[Info-vax] HP alerts full of broken links

[David Froble]

IanD wrote:
> Having worked once for the 'devil' itself, the issues I experienced inside HP
> many years ago are still the same issues I experienced recently as an
> outsider looking in
> 
> You eventually find someone who then says they have spun the issue off to
> 'someone else' but that other entities details are neither provided nor
> defined enough for you to be able to go to them directly if your problem does
> not move. Your stonewalled by the organization layers itself
> 
> A recent similar experience I had was trying to source what parts would be
> required to upgrade an old Alphaserver. It took no less than 11 different
> people before I eventually got my answer! ok, some of those were the usual
> lower order ranks that channel the call, like your initial call catchers and
> incident guiders but it shows to me how fragmented things are internally
> 
> Lack of ownership, lack of a single aggregated point of contact is the same
> issue I experienced with trying to wrestle a parts list from HP verses trying
> to get back documentation what once was 'just there', working happily
> 
> When I hear comments like "who at hp have you told about this?", with all due
> respect, should that actually matter? (assuming they didn't just have a
> causal conversation to the gardener about the issue)
> 
> It seems that Bill has managed to contact 'someone' who said 'someone else'
> is looking at it. This is exactly what I experienced except I went through
> the official pathway via the website and had to fight my way along until
> someone eventually acknowledged there is an issue but it ended up in the same
> place, with 'someone' else whom I cannot contact directly to follow up with
> 
> Let's reverse things a bit to get a customer sense. If I was to call HP and
> ask can I speak to 'someone', they'd laugh at me, yet HP are still doing this
> to their customers (potential or active). A faceless entity doesn't foster
> customer advocacy at all
> 
> Perhaps HP splitting up might be better for it, I don't know, I myself are
> skeptical, I just don't see fragmentation as providing any benefit other than
> to bean counters who can then slide and dice away at the bits
> under-performing but sometimes some of those under-performing bits act as a
> glue to join together disparate parts of an organization and add synergy
> value enough to carry them along even if they are not making ends meet to a
> bean-counter

I don't understand the above rant.  We've known for some time that HP did not 
value VMS, except for milking the dying cow as much as possible.  Now they have 
basically gotten out of the VMS business, why would you still expect anything 
from them?

> I sure as hell would love it if VSI would stand in the documentation gap that
> HP has created, at least they are small enough that when a problem is aired
> it gets quick attention because it's still a relatively flat structured
> organization

This is the hope for the future.  I believe there is a determination to in time 
fix all the problems.  It's going to take a while.  Perhaps not fast enough for 
those who are impatient.  Reality usually trumps expectations.