BMC FootPrints is an IT service management (ITSM) solution featuring workload automation.
N/A
Okta Workflows
Score 7.8 out of 10
N/A
Azuqua was a tool that helped users integrate their SaaS applications and build custom automations. It was acquired by Okta in late 2019, and is now part of Okta Workflows. Okta Workflows leverages Azuqua’s workflow orchestration engine and application integrations to automate complex identity-centric processes such as user onboarding and offboarding. The product is available as part of the Okta Lifecycle Management…
N/A
Pricing
BMC FootPrints
Okta Workflows
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
BMC FootPrints
Okta Workflows
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Optional
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
BMC FootPrints
Okta Workflows
Features
BMC FootPrints
Okta Workflows
Incident and problem management
Comparison of Incident and problem management features of Product A and Product B
BMC FootPrints
8.1
9 Ratings
2% below category average
Okta Workflows
-
Ratings
Organize and prioritize service tickets
9.09 Ratings
00 Ratings
Expert directory
7.04 Ratings
00 Ratings
Service restoration
6.02 Ratings
00 Ratings
Self-service tools
7.07 Ratings
00 Ratings
Subscription-based notifications
10.06 Ratings
00 Ratings
ITSM collaboration and documentation
9.06 Ratings
00 Ratings
ITSM reports and dashboards
9.07 Ratings
00 Ratings
ITSM asset management
Comparison of ITSM asset management features of Product A and Product B
BMC FootPrints
7.9
7 Ratings
4% below category average
Okta Workflows
-
Ratings
Configuration mangement
7.77 Ratings
00 Ratings
Asset management dashboard
8.05 Ratings
00 Ratings
Policy and contract enforcement
8.04 Ratings
00 Ratings
Change management
Comparison of Change management features of Product A and Product B
BMC Footprints is so well suited to keep the documentation easy to read and find, as same as typification. You can find specific documentation for an audit so fast and export a report using the specific criteria that you need to comply with your boss or audit needs. As I told before, BMC footprints need to be more friendly to the end users because they get lost many times trying to track some ticket or typing documentation.
Azuqua is well suited to connect data based systems or to add an extra level of automation to Smartsheet without requiring the control center. It is also well suited for people who don't have in depth understandings of programming. The UI is mostly visual with click and drag systems instead of requiring manually entered variables.
Documentation. We try to reduce the amount of paperwork needed for staff to do their job, so by automating certain tasks, we are able to speed up the resolution process for trouble tickets.
Reporting. We'll use the reporting tool to get the number of tickets opened, response times and can go into granular reports.
Surveys. When tickets are closed, we automatically send out surveys to end users to get valuable feedback on how we did and what we can improve.
The concept of reduced code to simplify use by less technical teams lowers the barriers to integration and allows teams to collaborate with ideas and concepts much easier
The ability to review simply any error cases simplifies the old approaches of debugging and reviewing large and complex logs
While not strictly part of the platform the support team's efforts to assist, to help clarify issues and then (where necessary) to resolve bugs was a large benefit and a key driver to extend the platform's footprint.
Purpose based configuration- It would be beneficial to see a more purposed based, out of the box, configuration option. For example, if you need PCI compliance, more intuitive reporting would make managing compliance much easier.
Initial design and implementation- Don't think that your experience as an IT professional will allow you to stand this system up on your own. To properly configure Footprints and set yourself up for success down the road, get Professional Services with this one.
Somewhat behind the times- Service Core is making a huge leap forward with the latest version, 12, but Asset Core is far behind. There are quite a few quirks to how the application works and how it is used.
The lack of connection/card documentation. Every card does have a section with details, but they are sometimes lacking.
The help center and community also need some structuring work. Every single connection/app should have a section with detailed documentation regarding its triggers and actions.
The FLO history section needs to be more refined. It sometimes does not load and choosing the date doesn't actually show execution results from that particular day.
It has been the business decision to go with them and that is what we will do. Going back, this would have not been the choice, but nothing can be done about it now. We are stuck with this application for years to come. Wish there were other possibilities that could be done.
It's so simple to use and customize however you want. You can create new workspaces and workflows with ease, set up new users, incoming email rules, customize the layout of the forms, and even change the colors and logos. It's just very easily customizable overall. It's also really straightforward to figure out how to use, you really almost don't have to show somebody how to use it. If you just sit them down in front of it and let them look it over, they could figure it out themselves easily.
The system is working as it should, keeping our programs safe from outside hackers. Helping us keep our passwords safe, convenient and already ready to get us logged into the program securely and quickly. Verification that only authorized users are able to access our company's programs. Okta Workflows (Azuqua) is a very good system that has helped our company greatly.
I've had no issues with the support for FootPrints. We haven't really had to use them all that much over the years, but when needed they have always been prompt and knowledgeable at dealing with any issue. I've worked with a lot of different support teams over the years, and they have been one of my favorites to work with.
I was not involved in the selection process but in my opinion either SQL or Access databases would have worked just as well without the same amount of cost. These two systems would have been much easier to manage and would have tracked the same information in a less convoluted process and expense.
I had to use the Automate tool for funneling image assets in bulk (tens of thousands) from FTPs into various destinations on an eCommerce platform. The user interface was quite harsh in comparison to Azuqua. Far more text/code line driven.