How about the simple fact that Close buttons and/or links are not always in
the same location and sometime are not present at all.

 

In CM, Urgency, Impact and Priority use a scale of 1 - x with 1 being the
most severe and x being the least severe. But the Risk Level values run 1-x
with 1 being the least severe and x being the most severe. That ISS ticket
came back to us as "Working as Designed". The reasoning was that a 1-x scale
with 1 being the least severe and x being the most gave the customer the
opportunity to "extend" the Risk Level to accommodate custom risk
calculations. But if that is the true design reason, then my argument is
that Priority, Impact and Urgency should also be designed that way and also
allow that "extension" capability.

 

I'm going to change the ISS ticket to an RFE and see what happens.

Like you point out, I just want it to be consistent.

 

Tim 

 

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Meyer, Jennifer L
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 4:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Working as designed" type defects

 

** 

Guillame, I feel your pain.  

 

I want to respond, not to gripe about the lack of consistency across
applications, but because I also noted this while testing the ITSM 7.6
applications.  Tasks perform differently across applications, Problem and
Known Error have minimal interaction with Task at all, and Saved Searches
aren't consistent in the consoles.  This is how it's designed, however, and
we are reporting a large number of other defects, so I'm personally hoping
that providing consistency across lesser-loved applications is BMC's next
focus.

 

Jennifer Meyer

Remedy Technical Support Specialist

State of North Carolina

Office of Information Technology Services 

Service Delivery Division ITSM & ITAM Services

Office: 919-754-6543

ITS Service Desk: 919-754-6000

[email protected]

 <http://its.state.nc.us/> http://its.state.nc.us

 

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties only by an
authorized State Official.

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Guillaume Rheault
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:54 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: "Working as designed" type defects

 

** 

 I'm sending this post to the list community to see what is the general
feeling about issues that BMC Support classifies as "working as designed"
The category of issues I am referring to specifically here is
inconsistencies in functionality between ITSM modules or within a single
specific module.
More specifically, and to name only a few, in ITSM 7.5.1 but apparently
still present in 7.6.3:

- Assigned group searches in tasks are different than assigned group
searches in change
- Assigned group searches, change manager group searches, and change
implementer group searches are different
- Task tab in problem investigation is different than the task tab in the
incident form

When I raise these issues with BMC support, I get the reply that it's
working as designed. Well the problem with that, is that customization is
required to make functionality, and look and feel consistent.
It seems to me that BMC should create a "Design Defect" classification in
addition to the existing defect classification, which are essentially
implementation defects. I mean why should I need to create an RFE for
something that should work consistently in the first place? Seems like
"Working As Designed" is simply an easy way out of the situation. Quality
Assurance **should** catch these defects. Is this too much to ask? 

A defect is a defect because the customer perceives that as a defect, that
should be the bottom line. This is not new functionality, only making the
functionality and user interface work to the way it is expected. 

Thoughts?

Guillaume

_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ 

_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ 


_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"

Reply via email to