Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!midway!ncar!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpfcso!hpfcdc!rer
From: rer@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Rob Robason)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: Netpower: Apollo/HP contrast (was: HP Common Lisp question)
Message-ID: <5570451@hpfcdc.HP.COM>
Date: 18 Jul 90 20:48:02 GMT
References: <1990Jul14.085541.18550@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>
Organization: HP Ft. Collins, Co.
Lines: 80

These comments are absolutely my own and in no way reflect HP's
position:

I think that the need to provide some sort of high speed link between
our support customers and our support organization is self evident.  HP
has a long standing tradition of good support, and we are consistently
ranked in the highest eshelons in this regard.  But we are not so naive
as to think that we need not improve to keep our leadership position,
nor that we do not have problems to iron out.

Neither are we so naive as to think that, no matter how good our system,
we will not have isolated failures, nor customers that are never
satisfied.  So I presume here that we should talk about the general
case, not the exception, and grant that there will still be an
occasional letter to John Young (HP's President and CEO) when a customer
thinks we've done them wrong.

I think a couple of non-trivial stumbling blocks stand in the way of
HP's use of the net for support purposes:

1)  The commercial (i.e.  not for gain) use of the internet is
    apparently forbidden.  Without wishing to cast dispersion on any of
    our competition, HP is not a company that will knowingly violate
    this policy.  Work to change, yes, but not violate.

    Do not look to HP to take this issue lightly.  For example, if HP
    entered a support contract with a customer that called for us to
    provide support via the internet, then was prevented from performing
    consistent with that contract by some legal action that prevented
    such use of the net, we would not only be possibly liable for
    damages to that customer, but we would also have a customer
    satisfaction problem, exclusive of the legal aspects.

    While small companies may get away with basing their whole support
    system on the net, when a company the size of HP steps in and does
    the same, they draw a lot more attention and are more likely to
    bring cries of foul-play from competitors, gateways and net purists.

2)  It doesn't take a genius or an insider to figure out that about 1/5
    to 1/4 of HP's computer revenues are from support contracts.  For a
    $12 billion company, that's not something you treat lightly.  I'm
    sure the folks in support are wrestling with how to provide these
    services on a public network to a restricted set of potential users
    (i.e.  those who've purchased support contracts).  It wouldn't make
    sense to give away to some what you're charging others $2 Billion
    for, you wouldn't sell many contracts on those terms.

3)  There is an incredibly intricate support organization in place to
    support HP's miriad products from countless divisions in multiple
    business sectors.  A major accomplishment has been the ability to
    provide this support in a mostly consistent way to customers to hide
    the fragmentation behind the scenes.  A change such as support via a
    public network would require significant coordination between lots
    of HP entities, many of whom have very different goals.  Such
    coordination isn't easy even in small groups, and takes time to meet
    everyones needs and fit everyones schedule.

4)  I've learned that before we do something for customers, we have to
    prove its value and workability to ourselves, the cost to implement
    such a change is too great to accept a high risk of failure.  I see
    signs from the lab side, where I fix defects and deliver patches to
    our support folks, that some of the things we need are coming
    together.  I see our turn around time for Customer/Response-Center
    submitted Service-Requests (defects), for HP-UX commands at least,
    getting shorter by orders of magnitude.  I'm encouraged by this, and
    hope that in the not-to-distant-future our customers on support
    contract will start seeing the results in the form of better turn
    around on there defect reports.

I'm a strong advocate of network accessable support.  Having copied a
few kernels over 1200 Baud uucp over the years, I revel in the
networking we have in place today in HP.  I also sense that the demand
exemplified in these discussions and elsewhere is not falling on deaf
ears.

As an aside, I wouldn't hold my breath for any free support though, I
don't think that's in the future.  Any network patch system you see,
you'll only see if you pay for it.

Rob "My $2 Billion worth" Robason