| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 129.1 | WHERE DO WE GET THE TECH STAFF FOR THE 90'S FROM ?? | KERNEL::GARNETT | | Sat Jan 19 1991 23:02 | 13 |
| MY FEELINGS ARE THEY SHOULD DIAL IN , TO GAIN THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE
IN ORDER FOR THEM TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS IN THE FUTURE.
THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE:-
1....THE SIZE OF INITIAL TREE (AND THE TIME TO PRODUCE IT).
2....OFTEN IT IS QUICKER TO DIAL IN RATHER THAN RELY ON SPECIFIC
CUSTOMERS.
3....THE EXPERTISE ALREADY EXISTS WITHIN THE "FE GROUP"
4....THE "FE GROUP" WOULD PREFER TO DIAL IN !!!!!!
5....SOME OF THE FRONT END MAY WANT TO DEVELOPE "TECHNICALLY" !!!
NIGE
|
| 129.2 | YES | KERNEL::JAMES | Alan James CSC Basingstoke | Tue Jan 22 1991 12:17 | 55 |
| re .0
> This is a request from Frank Briggs, to solicit your
> inputs/suggestions,as to whether or not the Front End
> Desk should or should not Dial in to calls.
Frank Briggs should not solicit.
> Bear in mind that the goal of the FE Desk is to handle
> the calls as quickly and painlessly as possible in the
> most efficient manner.
Is quality important?
> To give some idea of what we are looking at, consider an
> 8600 (whatever that is) Machine Check. There might be
> connection problems etc adding to the call time, but is
> this worthwile, in preference to expecting the customer
> to scan up/down the errorlog entry (if they have one
> printed off)
Worthwhile - also by connecting, when this is considered necessary
or efficient, the group will gain the experience needed
to interrogate a customer with a hardcopy errorlog.
> There are some side issues, such as do we need to set
> customer expectations, for certain call types, that they
> should have the errorlog printed ???
No need to set expectations. The customer can be asked if she/he
would mind reading the errorlog. If there is any hint of unwillingness
we could always offer to dial in.
> Also if there are connection problems, should we identify
> these and tighten up on actions to resolve them, such that
> they only bite us once.
The connection problems are already identified - and ignored!!
e.g.
Why havn't MDS01's been put on 8600's as they have been in other areas?
How many more systems do we have to crash - just by connecting -
before action is taken.
> So feel free to input your vote/comments etc so that Frank
> can take the majority into account, to make his decision.
The Front End group should be allowed to do their job as efficiently,
effectively, and freely as possible. If they feel they must dial into
systems on occasions then they should be allowed to.
A more important point is what calls should they be taking. To take
on System Calls means they need the dial out capability. Should they
be taking these calls?
|
| 129.3 | | KERNEL::GARNETT | | Wed Jan 23 1991 02:44 | 7 |
| THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT IF THE "FE" GROUP DONT DO THESE EASIER SYSTEM
CALLS.....THEN WE HAVE TO DO THE WHEN OUR ENERGIES SHOULD BE
CONCENTRATED ON DEVELOPING SOFTWARE SKILLS AND HEAVIER TECHNICAL
ISSUES (6000'S, 9000'S ETC).
NIGE
|
| 129.4 | FE keep connecting | KERNEL::WIBREW | | Thu Jan 24 1991 01:00 | 27 |
|
Yes,
I think that the FE desk should use the option of connecting
to a system to diagnose the problem. It provides a good test of
the RD link, which is now important as RHM is coming to an end.
We dont want to wait until the customer system is dead with feet
in the air before we find we cant connect.
The use of RD access should be the descision of the FE person,
they will soon learn wether to connect or not in order to make
effective diagnosis.
It would be wrong to impose restrictions on who they handle their
calls.
If they find they have problems making a connection, these problems
must be reported to local field sevice to get the link or the customer
fixed.
The use of remote access should be clear and simple for the operator
onsite to setup, we should not accept situations where it takes a
long time to connect where the customer is re-installing the modem
etc for us to use.
With the advent of SDD etc the number of times we need to connect
should reduce, however Remote Access will continue to be an essential
tool for diagnosis.
|
| 129.5 | I agree...Dial in. | KERNEL::CLARK | STRUGGLING AGAINST GRAVITY... | Mon Mar 18 1991 12:55 | 23 |
| In the area of devices diagnosis, I have long held the view that a
front-panel fault code for some devices is not sufficient to make a
good diagnosis. When faced with a Fault Light scenario, I believe that
it is worth asking "Has the drive logged any errors with VMS?"
If the answer is "yes", then I believe that it is worth analysing
the errorlog for further information, and in an extreme case, delving
into the drive's internal silo.
All of this is best carried out by direct access to the
information, rather than attempting to do OJT with a customer on the
phone, in other words, by dialing in to the system.
All the FE people have the nessecary skills to dial in. It requires
a moderate amount of development and support to enable them to unravel
errorlogs.
This access to live data also provides opportunity for personal
technical development, as identified in an earlier reply to this note.
Whilst I recognize the need for efficiency and speed in handling
calls, I do not believe that this should be implemented at the
expense of development opportunities and job satisfaction.
In the long term, I feel that the quality of diagnosis will suffer.
When the novelty and interest of a task has faded, the task
becomes mechanical, with minimal individual input and quality being
applied.
Dave Clark
|