Conference 7.286::digital

    
    
    Please bear in mind that I write from the U.K. but....... I wouldn't
    have thought that the LG02 was a customer installable option since
    there are shipping brackets etc to remove, this is the case when
    they are bought from DECdirect over here I think. Could this have some
    bearing on Customer Services response ? You imply that the customer
    himself has done it all himself so far.
    Seems like a good chance to go in and get some system maintenance
    business if we respond well to his printer problem; or am I being
    too simplistic.
    
    Regards Mike Randall

    
    
    
    
    I arrive at just the opposite conclusion - it looks like the LG02
    *should* have Basic Hardware Support.  I no longer have a copy of the
    GSA Schedule, but I think commercial and GSA warranties are the same. 
    This is my logic, based on the commercial pricebook:
    
    The LG02 is not specifically identified in the warranty chart.  But
    since the pricebook has the printer listed in the "Options" section, I
    assume the printer is an "add-on hardware option".  The STANDARD
    warranty for "Add-on hardware options not installed at time of system
    installation" is warranty K.  Warranty K provides, in part, the
    following - 
    
    	. If the system warranty or system maintenance agreement expires	
    	prior to the installation of the hardware option, hardware option	
    	warranty will be provided at the Basic Hardware Support level.
    
    Halifax Engineering (Alexandria, VA) still is, I believe, technically 
    classified as a TPM.  Digital has bid base-wide opportunities with
    them, however.
    
    Steve

    I agree that the customer is entitled to one year hardware Basic
    Service.  As previously mentioned, it is not specifically called
    out in any of the warranty examples in the USPL, but certainly has
    to fall into one of the warranty "buckets".  The MINIMUM warranty
    for this kind of option is one year Basic..  I don't understand why
    being attached to a foreign VAX would have anything to do with it.
    
    So much for our "simplified" warranty system.

    I just had a thought...Did the author of .0 mean the printer had
    standard warranty or STANDARD warranty.  Digital now provides only two
    kinds - LIST and STANDARD (I know, GSA won't catch up 'til the next
    schedule).  One could say "Digital's standard warranty is LIST and our
    premium warranty is STANDARD".  Wouldn't you love to have the inventor
    of all this live next door to ya ;>}
    
    In any case, if DECDirect is quoting "Digital's standard warranty" (and
    they really mean LIST or Product Foundation J) then the service
    provided is, in fact, Return to Digital - regardless of what kind of
    service the CPU has.
    
    If, however, DECdirect is quoting Digital's STANDARD warranty, then my
    previous reply stands.

As a stockholder, I certainly hope that someone went out and fixed the
silly thing while we continue to argue who ends up eating the cost.

When Dec sold its first PDP-10 in Sweden, the purchaser (government) said
they didn't want to have to read everybody's different terms-and-conditions.
Just send us an invoice: "the consumer protection law says it'll work for
one year: that's good enough for us, so set your price accordingly."

Martin.

    I agree .5 that we are probably stepping on ourselves again here.
    Instead of fixing the damned machine, we are trying to make the
    customer understand our internal complexities.  There was a recent
    blurb on the net on how HP does exactly the opposite, and is winning
    big.
    
    I work in the general area of warranties and service contracts, and
    I can tell you that after four years of daily exposure, I don't
    understand it all.  I don't know how in the world we could expect DD or
    the sales force to.  I wonder sometimes if we couldn't just offer to
    "fix what we sell", period.  Think of the thousands of staffees (me
    included) that could go away.

    I seem to remember some time in the past when everything we sold came
    with one year warranty. Than some customer satisfaction genius???
    decided we should unbundle warranty.
    
    Another scam to make us more cost competitive??? which backfired.

    It was a competitive issue.  At least what we've got now is better than
    the four (4)!! levels of warranty we had before.  NOBODY understood
    that.  The problem is that there are real people who sit around and
    think this crap up.  Think what they could do if put on real
    problems.......on second thought.......

    Hmmmmm....interesting responses.  Today, customer services is 
    repairing the LG02, under warranty, to prevent it from turning
    into a KO call.  The one-year, on-site issue is still being
    debated because DD and my customer services manager have
    different interpretations of Warranty K.
    
    DD agrees with the other noters here that it should be construed as
    at minimum, Basic hardware support.  My CS manager (and myself)
    believe that if the writer of the warranty had wanted it to be
    Basic hardwre support, it would say so.  Instead, the paragraph
    that mentions that it would be covered even if the service agreement
    or warranty of the system expired, is intended to give a blanket
    of coverage for our valued customers who buy our contracts or
    on-site warranty with systems.  It is not to say that we don't
    care who you buy maintenance or warranty from, we'll fix it
    anyways. We DO care who they buy maintenance from and we will
    not fix things attached to unsupported systems -- our stockholders
    wouldn't by too happy about all the lost money in that type of
    a venture.
    
    Ok, so what we've got here is just plain old different interpretations
    of Warranty K.  I wish this simplified warranty really was.
    Regards,
    KClay

    Well at today's DVN Ken Olsen had a lot to say about support and
    products. The basic message is that we're moving aggressively in the
    direction of separating support costs from hardware/software costs.
    From now on we'll sell hardware/software packages at the same price
    and competitive with all the others in the industry that don't provide
    good service.
    
    For our good service we'll charge extra for the service. In that way we
    are competitive with the box shippers and we have our value added to
    sell as well.
    
    Dave

    
    Is the problem with the printer or the system?  Certainly, if it is a
    printer problem I HOPE Digital resolves the problem.
    
    On the other hand, if it is a system problem, the TPM organization owns
    the problem.  Sadly, I've seen too many similar cases where everyone
    points fingers, and the customer is left high and dry.
    
    rkp

    On behalf of DECdirect, I want to supply some details on the activity I
    have taken to get the warranty definitions clarified.  I have spoken to
    folks in Customer Services Marketing and gotten their take on how the
    definition of K warranty should be interpreted in this situation.  I
    have spoken to the Sales Rep and her C/S manager to relay that
    interpretation.  The definition DECdirect used to administer the issue
    was written by and intrepreted by C/S.  
    The C/S manager had some very valid input as to the lack of clarity in
    the definition which I have passed on to C/S Marketing with the request
    that they discuss the concerns and come to a conclusion on a remedy so
    similar situations will not occur.
    At the present time, our scripts at DECdirect are in line with the
    warranty definitions provided by Customer Services.

    This issue was escalated to the District CS manager, who also agrees
    with the interpretation of my local CS manager -- that Warranty K is
    not intended to be at minimum, Basic Service.  I understand tht
    your marketing people say otherwise, but, why don't they change
    the definition to reflect that intention?
    
    How long is this confusion going to continue?  (Of course, in the
    meantime the LG02 has been repaired -- we don't leave customers
    out there with equipment down while we debate policy interpretation
    internally.
    
    I think our debate here is interesting, however, will anything ever
    come from it -- will the warranty definition be re-written? I doubt
    that anything will be done until some next major warranty change
    occurs.  Somebody please, just put a wall in front of my head to
    bang on -- the results are the same.
    

    RE: .13
    
    > This issue was escalated to the District CS manager, who also agrees
    > with the interpretation of my local CS manager -- that Warranty K is
    > not intended to be at minimum, Basic Service.
    
    I've missed something here.  Warranty K *SAYS* "...will be provided at
    Basic.."  How does your Unit Manager and District justify that K "is
    not intended to be ... Basic"?  What is the logic?  I really would like
    to understand.
    
    I hope this is not one of those arguments where someone says "Well,
    yes, it _says_ that - but they couldn't have meant it that way" :-(
    
    Thanks,
    
    Steve

    Sorry Steve, the price book says Warranty K is "The Warranty
    level is the same as the system to which the hardware option
    is directly attached."
    
    It is attached to a system that we don't maintain at all, hence
    our interpretation that it's not covered on-site.
    
    Regards,
    Kay

    But the last sentence of the 2nd "bullet" of the Warranty K description
    says "If the system warranty [...] expires prior to installation of
    the hardware option..."  Wasn't the system under warranty at one time -
    ever?  If so, then the "warranty expired prior to installation of the
    option" and thus the option will get warranty "provided at the Basic
    Hardware Support level".
    
    Isn't this fun? ;-)
    
    Steve

    Now that's an angle no one else has thought of yet!  I like it!
    
    Just to keep you up to date on this particular situation; customer
    services repaired the printer at no-charge and did not send a letter
    to them saying from now on, you're on your own.  They said nothing
    to the customer about the rest of the year's warranty coverage.
    I believe they're conceding to the on-site warranty coverage by
    not saying anything to the contrary.
    
    I'm tired of this topic, aren't you?
    

re: -< THE LAST WORD >-

>I'm tired of this topic, aren't you?
    
    Topics like this frustrate me to no end !!
    
    I've been  with  DEC  for 11 eleven years, and my first few contacts
    with DEC (before  I  came here) were very mixed ...  from Stupendous
    Company to "Rip offs"  ...    and the circumstances were also widely
    varied.
    
    Now I am here, and have been.
    
    I get frustrated with these topics, because we are in the process of
    clearing an "obvious misunderstanding"  with  the CSC/CS on a couple
    of products.
    
    I feel very bad when  customer is given my phone number by "someone"
    in  the  CSC/CS  because they "will  not"  help  the  customer,  nor
    escalate it internally.
    
    We have some of the most conscientious  people  in  the world in our
    CSC/CS,  and  we have a great cooperative enterprise  with  most  of
    them.  Even as you read this, I would  bet that any one of you would
    agree that no matter how hard we try, we still  can't  quite get the
    support  to  the  customers  that  they  need.    Yet, here we  are,
    commiserating with each other, over the pitfalls of the "system'.
    
    
    Not only do I support, but I have used  DEC  products as an external
    customer;  internally as an IEG customer, as a DEC EMPP Program, and
    I  read  STARS  and  Write  TechTIPS,  and talk to customers, DECUS,
    Marketing,  Sales, and when my phone rings I never know whether it's
    a  person who bought from a 3rd party vendor looking for a "freebie"
    or a  "high level VP without a contract"  or Joe of Smallcompany
    frustrated by  our  "bureaucratic" style of support ("..  7th person
    I've talked to...").
    
    
    What  I  recommend  is  this:  (it is also what *I* do  when  I  get
    frustrated with ".. a break in the system...".
    
    First to remember.  
    It's not a witch hunt for the culprit.   It  is a flaw in the system
    which needs to be found and corrected.  I am sure several of you and
    I have spoken on occasion, and  often  it's  a  "little"  glitch that
    causes the big hacks (like a EPROM chip with one bit altered or your
    paycheck with the decimal point in the wrong place).
    
    - Help the customer first. Its easier to beg forgiveness than to
    get permission.
    
    - Get all  the  significant  details (call log numbers, names, phone
    numbers, etc), and send this information to:
       o Your supervisor
       o The product manager
       o The other "named" people
       o Provide all the known details, and why you think the 
           process is "broke".
       o Encourage those people to forward the information the
         supporting people, if known.
       o Double-check with the alleged perpetrators.

    Example:  Three years ago we "heard"  one  of  the  CSCs was passing
       "bad data" to customers.  We called the  CSC,  and  said we had a
       problem of that type.  The support person repeated the "bad data"
       to me.  We then informed the person who we were, my relationship to
       the product, and asked them to have their supervisor call me  on
       the  DTN.  
       
       That  call  began  one    of   the  longest  running  cooperative
       relationships I've ever been in,  and  the  synergy  we developed
       continues.  We corrected the data;  put the CSCS on our "pre-ECO"
       and  "pre-TECHtip  Review"  distribution  list,  and the  process
       continues.

       Some people tell me this is not possible for them.  I believe it.
       I believe that some people need to follow metrics based on some 
       printed    document,  instead  of  what  makes  sense,  for  that
       situation.
       
    It's important to remember that any of us  can misinterpret the well
    meaning intentions of our peers, employees, and supervisors.   It  is
    up to us, whoever discovers the flaw, to try to  get  it  fixed,  as
    best as we can.  If it means calling Corporate Customer  Satisfaction
    ourselves (see Inside cover DTN Tel directory);  then by gum and  by
    golly "DO IT !"   
    
    -BobE