Track-It! is great for a small-to-medium sized enterprise that has a fairly small IT department but needs far more control of tickets than just email and spreadsheets. It scales well enough as IT departments grow, adding techs is simple enough, as is changing the workflow. A large company would probably be better off with a different solution. The lack of easy customization, and the shortcomings it has in workflow templates (which would be a nightmare for project management) means it won't scale up that far.
EAM is a very capable application without necessarily making it a complex tool to use. The nice thing with EAM is that, thanks to its configuration capabilities, it can be implemented in a multi-stage manner where users can start simple and then later (and over time) expand the usage as they learn or better understand its full potential.
EAM is overall simple to use, especially since the UI and individual forms can be configured per user group with simple clicks by a system administrator.
We have rarely needed to use Support for BMC Track-It!, but in the times that we did need to use it, they were excellent. The biggest issue is that after not paying for support for about three years, now that we NEED support, it is too expensive for us to receive. This is due to the way their support is billed. So long as you never drop support, then you should be fine.
The user support is better than average when comparing it to other software vendors we use. Normally they reply very quickly, but there is also a tendency to even reply too fast without fully analyzing or understanding the whole underlying problem. However, when we ask support to escalate something to the development team, this is done quickly as well.
BMC Track-It! is much more bare bones compared to ServiceNow products, and if your department has the money, ServiceNow is a much better option. Not only is the Knowledge Base much easier to create and publish articles, but the asset management in BMC Track-It! is practically useless. BMC Track-It! is more cost effective, and with a small amount of technicians there's likely no reason to need a bigger solution, but it leaves a lot wanting.
HxGN EAM is relatively comparable. Much of the software solutions for large enterprise businesses offer relatively comparable features and functionality. For example, integration with our organization's asset management strategy. The set-up of the asset management is organization-specific depending on the type of assets. At our organization, it was primarily equipment and buildings. HxGN EAM stacked up well against the other major solutions such as SAP EAM, IBM Maximo, etc. It may be best to include it as part of the options assessed for a solution to consider.
The biggest positive impact it had on ROI was that the software itself didn't require any expensive ongoing maintenance contracts since it was installed and managed by our organization.
The negative aspect of this is if there was a major problem with the software, then it would require contacting the vendor, at which point it could become expensive for a service call.
Infor EAM works as well as the data contained. Management has to be dedicated to a change in culture and everyone must buy into this.
Infor EAM is very useful in exposing shoddy maintenance practices, or poor reaction to required maintenance. A company cannot be afraid to let the system work for them, and take the necessary actions to improve maintenance practices to prolong the life of their investments.
The only negative, is as mentioned above, Infor has the capabilities with KPIs and custom reports to easily identify unacceptable maintenance practices.
