Conference 7.286::digital

    Easy.
    1. Search Easynotes.lis for the appropriate notes file
    2. Post your grumble as note n
    3. Post your SPR     as note n+1
    
    That should sort it ..
    
    Mike Day
    

The following, from VAXWRK::VMS_FIELD_TESTS Note 2.1 (David STAR::BERNARDO),
describes how to use the QAR system, the internal/electronic SPR system.
[Disclaimers: I'm not sure "SPR" and "QAR" are exactly equivalent;
 the QAR system is not too user-friendly, and not for all products,
 but it *is* electronic.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is now very easy to enter a QAR in the VMS QAR database on node TRIFID.

To enter a QAR, simply SET HOST to node TRIFID and login with the username
QAR_INTERNAL and password QAR.  You will then be prompted for the database;
select the appropriate one.  

At the "QAR>" prompt, type the command "ENTER" to enter a new QAR.
You will then be prompted for the following (once per login):

	Name
	Cost center number and name
	Enet mail address
	Phone number and mail stop
	CPU type 
	Memory size
	System device 

For each QAR entered, you will be prompted for the following:

	VMS version
	Attachments		(ie, LISTING, TAPE, etc.) 
	Publish 		(QAR can be read by "others")
	Reproducible		("problem" can be reproduced at will)

You will then be placed into the EDT editor where you can enter text to
describe your problem.  Please include examples if possible.  If you
have crash dumps, make them readable and tell us where they can be found.

Please use this account to enter QARs for the following products:

	VMS
	MicroVMS
	Volume Shadowing
	DECnet-VAX
	RMS Journaling
	Local Area VAXclusters (LAVc)
	VAX Encryption

NOTE, this account should be used by all employees who are NOT formally 
participating in any VMS field tests.  If you are doing lots of testing 
and expect to be entering numerous QARs on occasion, then send mail to 
TRIFID::QAR$MANAGER and request your own QAR account.

    
    
	ICARUS::SPRADMIN is the right address, although my SPRs have
    	been confirmed from :
    
From:	CSSE::HOLMES       "Ponce Inlet is Paradise" 13-APR-1989 20:15:55.89
To:	BISTRO::WLODEK
CC:	HOLMES
Subj:	SPR V11-631

Hello, SPR received and processed as ICA-22039.

Regards,

Tod
    
    

    For what is is worth, SPR administration just moved down the road from
    PKO2 to STO about a month ago, the move took about a week. I believe
    that they are still on ICARUS.
    
    Deb  

For internal users who do not have an IN-DEC support contract, there is 
still a means for them to submit an SPR on DIGITAL Engineered products. 
The form and mailing address is attached.


Subj:	Electronic SPR form, send to ICARUS::SPRADMIN
    
    
    On-line SPRs can be submitted to ICARUS::SPRADMIN  if you are a
    U.S. submitter. SPRs are then sent to the CSCs for screening.  
    
    European/GIA submittals must go directly to the local country office
    where they will be processed and screened in Europe/GIA first.  Any
    non-U.S. submittals will be routed back to the country of origin if
    they have not been screened.
    
    If you have any questions regarding the SPR submittal process, please
    contact ICARUS::SPRADMIN.
    




D I G I T A L        FIELD CODE NO.                   SPR NO.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| OPERATING SYS | VERSION | PROGRAM OR DOC. | VERSION OR DOC. PART NO. | DATE |
|		|	  |		    |			       |      |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| NAME:			|DEC OFFICE AND CONTACT PERSON	|DO YOU HAVE SOURCES  |
| FIRM:			|				|   YES( )   NO( )    |
|			|-----------------------------------------------------|
|			|   REPORT TYPE/PRIORITY		              |
| ADDRESS:		|		           ( )HEAVY SYSTEM IMPACT     |
|			| ( )PROBLEM/ERROR         ( )MODERATE SYSTEM IMPACT  |
|			| ( )SUGGESTED ENHANCEMENT ( )MINOR SYSTEM IMPACT     |
| CUST. NO.:		| ( )OTHER		   ( )NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT   |
|			|		           ( )DOCUMENTATION/SUGGESTION|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| SUBMITTED BY:	|PHONE:	       | CAN THE PROBLEM BE	 YES( ) NO( )         |
|		|	       | REPRODUCED AT WILL?		              |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|	ATTACHMENTS	| COULD THIS SPR HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY	  	      |
|			| BETTER OR MORE DOCUMENTATION?		YES( ) NO( )  |
|			| PLEASE EXPLAIN IN PROVIDED SPACE BELOW.             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| CPU TYPE | SERIAL NO. | MEM. SIZE | DIST. MED. | SYS. DEV. | DO NOT PUBLISH |
|          |            |           |            |           |      ( )       |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|									      |
.                                      .                                      .
.                                      .                                      .
.                                      .                                      .
|    ALL SUBMISSIONS BECOME THE PROPERTY OF DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION.    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|SHORT NAME |MNT. CAT. |MNT. GRP.                 |XFER. GRP. |PL | PRB. TYPE |
|	    |          |			  |           |   |           |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|DATE RECEIVED(MAIL)   |DATE TO MAINTAINER        |XFER. DATE    |LOGGED ON   |
|		       |			  |		 |	      |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|DATE RECEIVED(ASG)    |DATE RECEIVED FROM MAINT. |DATE ANSWERED |LOGGED OFF  |
|		       |			  |              |            |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------__
      

    Thanks for all the information all,

    	Come to find out, the DECnet move of ICARUS was hosing me up.

    	Fixed my DECnet database, and the thing actually got sent.

    	Am now awaiting response from my submittal...


    				- Lou

Well, it's been a few years, and the process for On-Line SPR submission 
has changed slightly.   Here is the most current information...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Attached is a blank on-line SPR form.  Please fill in all fields as you 
would when submitting a paper SPR form.  Send the completed SPR to:
  
	CSCOAC::REGISTER_FS
or	CSC/AT FS REGISTRATION @ ALF   (From ALL-IN-1)

	SPR Contact Name:  Ken Steffensen @ALF (8-343-1747)
	SPR Corporate Problem Mgt Admin:  Randy Gauthier @OGO (8-276-8810)

As the SPR submittor (your name/node should be in the "Submitted by" 
field), you will receive an acknowledgement after the SPR is processed, 
with the corporate SPR number which has been assigned.  

In order to recognize which submittal we are acknowledging, it would be helpful 
if you would include some type of identifier if the SUBJECT line of the mail 
message.  For example, the DSIN sequence number (if applicable), or the 
customer name and product, and/or a brief description of the problem.

For SPR status information after submittal, contact the CSC in Alpharetta
and request SPR status against specific SPR number.



D I G I T A L        FIELD CODE NO.                   SPR NO.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| OPERATING SYS | VERSION | PROGRAM OR DOC. | VERSION OR DOC. PART NO. | DATE |
|		|	  |		    |			       |      |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| NAME:			|DEC OFFICE AND CONTACT PERSON	|DO YOU HAVE SOURCES  |
| FIRM:			|				|   YES( )   NO( )    |
|			|-----------------------------------------------------|
|			|   REPORT TYPE/PRIORITY		              |
| ADDRESS:		|		           ( )HEAVY SYSTEM IMPACT     |
|			| ( )PROBLEM/ERROR         ( )MODERATE SYSTEM IMPACT  |
|			| ( )SUGGESTED ENHANCEMENT ( )MINOR SYSTEM IMPACT     |
| CUST. NO.:		| ( )OTHER		   ( )NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT   |
|			|		           ( )DOCUMENTATION/SUGGESTION|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| SUBMITTED BY:	|PHONE:	       | CAN THE PROBLEM BE	 YES( ) NO( )         |
|		|	       | REPRODUCED AT WILL?		              |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|	ATTACHMENTS	| COULD THIS SPR HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY	  	      |
|			| BETTER OR MORE DOCUMENTATION?		YES( ) NO( )  |
|			| PLEASE EXPLAIN IN PROVIDED SPACE BELOW.             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| CPU TYPE | SERIAL NO. | MEM. SIZE | DIST. MED. | SYS. DEV. | DO NOT PUBLISH |
|          |            |           |            |           |      ( )       |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|									      |
|    ALL SUBMISSIONS BECOME THE PROPERTY OF DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION.    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|SHORT NAME |MNT. CAT. |MNT. GRP.                 |XFER. GRP. |PL | PRB. TYPE |
|	    |          |			  |           |   |           |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|DATE RECEIVED(MAIL)   |DATE TO MAINTAINER        |XFER. DATE    |LOGGED ON   |
|		       |			  |		 |	      |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|DATE RECEIVED(ASG)    |DATE RECEIVED FROM MAINT. |DATE ANSWERED |LOGGED OFF  |
|		       |			  |              |            |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

So, can customers send this thing to [email protected]?

Thanks very much to the author of .7, but does the US-only rule specified in .5
still apply?  Even by the standards of Digital's beaurocracy, having local
country offices "screen" SPRs of standard products sounds bizarre.  Will the
friendly folks in Alpharetta accept an SPR from me, a loyal Digital employee,
even if it's submitted from outside The Land Of The Free And The Home Of The
Brave?

It wasn't easy, but eventually I managed to submit an SPR electronically.
Here's what happened:

I sent mail to Randy Gauthier (referenced in .7), who explained the procedure.
The vast majority of Digital employees, those who work in the US, can send
electronic SPRs to a single CSC.  An employee who works outside the US, on the
other hand, submits them to a designated person in his general area. I work in
Jerusalem, and Randy gave me pointers to service people in both Valbonne and
Herzliya (Israel).  They, in turn, sent me pointers to other people, but no one
admitted to knowing how to handle an electronic SPR.

I finally appealed to Randy again, and she told me to send my SPRs to the US
office.  I sent two SPRs, and within a couple of days had responses from the
person responsible for the product.  Simple and efficient, exactly as it should
work.

If a single office can field SPRs from all employees in the US, there's no
reason why it shouldn't be able to handle those from non-US employees, as well.
I don't know who is responsible for the current system -- probably someone who
isn't aware that Digital has a worldwide computer network -- but it should be
changed.

	From the CSC's perspective, this is what happens:

	- We submit an SPR via the CHAMPS system to something called
	  PIPE

	- PIPE has a list of 'people' (in reality, mail accounts) that
	  it sends mail to based on the product.  Those 'people' are
	  supposed to get the SPR into the TIME system.

	Here my knowledge of what happens breaks down, but it appears
	(from experience that) - these are rated from best to worse
	cases:

	- it will go from TIME to a QAR database somewhere where the
	  specialist who submitted CANNOT read it.  Hopefully, it
	  then gets worked and we get a response back via the same
	  channels. Why we cannot read an SPR that we submitted is
	  beyond comprehension.

	- it will languish in someone's (something's) MAil until:

		- customer gets irate and goes CLD (funny how they
		  get 'found' all of a sudden)

		- we get curious as to why this call has been 
		  sitting in my open call list for a month

	- at which point we can:

		- send mail to the account (heck, maybe they will
		  respond to a real person - hasn't happened to me
		  yet, though)

		- get one of the PIPE people to find out who the 
		  DRI is.  We can then call and find out that that
		  person has been TSFO'd ;-). 

		- post a note a notes file and find out from the
		  engineering group that they never saw the SPR,
		  file a QAR.

	
	I've been through all of these paths.  The biggest black hole
	is when the call leaves the CSC - nobody can explain that.  Each
	engineering group does it different - some have someone technical
	recieve the SPR's,  some have CSSE, some don't, some have an
	admin-type person, some ?  

	Whatever.  The lack of consistency of getting the SPR from the
	field to engineering is appalling.   The lack of feedback on the
	problem resolution is just as bad.

	Rick Beldin
	Atlanta CSC

    re: .11
    
    I can fill in part of the rest of the process, for one product.  In the
    case of DECforms PIPE sends non-suggestion SPRs to our release
    engineer, Meg Brown.  She forwards the mail to the Designated Project
    Leader, currently Dave Chestnutt, who responds with the name of an
    engineer in his group who will be responsible for the SPR.  That
    engineer investigates the problem, hopefully reproducing it exactly as
    described, and takes whatever action seems necessary to fix it.  If the
    fix involves a code change he must verify that the latest "build" of
    the product actually fixes the problem, and usually he must add a test
    to the regression test system to guard against the problem recurring.
    
    When this is done the engineer writes a sanitized answer to the SPR and
    circulates it among his management, his project leader, and whoever
    helped him fix the problem, including any experts in the area of the
    fix.  He perfects the answer based on feedback from this group.  After
    two days of no objections he posts the answer in our SPR data base,
    which sends a copy to the release engineer, Meg Brown.  Meg then
    sends the response back through PIPE.
    
    I'm not sure what happens to an SPR response after it leaves our
    release engineer's hands, but it usually arrives at the appropriate CSC
    and is conveyed to the customer by a specialist.  Sometimes SPR
    responses get lost and have to be re-sent.
    
    Each engineering group has its own SPR data base, so there is no
    reasonable way for the specialists to read them---they would have to
    learn a different User Interface for each product!  TIME was an attempt
    to provide a single data base for all groups, but it doesn't seem to
    have caught on.  Usually, there is someone in the engineering group who
    is known to the specialists in the CSC and can be contacted directly to
    answer questions, such as the condition of an SPR.  In the case of
    DECforms I have been assigned that responsibility by my management, so
    it is a formal part of my job.
        John Sauter
                                       

I thought that the support centers are soon migrating to IPMT, which would
provide a single mechanism for tracking SPR's up to, but not including,
engineering (yet).

re:.12

I'm amazed that you've wired a two-day delay into your process.  If I were a
customer, I'd be upset.  Is there something special about your situation
that necessitates that much review?  The usual SPR responses I've seen are
pretty much boilerplate:  "Thank you for reporting this problem, we've found
the bug, we've fixed it in the sources, and we expect it to be in the next
release of the product.  In the meantime, here's a workaround/Sorry, we don't
have a workaround."  Pretty bland stuff, deserving of a proof-read, perhaps, 
but not a large review.  Special cases may require more review, but those
are the exception, not the rule.

Which is not to say that all the SPR's around here get instant attention;
just that I don't know of any project that has formalized a review delay into
their process.

   Gary

    re: .13
    
    I think our group may be unusual in having a two-day waiting period. 
    Needless to say, we don't share the details of our process with
    customers.
        John Sauter

Re .14:

Well, the customers may not know where their problem report is cooling its heels
at any particular time, but they know they haven't gotten it until they've
gotten it.


The fact that you understand the problem flow for your product to this degree
implies to me that you have some worthy goals for the quality of your product's
service offerings.  I invite you to periodically review your service processes
for improvement - some day you may just think of a way to satisfy your goals
without a two-day waiting period.

And since I'm pretty sure that problem reporting processes have been a DECUS
topic in the past, and you may have a better process than some other groups, you
might also reexamine why you're not willing to share your process with
customers (especially if we're supposed to establish an atmosphere of teaming
together to address their business problems).  At worst, you might think of ways
to improve things, and at best you'll discover you have nothing to be ashamed
of, and something to be proud of.
				/AHM/THX

    The problem reporting process has been a DECUS topic more or less
    continuously for 25 years that I know of.