thinking, "I don't know where this comes from." All those real-world problems. To sum it up, use someone who has real-world experience in dealing with production support first-hand, or in direct sight of first-hand. I feel that quite strongly. In our organization, the solution is extensively used, and we're happy with that coverage. It's used across seven business divisions. We have a complex licensing arrangement. The number of users is in the hundreds. We don't have plans to increase nor demise. It's stable, it's serving a purpose, and we're happy with it. It's always dangerous to give a solution a ten out of ten, because it can strive. And a seven is pretty neutral. It's got an area where it could improve, in the IT analytics, so I'm going to give it an eight because there are two steps for improvement to get that IT analytics done.