I'm with Bob on this one. Customer Service is now forced to peacefully
co-exist in the murky world of profitability.
Easy enuf to prove my contention:
I have already encountered the Hewlett-Packard version of Customer Service,
and I still have problems shaking that under-whelmed feeling! Can't
empirically prove this, but any thoughts on the hypothesis that:
The Bigger You Are, The Nicer They Are.
Al Karman
IT Consultant
US Freightways
[log in to unmask]
773.824.2284
-----Original Message-----
From: Graham, Robert [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 3:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] Cobol compiled on 6.5 and run pre 6.5 (long
rant)
Regarding the "Long Rant" below, the "vendor in question" has ALREADY made
the switch to 6.5 and obviously does not want to be bothered with supporting
two sets of customers. I don't know who the "one or two" large customers
may be who need the hardware support aspects of 6.5, but regardless, this
deal of forcing customers onto an OS that is not completely tested in the
real world is really causing my intake of Tums to go up. Can software
vendors even spell "customer service" anymore? I've just completed a
planning session trying to figure out how to install a new 997/800, a
Netbase mirror, a brand-new data center, AND the pull version of 6.5; all
before the end of the year, plus stay up 12x7 through a major interstate
highway renovation right smack in the middle of one of the largest cities in
the southwest.
<sigh>
I need a vacation.
Bob Graham
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Santucci
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 11:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Cobol compiled on 6.5 and run pre 6.5 (long rant)
Stan Sieler wrote:
> My intent is to say that the vendor should not try to
> force you to 6.5. There are good reasons to stay on 6.0 (or
> 5.5 PP7).
Agreed!
> If they support 6.0, or 5.5 PP7, then they should have checked
> that their software runs on it. (If they don't support it,
> then that's a different story.)
Or maybe it's "the rest of the story"...
> I have a number of programs/products that support 2.0 and later,
> but I don't have a 2.0 system to compile on. Nonetheless, if
> any of them don't load/run on a given customer's system,
> I'll solve that problem for the customer ASAP!
This is what good customer service is all about: if your software is not
working or has problems beyond the control of the customer, it's up to you
as the vendor to fix it, *not* force the customer into a hardware/OS
upgrade. Stan, you give better customer service than some others.
John Schick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I see I confused the author of the original message (Ronald) with the
> author of the reply (Patrick). My apologies to you both and the list.
<snip>
> Patrick, in the case of receiving stand-alone programs from your vendor,
> I think you are best off to "bite the bullet" and have your vendor send
> you the linked program files. <snip>
John, since you've cleared up that confusion and identified yourself as
the author of the document in question, and therefore as being with the
vendor I mentioned, perhaps you can clear up another question for me:
<long rant -- you've been warned!>
How does McKessonHBOC justify telling its clients the "Deadline for
[Amisys] customer upgrades to 6.5" is October 1 and, "At that time, our
secondary system will be eliminated as a contingency for backward
compatibility issues. If a backward compatibility issue is identified, the
resolution may require an upgrade to 6.5."?? I ask that question based on
the following observations:
1. There's only a 2% installed base on 6.5 (according to my sources in
HP). This is hardly a representative sample large enough to identify all
the bugs in the current release.
2. HP made 6.5 a non-platform or "pull" release. That means "optional" in
my book. It also means most sites will be slow to adopt it, especially if
they recently went to 6.0 and/or have no pressing need for the increased
functionality or capacities (hardware and OS) of 6.5. Again, this delays
the process of bug finding, reporting and fixing. If HP really wanted 6.5
to be a platform release they would have released 6.0 as 5.5 PP8 and 6.5
as 6.0.
3. The speculation is that PowerPatch 1 for 6.5 will be out "some time
around October," but nobody can say for sure whether that means Sept, Oct,
Nov, or later. Most people I've talked with privately are waiting for PP1
before upgrading.
4. Of the 40-odd patches identified for 6.5 so far, only one that I know
of is specific to that release (again, my sources at HP). The others are
all patches previously identified in 5.5 and 6.0, and now being written,
tested and released for 6.5. Most are still in beta or "in the lab" (still
being designed or written). IMO this means "6.5 is barely live, 6.0 is the
way to go."
The final paragraph of the letter from McKessonHBOC states, "6.0 Support
Not Available from AMISYS - AMISYS is upgrading from MPE/iX 5.5 directly
to MPE/iX 6.5. We do not plan to support the 6.0 operating system,
although based on our 6.5 testing, we do not expect problems with 6.0.
Customers who chose to implement 6.0 will be supported with 6.5 software.
If any backward compatibility issues are identified, the resolution may
require an upgrade to 6.5."
That's fine, assuming the application exists in a vacuum. But we use the
Amisys software for only *one* piece of our business, and while it may be
stable under the current infant incarnation of 6.5, we have many
development groups that will need to run their applications through
acceptance testing on our crash'n'burn system and do their own fixes
before we can upgrade to 6.5. I think the Oct 1 deadline McKessonHBOC is
imposing is unrealistic and untenable, given the facts above. My manager
has stated that if we go to 6.0 now, we will not be in a position to do
another major OS upgrade (to 6.5) "till about this time next year." (Yes,
he knows the vendor's requirements. This was said at a meeting
specifically called to discuss our options with regard to 6.0, 6.5 and
Amisys.)
So my question for you John, is, why is McKessonHBOC being so dogmatic
about 6.5 with its customers? Why not support 6.0 until, say, six months
after 6.5 PP1 hits the street (whenever that is), so we can feel more
comfortable with it? (BTW, the rumor is there are a couple of large Amisys
clients that "need 6.5" to address "performance issues with Amisys," i.e.
they "need" the CPU/memory hardware upgrade capabilities 6.5 gives them to
fix their Amisys performance problems! If this is the reason for the
pushiness, it makes me doubly mad.)
</long rant>
Question for Stan and the rest of the list: am I off-base here? Isn't it
reasonable to wait for PP1 before committing to a major upgrade like 6.5?
Patrick "biting the bullet and hating the taste of it"
--
Patrick Santucci
Technical Services Analyst
Seabury & Smith, Inc.
|
