On 8/09/2017 9:55 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Development management, often impelled by schedules imposed by
Marketing, is apt to view defect response as competing for development
resource and, in defense, nurture those gatekeepers.
Other forms of QA also impact on development schedules. But I have no
disagreement with the operation of L1 support etc. in principle. The
problem is when they deny the existence of a problem and/or close
problems prematurely to meet resolution targets. The greater the
separation of L1 support from the developers, the less interest L1
support have in improving the actual product.
The bigger problem is when an organization views customer problem
reports as something to be minimized (as opposed to actual problems).
I am aware that problems get prioritized amongst a long list of other
problems and features. If a problem is recorded and assigned a priority
of "if we run out of other things to do" that's OK - at least someone
has noted that it exists.
--
Andrew Rowley
Black Hill Software
+61 413 302 386
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
