[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Symbolics Service Issues

Received: from JOHN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM by ALAN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 30022; Wed 12-Jul-89 15:36:19 PDT
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 89 15:36 PDT
From: Eric Buckman <BUCKMAN@ALAN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: Re: Symbolics Service Issues
To: slug@ALAN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: Your message of 12 Jul 89 12:39 PDT
Message-ID: <19890712223605.6.BUCKMAN@JOHN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM>
We have a lot of Symbolics here, and found that service performance 
depends a great deal on the competence of the person doing it.
We've been through several technicians over the years, and found the
service pretty awful (For instance, the tech would use our working machines
as debug platforms, and we'd end up with 2 bad machines after calling up
on a problem on only one.)
However, our current rep is excellent, and hence our service is now good.
He returns calls promptly, and seems to do be fairly good at debugging hardware.
So, our hardware is now down only rarely, and if so, for only a short time (a day or so).
He puts a good effort in, and hence we get good results. (One of our previous tech's
(Marvin Roush) was also running his own business (which I think his boss new about) while
being a tech, so his response and effort for us was dependent on how much other stuff
he was doing.
So, I think the main thing for Symbolics to do, is to start using more high
quality people, and do a better job of training the tech's. Also, they need to
better hook the tech's into Symbolics "experts", so they are well informed about
the quirks of the system.  Also, in general, Symbolics needs to do a better job
of training the tech's in understanding what's going on with the software,
because sometimes this knowledge is needed for good hardware debug.