Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) Reviews

We use KACE SMA and KACE SDA. We use all but a few of the features that both appliances have to offer. We are in a VM environment with the KACE SMA, however, we use a physical appliance for the SDA.  

The ticketing system, real-time inventory, patching, software license, and imaging are commonly used. We also use this for scans - with this and aggressive patching we have been able to pass several outside pen tests. Scripts are used to push out software so the clients don't have to wait and it takes the pressure off of the technicians.

The solution has helped with real-time inventory, advertising and pushing out software, patching, and oval and SCAP scans. We can get the majority of what we need with this product and do not have to spend money on something else. 

In terms of imaging, we don't have to have an image for every model of Dell computer we have due to drivers. The SDA pulls and installs the correct drivers for each model. 

Post-installation tasks make it easy to add or remove software to images without having to download, change the image, and upload them back onto the server.

The streamlined processes and procedures are great. Automating processes is helpful. Patching is huge as it's set it and forget it for the most part. Real-time software and hardware inventory is great. 

We can track software licenses in one place. We can have a ticketing system and be able to create processes so that when one ticket closes, the next one is assigned in the process. 

Being able to add and remove software from images without having to recreate the image every time is helpful. 

Being able to create labels to group items we want to keep track of makes it very easy for us. 

The notifications (up to 60 days pre-renewal for contracts) are a great way to know when a renewal is coming instead of finding out last minute. 

The ticketing system works for us and we like using it. That said, some processes that seem like they should be simple either can't be done or are cumbersome in setting them up. I managed a different ticketing system previously and we were able to have certain questions come up for the client based on the category picked. It was easy to set up and use. Being able to auto have a KB article with questions needed for certain categories easily auto inserted into the ticket based on category was also an option. 

There may be a good reason why some things are not easily able to be done, yet it needs work to compete with some of the other ticketing systems out there now.

I've been using the solution since 2010.

We had a few different solutions. We had an access database we were using for ticketing and inventory, and patching was manual. Imaging was with a product that required an image for every different model of computer we had.

The setup was straightforward.

We worked with a vendor team, and they were excellent.

We can do more with less staff. And, unfortunately, due to budgeting, we now have fewer staff.

The cost is reasonable. I would definitely take the JumpStart training that is offered as it helps to get you started.

We evaluated an in-house system, School Dude, and a ticketing system that is no longer in business.

The use case is for organization server patching, and we also use the asset management in a smaller capacity.

For what I use it for, the solution provides a single pane of glass with everything I need for endpoint management of all devices. For the most part, it lowers the amount of time required for manual intervention. It gives me more time to work on other projects instead of consistently worrying about patching. Per week or per month, it's saving me a good five hours.

One of the most valuable features is that it natively patches third-party applications and not just a core operating system.

It's relatively easy to use and most of it is pretty intuitive. They've made things a little more involved now with the agent token that needs to be used. That means installing it from a server, from the share, is not quite as simple as it used to be, but once you know how to do it, and that it's something that has to occur, it's really not a problem.

It enables IT asset management, compliance, software asset management, mobile device management, and patch management, although we don't utilize the MDM. That's mainly due to our security requirements. But the IT asset tracking is a big segment.

And the software asset management has been a big help, even when it comes to license true-ups. I can use it to find out how many Tivoli we have, and boom, there's the number. Even if it's reporting a number that might be a little higher than what it actually is, because it's looking for one component, it gives you a good first first-hand look. As a result, we know there's something out there and this confirms we've got five of them. And you can actually click on the information about the software and it shows, for example, that these five servers are where it's being reported. If you really want, you can log in to them and validate. We have used that quite a bit.

Another segment that has really helped out is where you go in and actually use the distributions. We might have a situation where we need something installed on all 237 servers by tomorrow. I'll just go in and do a managed installation and have KACE push it out. So far, that's been pretty successful. I wish it had a little bit more ability to allow me to put something in there without saying, "Okay, we're already aware of this software. What file do you want to use?" It would be nice if it let me type it in and prompted me, when needed, saying, "We've already found that. Do you want to use this one? Yes or no?" But it hasn't kept me from accomplishing what I intended. Overall, the distribution is a pretty nice feature.

My biggest complaint is that almost every time they send out a new version, it fixes something and breaks another. Something that wasn't working in the last version now works, but something else stops; or they'll remove some dashboard that I really found to be nice and replace it with something totally different that I could care less about.

Another example of this would be that there is a set of agents where the communication between the agents and KACE is very consistent, and the patch numbers are very good. And then there will be a new agent which they say fixes this, this, and this. But then, all of a sudden, my patch numbers go down and the communication isn't as good, or they're timing-out more.

An additional instance of this is that it used to be, when you were patching, you would see how many succeeded and how many failed. You would also see which patches had failed and had reached the maximum number of attempts. Connected with that, there used to be a "reset tries" feature and that was nice because you could actually reset the attempts and KACE would try those patches the next time. Now, although "reset tries," is still there, it's grayed out. It doesn't function.

It affects usability because every time you upgrade, you don't really know what you may be getting yourself into. I wish they'd be a little more consistent and make sure it's only getting better, rather than their saying, "We had 15 known issues in the last version. In this new version, we're offering these new things, but we've still got 15 known issues."

The installs are generally very easy. You just say, "Okay, go ahead, upgrade," and they seem to run fairly smoothly with no problems. It's just that after you've done them, you have to see what is working and what's not working.

I have been using Quest KACE Systems Management for five years.

On the whole, the stability is good. Once it's up and running, it just pretty much runs. There aren't really system crashes or anything of that nature. It's a solid system that really does not encounter failures of the system itself.

Scalability is available. I have not experimented much with some of the options. For example, you can have a system at this site and have another site that doesn't have an entire KACE, but just a file share where KACE can put patches as well. Instead of servers at that site going all the way to your primary site, they just pull the patches from that local repository. Theoretically, that helps. So it can be scalable if you so choose.

In our environment we manage 237 servers. 

Their technical support is good. They're very prompt. Quest has been very quick in responding to any support cases or questions. And most of the time, the answer is very straightforward and easily executed or easily understood.

Positive

We did use something that KACE replaced, but I don't even remember what it was.

SCCM is what we use for workstations, but not for server patching. We do have WSUS (Windows Server Update Services) running as a backup in case we want to use Windows Update. We do have other options available, but for servers, KACE is the primary patching system.

I was involved in the initial setup and I found it to be relatively easy. It was pretty intuitive and straightforward.

Bringing it online to the point that I could log in took 45 minutes to an hour, and that included making sure I had DNS records so that the URL was resolving, and putting in the IPS and gateways, et cetera. All of a sudden, boom, it was up and running. 

After that, it was a matter of making sure that patches are actually downloading properly, and that the agent installs are checking in and everything is working properly. So getting it all tuned and set the way we wanted took two or three months, but the initial "it's technically functioning" was just two or three days.

We have realized a return on our investment with the solution. We are more stringent than the NSA as far as security goes. We run weekly security scans on our systems and we're consistently bringing in third-party organizations to do red-team tests where they'll try to hack in and do a lot of things to test us. Since Quest KACE Systems Management patches not just the operating system, but can also patch third-party things like Java and Wireshark if an update is detected, overall it handles everything that's detected. If possible, it will attempt to patch it.

The cost of KACE has been relatively low compared to other systems. Even if those systems have the same cost, they do not do as much of the third-party patching that KACE natively does. With a cost of less than $4,500 a year, it's been very good.

The pricing model is fair and fine. I wouldn't change anything about that.

We looked at SCCM and Qualys.

One of the reasons we went with KACE was cost. 

Another was that it patches third-party applications natively. Certain systems tend to need native operating system patching only. You can download something like a Java update and then "package it" for installation. But with KACE you can say, "If you find it and it's critical, recommended, not superseded, and it's detected on our system, download it and patch it." It's nice that it's doing third-party apps and not just the operating system.

If you're considering KACE for a large environment, come up with smart labels and patching schedules that are going to fit the number of systems that you have. The scheduling really comes into play, especially now with Windows having bundled patches. As a result, you're downloading a 1 or 1.2-gigabyte file to update the server, versus between three and seven 2 or 3 or 5 megabyte files. When there were multiple files, even if two of them didn't get uploaded, the other three did. If this one large file times out, it just does not patch. So scheduling the time to stage those and deploy on a different day is really important.

I wish we had the ability to use the mobile asset tracking and bar coding. Those are things that have been a real void in our organization. At least we are utilizing KACE for the servers and we manually input barcodes or serial numbers. Having the option to use a KACE app to input that information is nice and would save a lot of time. 

We Primarily use KACE as a diverse deployment and management solution. 

Our environment includes multiple locations, so having a single point of deployment for automation/patches/software/scripts and response management is ideal. 

We work in the banking industry, so having this single point and not having to worry about security is enormous. We have to go through multiple government security audits a year and our auditors are always blown away with our KACE environment. We need KACE to keep our organization going.

Previously, we were working with upwards of 200 different applications and tools, the amount of compatibility issues and clutter was unbelievable. One update on one application could ruin a whole environment at times. Thank goodness we found KACE to consolidate our environment and really cut down on resources! 

They've saved us so much time and money it's unreal. They have so much flexibility in what you want to configure or script. In some of my deployments, I've built entire applications on KACE to work with, while in others I have small built-in batch files. The only thing that limits KACE is your imagination.

The ability to build scripts right on the deployment center itself, as well as building groups that take those scripts/task chains has been absolutely invaluable and one of the most important parts of my whole environment. Without it, we would need to hire at least six to seven more employees to do what I'm able to do myself with those tools. 

On top of this, they have multiple forums that are super active. I've gone to tech support, ITninja, and even Reddit. One time, I asked a question on the KACE subReddit on how to improve a function and a KACE team member responded in five minutes. That's honestly unheard of for a company like this.

The GUI needs some work. I love all that it can do, however, it can be just be so cluttered at times. I wish we could see them spend some time improving the interface.

Sometimes when I run certain functions or need to do a one-off massive deployment, it lacks in "mobility". It can be a pain, having to go back a page and re-type in all the same information in the "run now" tab when I have a whole bunch of one-off situations. It's not like I can't do what I need to do, however, I seem to just spend more time than I'd like having to type in the same information over and over.

I've used the solution for the past five years.

In all the years we've had this product we've never had a stability issue.

The solution can scale. The product can be a help desk ticket system, all the way up to the entirety of your virtual machine environment - making updates and changes at a click of a button.

They take their role in support extremely seriously. We don't have to reach out too often due to the lack of problems, however, when we do, they respond within an hour or two at the very longest.

Positive

We did not use another solution. Once we got KACE, I just don't understand how we held on for so long without it.

We had a vendor assist us so that we never had a single hiccup during the entire setup.

The vendor was, without a doubt, an expert. We assisted and learned everything they could teach us.

We had ROI about a year into this and have saved so much ever since.

If your team is small like ours, I highly recommend working with an install vendor. For us, it wasn't as much a technically challenging thing to implement as much as what the vendor showed us during setup and installation that was just so helpful. With their help, we were able to hit the ground running and had much less of a learning curve.

Other options were discussed however, it was so long ago I can't recall what they were.

I would say start by looking at all of the services/products that KACE offers - don't feel overwhelmed as they will integrate very well with each other.

The primary use of this product is for our user support (help desk).

Kace has helped us integrate all of our IT needs from inventory to imaging. Having this appliance to do everything automatically and push out software is a plus. Summer tasks are so much easier with imaging across the network that requires almost zero technicians intervention.

Managing 3,000+ computers across our campus from one single solution has made our life (and work) so easy. We are able to respond to the needs of our users always and can look into the history of the devices or the KB created to self-serve our users.

Our computer Inventory became more accurate, and computers were rolled out faster. Our techs adapted quickly to the new service desk, and the users can now check the status of their ticket by login into the user portal. 

As we plan computer rotations, having an accurate inventory is a key to identifying computers that are end-of-life or out of warranty. KACE can provide all of the necessary information by simply running customized reports that in turn can be provided to individuals or departments, either on-demand or on an automatic schedule.

Asset management, inventory, reporting, and service desk features work together and they are very valued in our daily operations.

When a user creates a ticket, users are in a continuous loop of communication via the service desk, user portal, or email. We are now able to set tier levels and involve other areas within IT, networking, sysadmin, VOIP, or managerial for approvals.

The service desk can be configured and customized to better serve our environment. If necessary, additional queues can be added.

There is always room for improvement. An example will be the implementation of granulated permission to run Scripts. We often find it unnecessary (and dangerous) that all technicians can see/run all the scripts created by our institution. Ideally, a Manager could assign some scripts to certain levels of support. 

However, the system does most of what we need at this moment.                                          

KACE has a website, "Use Your Voice," where users can make suggestions to improve the product or add new features. This offers a great way to improve the system.                      

KACE recently added Windows Feature Update patching to SMA. That was a considerable improvement to keep end-points secure, as many users were asking for it. 

SMA was implemented in our institution in late 2008.

The stability is great, initially was running on a physical server, and recently migrated to a VM, both environments are very well-built.

Support was always provided a fast and accurate response to our questions, issues, or even helping us implementing new system upgrades

Positive

n/a

The setup was straight foward, and a dedicated support team was on the line while we implemented and set up the system. KACE included a follow-up online training to guide us and have the appliance up and running within the first hour.

We've seen ROI in less than 6 months.

We also looked into TrackIT.

With KACE Systems Management, we can deploy this specialized software for students and teachers in separate computer rooms. In the beginning, we used a master PC. We edited one PC with all the usable software, then enrolled this master PC at the beginning of the semester. However, a big problem was when (in the middle of the semester) one of the teachers told us, "We needed another software," or, "We need updates." We did not have the possibility to go into the computer rooms during our work time. We had to do it at night and on the weekends. That was a big problem for us, so we looked for a solution to this problem. So, we installed the specialized software for the students and teachers in a short amount of time.

During the first years, we used the hardware/server from Dell in our environment. We then switched to the virtual appliance, which we use now in our network for one of my university's faculties.

It is a private cloud because we can't use a third-party cloud due to data protections for our university researchers.

There is a course for students where they learn to build buildings. They have to buy parts for the buildings: stones, wood, etc. The updates for the software come inside one semester, and we have two semesters in one year. Inside of a semester, there will be a very important update for the teacher. So, in April and October, we have to update this software during the semester. We get the new software and install it on one of our test PCs, then we create an executable file and ZIP file with all the configurations for our environment. Then, we distribute it with KACE Systems Management. 

With the information from KACE Systems Management, I am able to make a report. For example, in the next 30 days, if the pro support is running out, it is very important to see that because I can then extend the pro support for our hardware. In another example, the reports allow us to see if older software is not working after an update, which is also interesting and important for us.

The scripting part increases IT productivity because of the specialized software in our environments for students' courses. You need to use software which is not programmed by developers. A lot of software for building houses or other things is developed by normal guys, who do not have much skill in programming. When you need to install this type of software, it is very difficult. You have to install registry keys, etc. For that, it is very good to use the scripting part of this solution. So, you can automate this part as well.

• Reports
• The security part with updates
• Patch management, because we can update all the standards and software in our environment. 
• Asset management with license compliance 
• The overview with all the Dell EMC-specialized information.

We use only Dell EMC hardware in our environment. Therefore, it is good for us to use a system which can read information from hardware.

It has a single interface for us to be able to see everything that we might need for the endpoint management of devices, which is absolutely important. We also use the single sign-on service. Of course, we have other systems in our environment which we use for DHCP servers and to manage other things, but for this kind of information, it is very good for us that there is only one system that I have to use; where I can see everything I need for asset management and license compliances as well as for the monitoring of the system, e.g., which system is active and which system maybe was not there in the last two or three days or weeks.

The asset management and license compliances are very important and good for us to see which software is over-licensed or under-licensed.

I use their patch management to look at the security of our systems. Because of the research programs and the researchers who use these software systems and the computer, that is all secured for intrusion detections or interventions from criminals. So, it is very important for us that the patch management is working 100 percent.

It is a little bit difficult to use the license compliances because you need to decide when you are using the software catalog if you are using it with their license compliance or the normal software part. Under the inventory, you can use software as a menu link or software catalog. Most of my specialist software is not in the software catalog. When I try to import them, in my license compliances overview, there are cryptic names for this software that I have to import. That is not very good for the reports that I use. When I take them to my bosses, they see cryptic names of software that they don't understand. It would be much better for me if I could use software and the software catalog as well for the license compliances. 

If it could be possible to use GUI to create reports, where I could drag and drop like in Microsoft Access where you can create reports, e.g., when you take columns from tables from the drag and drop menu, then you can slide it down in another area and sort columns or create new columns. This would be nice to see in the graphical user interface as well as be much more developed for the reporting part than it is at the moment.

It has been at least 10 years. We started with the physical appliance from Dell.

It is a very stable system. In the last 10 years, there has been only one breach to the system. That was very quickly closed with the help of the technical support. I can't remember another problem with the system where it went down. 

We can buy new licenses for clients. There is no problem to import these new clients into the environment, which is pretty nice.

We are using SMA at its full potential at the moment. It is also possible to import printers, and you don't need any extra licenses for that. This is a nice feature as well.

What has been very good for me has been the ITNinja websites where I can look for information. For example, if I need something, then there has been a solution there. Also, the help system of the help sites inside of the KACE Systems Management Appliance are very helpful and easy to understand.

I use the support system of the KACE. So, I use the ticket system to stay in contact with KACE support, which has been very good for me. It has been very positive because they know what to do. Every time, I have had a solution in a couple of days, and that was very good for me. 

I use the ITNinja websites. I think KACE developed these ITNinja websites with Dell EMC, which has a lot of information about KACE SMA and SDA. We don't use third-party companies. We only use KACE support when needed.

We don't use WSUS in our environment anymore. However, we also don't use SMA for Windows updates. We use the Windows updates on the Microsoft website.

In the beginning, when you try to install new software, you need a little bit more time. That's absolutely normal. Then, I installed this software on over 160 PCs. In the past, I had to go to every PC in real-time by remoting on every PC and installing the computer software on every PC. Now, I can install the software in half an hour. In the past, I needed two days. For me, this has been very good. It has been very nice to see how fast it can install new/used software on new hardware.

For every upgrade over the years, SMA has been very intuitive and easy to use. Also, when I changed the physical appliance to the virtual appliance four or five years ago, it was easier to make a backup. Then, I could import the backup from the physical SMA to the virtual SMA. That was very easy to make. The surface of the website has not changed very much in its paths, which are very good. Parts of those paths are easier to look inside or adopt more functionality, but the surface is not so state of the art. Some websites, like WordPress sites, are a little bit difficult to see where information is and what to look for. However, in the KACE Systems Management, I know where the information is, and that is very good for me.

To deploy the appliance, it takes maybe an hour with all of the configuration and the DHCP server. When you start a system for the first time, you have to import all the information that you need or connect your clients with a system, which needs a bit more time. Also, when you are trying to distribute software, you need more time with the managed installations. I needed half a year with all my software products, maybe longer. For all my software products, I had to use them with a managed installation script or other scripting tools. However, if you have used other systems, then you can very quickly switch to SMA.

Two to four people are needed for deployment. In my environment, we have a network administrator and me as an administrator for the system. There are also one or two other administrators for the solution in my company.

We saw ROI after the first year. Every year, the system becomes so much more valuable for us. Maybe the quality of our service is much better now. The students at our university can use more software, so the knowledge of students using state-of-the-art software is much better than in the past. We can react to requests from our teachers when they want to use new software in their courses. We can manage that in a short amount of time.

Most of the time, we install software in two months between semesters. So, we are saving four or five days over the year.

We are a university. So, we have a very good price for the system. I think the price for the system is worth it because of the security patch management. The security patch management is very important for us. The price is very good for KACE SMA, the functionality you get, and the patch management. 

The technical support you get from KACE is sometimes priceless. Sometimes, you don't need very much support. However, if you need support, it is good for me to know that there are people who have very good knowledge about the system. I am willing to pay for that.

When we bought the SMA system, we researched other systems. I did some tests with SCCM and other systems as well as open-source software. It was very difficult for me to configure the other systems. Also, the open-source software was a bit too difficult for me to configure just in time. There was not so much time for me to sit there for a couple of weeks doing trial and error. 

I am very happy that I found a solution which was easy to install and use. That is also a reason for me to look at SDA from Quest because I know the system and it works fine. I don't have time to configure a new system from scratch. It just has to work.

It is very important for me to see that there is one GUI/website where I can have an overview of my computers and environment, see which computers are healthy, which ones might be damaged, or if everything is fine with the software. Another thing is that I can distribute software with executable files using the system. This was also a very important reason to use SMA because we have so many software systems where you get only a setup executable file, not an MSI file to convert the executable file, which is sometimes very time-sensitive.

I had a very good start with the software because I had training with one of the specialists from Dell EMC in the past, which was very good. Now, it is very intuitive for me to use the software, which is also very good. It is very clear. You can look for information in one of the paths, such as, home inventory monitoring and asset management. 

When you buy this software, use a bit more money and buy a training program as well. What you learn in such a short amount of time when you get the training is so much more valuable than when you do trial and error for yourself. That is my advice. They will help you to configure your environment in a very short time, then you can use it very quickly.

Mobile device management is not very important for us at the moment because we only use our physical PCs and sometimes our laptops. I have used tablets as well. However, for mobile devices, we don't distribute software on these kinds of systems. 

I am on a way to using KACE's Systems Deployment Appliance in the future. At the moment, we only use KACE SMA, but I want to try to buy SDA as well. I hope that I can this year. It makes total sense to use SDA as well when you use SMA. Both systems are integrated with one another. At the moment, we have installed the operating system on the computer physically. This is a very bad time with the pandemic, as it is very difficult for us to go to our workplace and into the computer rooms. Doing our work there physically is not possible now. I live in the UK at the moment and my work is in Berlin, Germany, so it is very difficult for me to go there and install new hardware. However, I am looking forward to getting SDA as well.

I would rate this solution as a nine out of 10.

Every day, we do patching and updating of Windows Drivers. We also have to activate new software packages from firewall or VPN to Adobe software on a regular basis. We then use it very often and gladly to exchange files from directories, so people don't ask, "Please change this document to this document." We would rather do this through the system, exchanging various documents inside it. 

We do inventory to see whether:

• A machine is working fine, e.g.. hardware load.
• Systems are regularly shutting down. 
• A monitor is closed on a laptop.

This is exactly how the system works.

We are currently using the K1000 appliance. We now have it as a standalone, using it for software distribution.

We also have a hardware appliance. It is not worse than the last version of the hardware appliance. We don't have a virtualized one yet, but we are going in that direction.

Quest KACE Systems Management provides a single pane of glass with everything that we need for endpoint management of all devices. It allows us to run multiple processes in parallel, i.e., parallelization. We have been able to assign a lot to many users at once. So, if somehow there is a critical error or a software is not working properly, then we mostly notice this on one user but can transfer the effect/result to all of them right away. That has worked very well because we don't have an internal environment to work with, which is why it is a good thing that we can achieve a lot and distribute it simultaneously.

When we had to quickly switch from Office 365 to an Office local installation, which we used to have, people were cut off from the Office 365 license from now on because we no longer paid for it. We then got a call from a department, “Our 12 employees need our university Office application that we used before." That could be implemented very quickly. People didn't have to come to us, we didn't have to go there, and everything was done without seeing each other. This was very good and flexible, and no effort was needed.

The environment is worth it when rolling out new software, and we test it on this device.

We use the system every day because there is always something that someone needs. We just take a look to see if the system is working fine.

I have an “extended arm” through this agent, where I can distribute things very quickly, even to people who are in their home office and need some software. I can assign it. Then, in a short time, if the Internet works for the remote station, everything is available as quickly as possible. Logically, this is one of the greatest and most comfortable things for me.

In terms of updating and customizing, the solution is very good and flexible.

For patch management that we do in an automated way, it is great. We just check whether everything works and is done automatically. Therefore, it provides a great help.

I still need better communication about which processes are really due and which processes are currently being processed. According to the initial setup service provider, there is still no real management or overview on KACE where you can really see 100 percent of what is going on as well as what is going to be processed next and whether I can influence the overall process. It could really help me if I knew, e.g. exactly in 10 minutes my colleague will be supplied with this or that software. I haven't found this yet. If they could add this, that would be cool. It is still missing and I haven't yet found something like this.

Sometimes, if you copy and paste someone incorrectly, then you can also assign the wrong software and that can then lead to problems where you distribute the wrong software.

We have been using this solution since 2017.

The stability is indestructible.

We haven’t been scaling much. We don't have full utilization and are under 300 clients, and its scalability works.

We have two administrators and 140 users. Some users have two PCs, but most have only one PC.

The technical support has these pages, subpages, etc. If we can't find it on the Internet, then we go through Software Factory GmbH.

We did not previously use another solution. We only have experience with KACE Systems Management.

The deployment took three weeks. It's a service, so sometimes it takes awhile. The fragmented architecture that we have is a wide variety of PC systems, which was another problem. We still have different locations. In order to re-inventory them and get an overview of what is missing everywhere, we needed a strategy to make all the software identical, even if the hardware was different. This can be mapped well with this software.

We had the initial setup done by a service provider, which was ok. However, there were still a lot of question marks. Another company really helped us later. We also used another service provider who was once a technician at Quest, working as self-employed. We came very far with him and that gave us another boost, so we achieved more productivity after he showed us a few tricks.

We are now dealing with Software Factory GmbH from Nürtingen. They are very professional and have a solution for all our problems. It does cost extra, but Software Factory GmbH from Nürtingen really knows their business. They are much better than the provider for the initial setup.

Internally, two of us were required for deployment, a colleague and me.

It has definitely proven itself very well. For at least a year now, all changes have been noticed, e.g., decentralization. Because we are in three locations, I used to always have to travel somewhere to configure various things and could do everything only that way. So, it saves time in this case. It is a very good solution.

I can reach people now that I couldn't have reached previously. We are saving about 25 percent in time.

We buy consulting fees from Software Factory, then we pay extra for it.

We did not evaluate other options. Our service provider back then recommended KACE Systems Management as a very good product.

My colleague who knows other software distribution systems says this solution does not rank equally with others. He would move them to third place. I am very happy with the environment. If my colleague could decide, he wouldn't buy this solution. He would buy different software.

Spend more money on training so you can use the product to its fullest.

There is always increased usage during this coronavirus time. Almost every day, we have an increase or decrease in hardware as most people are now changing their laptops for desktop computers.

I would rate KACE somewhere near a nine (out of 10) because I am missing more control in it. 

Foreign Language: (German)

Was ist unser primärer Anwendungsfall?

Jeden Tag machen wir das Patchen und Aktualisieren von Windows Drivers. Außerdem müssen wir regelmäßig neue Softwarepakete von Firewall oder VPN bis zu Adobe-Software aktivieren. Wir verwenden es dann sehr oft und sehr gern, um Dateien aus Verzeichnissen auszutauschen, damit die Leute nicht fragen "Bitte tauschen Sie die Vorlagen gegen die Vorlagen." Wir tun dies lieber über das System, indem wir verschiedene Dokumente darin austauschen.

Wir führen auch Inventarisierung durch, um zu sehen, ob:

• Die Maschine funktioniert einwandfrei, z.B. Hardwarelast.
• Die Systeme werden regelmäßig heruntergefahren.
• Ein Monitor ist auf einem Laptop zugeklappt.

Genau so funktioniert das System.

Wir verwenden derzeit die K1000-Appliance. Wir haben es jetzt als Stand-alone und wir nutzen sie zur Softwareverteilung.

Wir haben auch noch eine Hardware-Appliance. Es ist nicht schlechter als die letzte Auslieferung von der Hardware-Appliance. Wir haben noch keine virtualisierte, aber wir gehen in diese Richtung.


Wie hat es meiner Organisation geholfen?

Quest KACE Systems Management bietet eine zentrale Schnittstelle mit allem, was wir für die Endpoint Management aller Geräte benötigen. Es ermöglicht uns, mehrere Prozesse parallel auszuführen, d.h. Parallelisierung. Wir konnten vielen Benutzern auf einmal viel zuordnen. Wenn also irgendwie ein kritischer Fehler vorliegt oder eine Software nicht richtig funktioniert, dann bemerken wir dies meistens bei einem Benutzer, können die Wirkung/das Ergebnis jedoch sofort auf alle übertragen. Das hat sehr gut funktioniert, weil wir keine interne Umgebung bei uns am arbeiten haben, deswegen ist es wirklich sehr gute Sache, dass wir viel erreichen und gleichzeitig verteilen können.

Als wir schnell von Office 365 auf eine Office-Lokalinstallation umsteigen mussten, die wir früher hatten, wurden die Leute von nun an von der Office 365-Lizenz abgeschnitten, weil wir nicht mehr dafür bezahlt haben. Dann bekamen wir einen Anruf von einer Abteilung: „Unsere 12 Mitarbeiter brauchen unsere Hochschul-Office-Anwendung, die wir benutzt haben.“ Das ließ sich sehr schnell umsetzen. Die Leute mussten nicht zu uns kommen, wir mussten nicht hingehen, und es wurde eben alles sozusagen ohne dass man sich sieht erledigt. Das war sehr gut und flexibel, also kein Aufwand.

Die Umwelt lohnt sich beim Ausrollen von neuer Software und wir testen sie auf diesem Gerät.

Wir nutzen das System jeden Tag, weil es immer etwas gibt, was jemand braucht. Oder wenn wir nur reingucken, ob das System funktioniert.


Was haben wir am wertvollsten gefunden?

Ich habe durch diesen Agenten einen „verlängerten Arm“, wo ich sehr schnell Sachen verteilen kann, auch an Leute, die im Home-Office sind und Software benötigen. Ich kann es zuordnen. Dann in kurzer Zeit, wenn das Internet für die Gegenstelle funktioniert, ist alles schnellstmöglich verfügbar. Logischerweise ist dies für mich eine der tollsten und bequemsten Sache.

In Hinsicht auf Aktualisieren und Anpassen ist die Lösung sehr gut und sehr flexibel.

Für das automatisierte Patch-Management ist es großartig. Wir prüfen nur, ob alles funktioniert und das wird automatisch erledigt dann. Daher bietet es eine große Hilfe.


Was kann verbessert werden?

Ich brauche noch eine bessere Kommunikation darüber, welche Prozesse noch einstehen und welche Prozesse gerade bearbeitet werden. Nach Angaben des Ersteinrichtungsdienstleisters gibt es bei KACE noch keine wirkliche Verwaltung oder Übersicht, wo man wirklich 100 Prozent sehen kann, was gerade läuft und was als nächstes bearbeitet wird und ob ich den Gesamtprozess beeinflussen kann. Es könnte mir wirklich helfen, wenn ich wüsste, z.B. genau in 10 Minuten wird mein Kollege mit dieser oder jener Software versorgt. Das habe ich noch nicht gefunden. Wenn sie das hinzufügen könnten, wäre das toll. Es fehlt noch und ich habe so etwas noch nicht gefunden.

Manchmal, wenn Sie jemanden falsch kopieren und einfügen, können Sie auch die falsche Software zuweisen und das kann dann zu Problemen führen, wenn Sie die falsche Software verteilen.


Wie lange habe ich die Lösung verwendet?

Wir verwenden diese Lösung seit 2017.


Was halte ich von der Stabilität der Lösung?

Die Stabilität ist unverwüstlich.


Was denke ich über die Skalierbarkeit der Lösung?

Wir haben nicht viel skaliert. Wir haben keine volle Auslastung und haben weniger als 300 Clients, und die Skalierbarkeit funktioniert gut.

Wir haben zwei Administratoren und 140 Benutzer. Einige Benutzer haben zwei PCs, aber die meisten haben nur einen PC.


Wie sind Kundenservice und technischer Support?

Der technische Support hat diese Seiten, Unterseiten etc. Sollten wir etwas im Internet nicht finden, dann wenden wir uns an die Software Factory GmbH.


Welche Lösung habe ich vorher verwendet und warum habe ich gewechselt?

Wir haben vorher keine andere Lösung verwendet. Wir haben nur Erfahrung mit KACE Systems Management.


Wie war die Ersteinrichtung?

Der Einsatz dauerte ca. drei Wochen. Es ist ein Service, daher dauert es manchmal eine Weile. Die fragmentierte Architektur, die wir haben, besteht aus einer Vielzahl von PC-Systemen, was ein weiteres Problem war. Wir haben noch verschiedene Standorte. Um sie neu zu inventarisieren und einen Überblick darüber zu bekommen, was überall fehlt, brauchten wir eine Strategie, um die gesamte Software baugleich zu machen, auch wenn die Hardware unterschiedlich war. Dies lässt sich mit dieser Software gut abbilden.


Was ist mit dem Implementierungsteam?

Wir haben die Ersteinrichtung von einem Dienstleister durchführen lassen, was ok war. Allerdings gab es noch viele Fragezeichen. Eine andere Firma hat uns später wirklich geholfen. Wir haben auch einen anderen Dienstleister eingesetzt, der früher als Techniker bei Quest tätig war, dann selbstständig gemacht hat. Wir sind mit ihm sehr weit gekommen und das hat uns einen weiteren Schub gegeben, so dass wir mehr Produktivität erreicht haben, nachdem er uns ein paar Tricks gezeigt hat.

Wir haben es jetzt mit der Software Factory GmbH aus Nürtingen zu tun. Sie sind sehr professionell und haben eine Lösung für alle unsere Probleme. Kostet zwar extra, aber die sind wirklich sehr auf Zack. Sie sind viel besser als der Anbieter für die Ersteinrichtung.

Intern waren zwei von uns für den Einsatz erforderlich, ein Kollege und ich.


Was war unser ROI?

Es hat sich definitiv sehr gut bewährt. Seit mindestens einem Jahr sind alle Veränderungen, wie z.B. die Dezentralisierung, aufgefallen. Da wir an drei Standorten sind, musste ich früher immer irgendwo hinfahren, um verschiedene Dinge zu konfigurieren und konnte alles nur so machen. Das spart in diesem Fall also Zeit. Es ist eine sehr gute Lösung.

Ich kann jetzt Leute erreichen, die ich vorher nicht erreichen konnte. Wir sparen rund 25% Zeit.


Wie sind meine Erfahrungen mit Preisen, Einrichtungskosten und Lizenzierung?

Wir zahlen Beratungshonorare von der Software Factory, dann zahlen wir extra dafür.


Welche anderen Lösungen habe ich in Betracht gezogen?

Andere Optionen haben wir nicht in Betracht gezogen. Unser Dienstleister hat KACE Systems Management damals als sehr gutes Produkt empfohlen.

Mein Kollege, der andere Softwareverteilungssysteme kennt, sagt, dass diese Lösung nicht gleichrangig mit anderen ist. Er würde sie auf Platz 3 schieben. Ich bin sehr zufrieden mit der Umgebung. Wenn mein Kollege entscheiden könnte, würde er diese Lösung nicht kaufen. Er würde andere Software kaufen.


Welche anderen Ratschläge habe ich?

Geben Sie mehr Geld für Schulung aus, damit Sie das Produkt vollgablich nutzen können.

Es gibt immer eine erhöhte Nutzung während dieser Corona-Zeit. Fast jeden Tag haben wir eine Zunahme oder Abnahme der Hardware, da die meisten Leute jetzt ihre Laptops gegen Desktop-Computer austauschen.

Ich würde KACE irgendwo in der Nähe einer Neun (von 10) bewerten, weil mir mehr Kontrolle fehlt.


Welche Version dieser Lösung verwenden Sie derzeit?

K1000

We use it to deploy software, push updates to the software, and manage our endpoints, desktops, and laptop computers. We are currently managing over 4,000 endpoints.

We are patching our software with KACE.

We have a virtual appliance.

We have a better handle on knowing exactly where our computers are and who is logging into them. We also have a better solution on what equipment is obsolete and needs to be replaced. We are also probably more compliant with upgrading our software or keeping our software patched so we have less vulnerabilities.

The solution has increased our IT productivity. I have seen a big increase from management to do reporting. It takes us a lot less time to identify systems that need to be upgraded. It is very efficient when we have to upgrade settings on the computer because my folks don't have to walk around and do that. 

KACE collects all the inventory of everything on a computer and everything about a computer, like warranty information. Software control and inventory is its most valuable feature. We use it all the time for that because we have a large geographic area with limited staff. It allows us to do things from a central location.

The solution provides us a single pane of glass with everything that we need for endpoint management of all devices. It definitely has made our endpoint management process much easier.

For the basic functions, it is very easy to use, e.g., looking up computers and seeing what is on them. For the software deployment and scripting, it is more difficult. I only have experienced people on my team do that type of work. If there was a way to simplify the interface for more technical tasks, that would be more useful.

We had a system that we had to upgrade manually this past week. It was a good portion of the systems. Unfortunately, due to the type of software it was, I couldn't do it with KACE, even though we tried. So, my folks had to manually touch each one of the computers, and it cost us hours in lost productivity.

The correlation between assets and inventory needs improvement. The KACE appliance does both asset tracking and inventory, and the link between those two is very sparse and difficult to operate. So, I asked them if they could link those two more seamlessly. I gave that information to KACE a couple of years ago.

I have been using it for over 10 years.

It has been very stable. It just runs. We haven't had to reboot or do any work on the virtual side in months.

It does regular upgrades, which are manual. You need to upgrade your appliance manually. We are one iteration back right now, so we will have to upgrade the appliance. This doesn't happen that often. We don't typically upgrade every time an update comes out. We do it as needed or before it gets too old.

We haven't had to scale it. We only have one appliance. However, when we have gone through several upgrade purchases to add more nodes and systems to it, we buy a license, then apply that to the appliance. Then, our systems can just check in.

We put the solution on every computer in our environment. So, we don't have plans to increase usage, except when we buy more stuff. KACE goes on every computer that we have. It is required for our organization. If we bought 5,000 more computers, then we would buy 5,000 more licenses. That is just the standard that we use.

We have Quest support. I assume we buy the highest level. Here's the thing about their support: It is good and bad. Their support is excellent once you get to the right person on the right team, I find that the subject-matter experts in their area of KACE are extremely helpful. They guide and help me figure out the things that I can't do. However, it takes a little while to get through their support system to get to that right person. The issues with KACE are minor compared to the benefits provided by the organization.

The initial setup was complex. It is a Linux-based virtual server, where the customer cannot get into the back-end, so you can only follow their prompts. Then, there are specific things that have to be done in their implementation and upgrade phases that have to be done in a certain order or steps. If you don't get those steps right, the system doesn't work. I think that either simplifying that process or providing really good step-by-step documentation would be helpful.

Simultaneously, we were having a problem with the appliance, which caused us to migrate to virtual.

Our implementation strategy at that time went through our change control process. It was to back up the old system, take those backups offline, implement the new system, and then restore from the backups. There are two parts to that which need to be done: 

1. Bring the system up and test with the test group. 
2. Deploy that system for the rest of our network.

We originally had it on an appliance. I was the one who did the virtual upgrade. It was very complex to get it first setup. However, Quest was very helpful in getting that done. I would not have been able to do it without some of their help. The migration took days (close to a week).

It has saved us a lot of time. I couldn't quantify it because we have been using it for so long. It would be hard to remember what it was like before using it. I would imagine it is enough personnel hours that when we have lost people due to attrition, if we didn't have it, then we would have been pretty sunk.

As a government agency, our accounting doesn't look at depreciation or ROI. We just don't. I have seen the return on the investment personally, because I can see the folks who work for me don't have to work as hard or have to travel as much to get things done. I could see where, in a private company, you could turn that into dollars and cents. We just don't monetize that. However, if I worked for a private company, I would absolutely be counting the hours saved and how much that turns into money.

Its pricing model is good for what it offers. Nobody here gives me a hard time about renewing the contract every year. It might be a little cost prohibitive for a smaller company who has to stand up a virtual environment as well as have virtual environment licensing and the hardware. If you have a smaller environment, it might be cost prohibitive. If you only have a couple of hundred computers, you might be more willing to do those manually. In our environment, the cost savings of having KACE far outweigh the licensing costs. We are okay with its pricing model.

We have another solution for patching endpoints on the operating system. KACE would probably do a great job at it. We just already have something else in our environment. Most companies probably do. For example, if you have a Microsoft environment, then you would probably use a Microsoft solution. Or, if you are in a Linux environment, then you would probably use a Linux brand.

We have a separate system for imaging and deploying our computers. I wouldn't mind trying the solution's Systems Deployment Appliance (SDA). It might be something that I will look at in the future.

We evaluated what we could do with Microsoft solutions because we have Active Directory. We haven't really evaluated any other third-party solutions because we have been happy with KACE and don't see a need to shop elsewhere.

Microsoft has some easier solutions because they are already built into the Active Directory system, because the operating systems are already talking on the back-end. KACE does things that are easier to implement because it is a single dashboard that allows me better control. We don't use KACE for operating system updates because that is built into Microsoft Active Directory, but Microsoft Active Directory does not provide anything for third-party software updates, like Adobe products. So, we kind of use KACE for what it is good at and use the other one for what it is good at.

Absolutely leverage the software update catalog that you can put together and implement. Brush up on your batch scripting because that is very important. Those are the main things that really helped us. 

The software distribution takes some research to figure out how to do. You will just have to spend some time learning how to do it.

Our mobile devices are managed separately.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of 10.

We use most of the modules, although the Service Desk is one of the most important ones for us. We, as an IT department, handle a large volume of calls that includes different requests. We tried to make it accessible for all of the different teams within the IT department, not just the Service Desk, but networking servers, admins, and applications. We try to make it so that all of our IT requests come in from a central point, basically.

In addition to that, there are a number of other Service Desk queues or departments outside of IT. Those have been either initiated by us asking if someone needed some way of tracking their own work or issues, or they've come to us and asked for the same thing. 

The second feature that we use most often is device inventory. We have our KACE agent deployed on all of our workstations and servers, and it provides us with reports on the hardware and software inventory for those. The other half of that is that we take that data and report on it for things like accuracy, renewals, and replenishment.

We also rely very heavily on the patching module, which is part of the security module. This feature ensures that our workstations and servers are up-to-date with the latest patches.

I'm also using it for extensive software deployments. For example, a couple of years ago we went from one version of Microsoft Office in our environment to a completely different version, almost exclusively through KACE automated software deployment. This saved us thousands of PC touches.

Also within the domain of software distribution, we use file synchronization and scripting.

I work with two different entities. The first is KACE as a service, which is hosted, and the second one is hosted by my company in our Azure environment.

I feel that KACE is pretty easy to use, although that may be coming from the fact that I've been using it for so long. In the Service Desk, it's really easy to clean up a basic queue, and from there, you can get more granular and do a lot more customization if you need to.

For the inventory functionality, the agent requires no configuration except for pointing it to the server.

For software deployment, as long as you've got your installation commands, it pretty much runs on its own. This is the same with patching, where you set up a schedule and then just let it go.

We have seen a return on investment from its ease of use, firstly because the KACE appliance is managed almost entirely by me alone. This means that we don't need to have multiple people working on each individual component. With the reporting that we do, we've been able to find unused or underused software licenses, remove those from the computers, and apply them elsewhere. This meant savings because we didn't have to purchase additional licenses.

KACE was previously owned by Dell and because we have a hook into Dell's warranty database, we're able to use that information to learn about what's in our environment and see what we need to budget for replenishment. This includes replacing computers on a quarterly or yearly basis. That way, we're not just saying "I don't know, we'll throw X number of dollars at it". It's an actual and pretty accurate budget, instead of just estimating it.

It has also saved a lot of time because for example, when we did the Microsoft Office upgrade, our service desk team did not have to touch all of those computers. It just ran automatically. That would have been a very large time investment. We have had it in place for so long that it is difficult for me to estimate how much time it is saving us on a monthly or weekly basis. I have nothing to compare it against.

Scalability is my primary concern right now. The first environment that I had it in was about 1,700 devices and things worked pretty well. Now that I'm well over 10,000, even with plenty of resources allocated, I'm running into issues where things aren't working correctly. I'm having to work with support and the answer that I usually get is that we're trying to do too much with KACE. Essentially, I'm overloading it with tasks to perform and as a result, I'm having to split stuff up a lot more into multiple jobs instead of one job. There's no built-in load balancing, I can't have multiple servers, and limitations like that.

I have been running Quest KACE Systems Management in production for seven years, since late 2014.

We have KACE deployed on more than 9,000 workstations and approximately 1,300 servers. Scalability is an issue for us at the moment, and I don't know how much our company is going to grow in the future. One of the ways that we grow is through acquisitions. For example, we just acquired a little company that was about 20 people and acquired another one with about six people.

I don't know what's coming down the pipe. I am not sure if there's a company that's about a thousand people, how is that going to affect how I use KACE. I wonder if I'm going to have to scale things back, such as running a script once every other week instead of once a week, or stretching out my patching windows.

I'd rate the customer support pretty high. I use them pretty frequently and I have been satisfied with the majority of their answers. I have never been brushed off by them saying, "Oh yeah, it's just this, you've got to do that."

Quest has a Professional Services offering, which is their consulting service. You can use their professional services to have them come out and help you set up your clients, or work with you to do so. Or, if you need a report written that isn't supplied by default and you can write it by yourself, you can contract them to write it for you. We have not used professional services.

The Premium Support that we have gives us access to a technical account manager. It includes monthly touch meetings to ensure that everything is going smoothly. For example, they ask if we need anything else and whether they can help move things along, such as reviewing any open issues that we have.

The biggest value from premier support is the ability to get past the technical support. I don't mean that they're not providing good support but with Premier, I've been able to talk with our technical account manager about more advanced topics. I would consider myself a power user and I do a lot of stuff that's outside the norm. This is not the sort of stuff that you would just set it up and forget about.

I also get information about a lot of different reporting and things like that. Sometimes, I'm interested in the very minute details of how it works, in order to either do the report or ensure that I'm doing something in the correct fashion. With the help of the technical account manager, I have been able to be interactive as an intermediate, or I've actually been able to get on, or have a call with, some of the developers who may have been the ones specifically programming a certain portion of the appliance. I don't see getting those deep answers from somebody further back behind the technical support customer service.

Prior to KACE, we had a piece of software, which is no longer around, called eSMART. It was developed by a company called ASAP, which was acquired by Dell. Dell purchased ASAP, decommissioned their eSMART product, and then wrapped up the functionality of the eSMART product into KACE. This is what led us there.

It wasn't really difficult to set up. When we set ours up initially, there was an option to have somebody from the technical support or training department go over it with you. Once you started setting it up, they would ensure that you understand how to work it.

I can't recall exactly how long it took for the overall deployment, although I don't believe it was a lengthy process. The two biggest parts of the setup were configuring the initial queue for IT, and getting the agents pushed out.

We completed the deployment on our own and I am responsible for performing the updates.

Licensing is done on a per device basis, so it's dependent on how many agents you've got installed. When we looked at it, KACE was competitively priced versus other agent-based asset and inventory management solutions.

Where we really get a lot of value is that the product licensing is only based on that. It means that if we implement another IT service, we can use it with no problem and it doesn't cost anything more to put that in there. We can just keep adding to it, so we're basically getting more use for no extra costs. An example is that we have other departments and other kinds of entities within our business, and they are utilizing the service desk functionality for things outside of plain IT support.

Early on in the pilot, we evaluated other options. It was around the time that we implemented KACE that we also played with a solution called Spiceworks for system support.

They have a ticketing system, and we tried to make it work, but being about the time that we started looking at KACE, and since KACE had the functionality of a service desk, we didn't really pursue that any further.

I know that Quest has other products, whether they're KACE branded or other brands, but, by and large, those offerings are for systems or services that we already have in place with other vendors.

My advice for anybody who is implementing KACE is not to be afraid to use their technical support. There is also some semi-official support available in external groups. They run a website called ITNinja, and there's a lot of discussion on there from KACE users, about questions that they have, or issues that they have, or wants or reports.

People help out each other. The site is run by Quest, but it is community moderated rather than Quest doing the moderation of the content. Essentially, it's a virtual user group and it has been a big help.

In summary, this is a very good product but there is always room to improve. For what we've used it for, it's been very good, and I hope that it continues to serve us well.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.