Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hpfcso!hpfcdc!rer
From: rer@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Rob Robason)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: HP Customer Support...
Message-ID: <5570337@hpfcdc.HP.COM>
Date: 30 Nov 89 16:08:52 GMT
References: <203@limbo.Intuitive.Com>
Organization: HP Ft. Collins, Co.
Lines: 170

In responding, let me say that the opinions here are my own, and not a
statement of HP position.  I will attempt to remain impartial, though
this is difficult, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

For background, I work in the HP-UX commands lab in Fort Collins and
have for 4 1/2 years, before that I was a field SE for 4 years and
supported HP-UX when it first came out, before that I was an HP
customer.

> Each time I encountered one I submitted a defect via the internal Defect
> Tracking System like a good employee concerned with the quality of the
> end product.

The DTS system is an internal system for reporting defects and
enhancement requests.  Since HP first started shipping HP-UX (and
before) DTS has been used for all kinds of things including
enhancements, gripes about standard UN*X behaviour and how HP should
"improve" it.  It took us a while to mature to the point where we
stopped "improving" the UN*X out of UN*X.

DTS is not used for submitting Customer Reported defects, but a system
called STARS (Software Tracking and Reporting System, I think) is used
for that.

DTS reports do not receive the same attention that customer reported
(STARS) defects do, though we do fix EVERY serious or critical DTS and
STARS defect before each release.  We do not necessarily fix defects
that are of low severity or an enhancement request, and many of these
are resolved as "won't fix" or "won't do" because they break standard
behavior or are stupid (yes, we don't come up with some dumb ideas, even
in HP!  I know:  "hard to believe").

> Having gone from a position where I submitted bugs into the great black
> hole of HP customer support to where I work with HP customers, I can
> assure you that it is no better for people that are paying money.  Even
> the so-called show stopper bugs don't mean that HP immediately mobilizes
> all their forces and solves it ASAP.  I have heard of some sites that
> have been without use of their machines for many months while waiting
> for their SE, customer support engineer, assigned engineer, etc to
> actually FIX the problem and send them a patch or workaround.

"Show stopper" is a DTS'ism, and not something that applies to customer
related problems anyway, but I'd like to set the record straight.  A DTS
"show stopper" does just that.  No product is released, and in fact
manufacture of a released product is generally halted, when a "show
stopper" defect is filed against it.

STARS defects of critical nature get much more attention.  In the case
of a customer site on support services where the system is unusable for
its intended purpose, HP has a well defined "site escalation" policy
which assures HP's resources to resolve a problem and get the system
back up and operational.  A site gets first local, then regional and
then factory resources, when the factory gets involved we call it a "hot
site" and it gets precedence over all other activity in the lab.  Ask
your support SE to review our escalation schedule policy.  I know for a
fact that hot sites get labbies assigned until the site is de-escalated.
This system really works (when invoked)!

I will admit, however, that some sites do not get escalated properly.  I
lay the blame in some cases to local HP people dropping the ball by
underestimating the impact of a problem on the customer, and in others
to failure of customers to inform HP that they are unable to function.
This is one of those situations like marriage where both sides have to
put 100% into making things work:  never ASSUMING the other will do
their part.  If you assume HP doesn't know that you MUST HAVE this
fixed, you'll stand a better chance of getting it resolved in a timely
way.

In our own lab, I have seen some real improvements in our handling of
STARS reports, and where in years past STARS seemed like a black hole, I
have seen a lot of improvement and there is more work being done.
Unfortunately, some people already have their minds made up about our
support based on previous problems.

> One of the problems that HP has with their customer support methodology,
> by the way, is that they want to keep the information on their defects
> as private as possible, so instead of doing something like, say, posting
> the workaround patch to the "-O" compiler optimization bug that everyone
> has been clamouring about for weeks here on the net, they simply have
> their SE's deliver the patch to those customers that ASK THE SE
> specifically about it

Well, nobody likes to air their dirty laundry.  Obviously, if the public
impression of HP-UX is that it is perfect, its better for sales than an
impression of a product with 100s of defects.  On the other hand, we
publish all reported defects in the Software Status Bulletin (SSB) and
still get duplicate reports of the ones that are there.  My own
experience is that customers (and SEs) don't read the SSB.  That's not
trying to pass the buck, but pointing out that nobody listens when every
defect is reported because the noise level is too high.  If you've ever
read the SSB, you'll see why nobody does:  it's pretty boring reading
about the obscure bugs described.

So a legitimate reason for waiting to supply fixes to customers until a
next regular release is to reduce the inconvenience factor to the
customer.  The fact that fortran causes a core dump when multiplying
complex numbers by the loop counter in a double nested do loop, or that
bc core dumps when the stack grows over 4 Gbytes are things that most
customers can get by just fine without knowing.  And the fact that we
reported the bc bug 4 months ago on notes will go unnoticed until
someone at the customer site starts using bc next month and hits the
problem.  People just don't pay attention to problems that don't affect
them.

I agree that a nice solution would be some sort of on-line browse
facility for customers on support services.  It seems that HP is moving
in that direction from some of the recent public announcements.

> The most depressing thing to me is that HP is indeed one of the top
> companies in the computer industry when it comes to customer support!

I think this is a reflection of how complex the problem is.  HP has been
more successful in spite of the industry's immaturity in the area of
customer support.  I think a lot of this success is due to HP's
historical culture:  many of our top managers grew up in the HP
instrument industry, where nothing less than perfection was acceptable.
This culture has forced success in computer customer satisfaction by
sheer determination despite lack of supporting technology and has driven
development by HP of a lot of that technology that exists today.

> Further, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many others) HP makes the
> most solid and reliable computer equipment in the industry too,
> including their OS and applications.

Thanks.  That's a kudo that *everyone* in HP has worked *hard* to earn.

> It's just "being best" isn't good enough.  It's a fast moving world out
> there

I'll agree that being best isn't good enough, though the old saying
about "look at the past to predict the future" has some validity here.
We're not resting on our laurels, that's for sure.

>       and if AT&T can promise guaranteed 30 minute turnaround on problem
> reports called in, why can't HP promise less than 2 weeks?  (*)

> (*) Actually, HP policy is a return call within 2 hours of the initial
>     problem report arriving at the Customer Support Center(s), but I
>     recall that the average time to resolve a problem is quite a bit
>     longer than the two hours...and when you consider the number of 
>     people that the customer probably has to get through (including 
>     their FE, SE, customer support, who then has to track down and
>     find the responsible engineer who has to fit it into their own
>     busy schedule), well, two weeks is probably generous...

As far as promises, HP has a good track record for *delivering* on our
promises.  I also think you kind of slanted the way you presented the
data.  I know nothing of AT&T's support, but I think HP's 2 hours is a
reasonable MAXIMUM.  I've had a support contract for some time and
generally get called back much sooner than that.  Anyway, "turnaround"
is a pretty nebulous term, I'd be astonished if it meant "resolution".
And in reaching HP you don't go through the FE or SE, but start by
calling the response center immediately.  If necessary, they track down
the appropriate lab, engineer, etc and my experience is that they do a
pretty efficient job of that.  The customer has one contact at the
response center until the site is escalated, when a more local
escalation center takes over communications between the factory and the
customer.

If I've had any complaint in the past it's that we've sometimes left
people wondering what, if anything, we're doing.  When problems move
into an escalated mode (hot site), they're often in the hands of a sharp
labbie with poor communication skills.  I've noted vast improvements in
this area of follow up and communication back to customers in the last
year or so.

> taylor@limbo.intuitive.com or {uunet!}{decwrl,apple}!limbo!taylor

Rob Robason
rer@hpfclg.hp.com