Two companies that we're dealing with at my 'day job' are proving that the adage that 'you get what you pay for' couldn't be more wrong.
You see, the customer of my employer, the people that pay my employer for myself and my co-workers to work for them, pay us good money to get the jobs done quickly and efficiently. We do our best to make that happen, but there are times when we are, like our customer, left waiting for someone else to provide support for our efforts. Support that we, or our customer, normally pay quite handsomely for. Support that can cost thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars for just for the priviledge of calling up for assistance that is supposed to take no more than xx amount of time to have provided, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Top shelf support. The stuff that you pay for so you aren't left waiting for help with someone's life on the line, or with some very costly operation having to be postponed or cancelled.
What we've found lately though is that paying for this support doesn't mean you'll actually get it. Far from it. You'll pay for it, and if you haven't paid for it in advance, you'll pay for it before you can even get a word in edgewise to describe your problem and try to determine if the problem is a known bug that was patched in some upgrade you haven't been told about, or which wasn't available to you unless you paid the big ransom, uh, I mean support contract fee.
One of the companies we are dealing with is a famous document processing company. The used to make the bulk of their money selling machines that made copies. That company with the big X at the beginning of their name.
They make a document collaboration system that is used by my employers customer. One which runs on multiple platforms and does some pretty cool stuff when it works, or when it is installed on relatively modern era hardware. Unfortunately that doesn't apply to my work place as we've been using an older version of the software running on a very old hardware platform.
I've taken on the task of working to upgrade that system and migrate that software off the existing hardware platform and operating system over to a more industry standard operating system and hardware platform. It really wouldn't be that tough a task to perform if the tools that the company that made the system supplied to their customers actually worked like they are supposed to.
Unfortunately, I'm having to work with older versions of the software, and am trying to create a replica of the existing system that can then be upgraded without potentially having our existing system go offline semi-permanently because of failures in the upgrade processes that will be required later. The software developers make tools that are supposed to be used to make replicas of the existing system over to other systems so that you don't have to recreate things from scratch. Note that I said supposed to do these things. Unfortunately the tools just don't work. Known bugs and things like that. Nothing like calling up for support, giving the support people copies of logs that show the errors, and then getting back an answer 3 days later that says "uh, yeah, that's a known issue in that version of the software and tool. You'll have to upgrade to a later version, but not too late, because the later versions have problems too..." Say what?!!?
What these clowns want is for us to install a major upgrade -- not a minor software revision such as nn.xx.yy upgrade where only the .yy part is changing. Nope, a full blown .nn upgrade, and after that an .xx upgrade or two for good measure. All to be applied on a system that may or may not even cooperate with any of these upgrade processes given the age of the equipment and operating system that is running on it.
Not going to happen if I have anything to say about it (and I do).
One way or another, I'm gonna be pushing for a way to do this upgrade in a safe manner. One where I don't have to make changes on the original system and then wonder if I've just killed that system once and for all.
Meanwhile, my boss asks what kind of support we're getting for the thousands of dollars we've paid into the maker of the software and I mumble about the worthlessness of what it is. Ugh.
Also meanwhile, there's another relatively famous software package that we're having issues with. A big package, used for maintaining developed software. If I gave you three letters, started with M and ended with S, and perhaps tossed a strike right down the middle of the plate, you'd know who I was talking about.
Thankfully I've avoided that problem for the most part, as co-workers handle that situation, but suffice it to say that the software is not working as it should and at the same time neither is the support for it. Support that has cost our customer tens of thousands of dollars. Support that should be performed within just a few hours in a day, but instead keeps running into the "well, we don't run that same hardware and software combination here, so we're not sure what is wrong" type discussions.
All of this makes me long for the good old days of what seemed to be over-priced copies of software like WordPerfect. I remember thinking that the prices for WordPerfect were just way too high, but at the same time I also remember that even when non-paying customers called in for support (at least in the earlier days of the corporation) the person that called in was going to get an answer -- nee, not just an answer, but a solution -- no matter how long it took.
Companies used to work hard, and they used to employ people that actually spoke English as their native tongue. They used to have short pipelines from the customer service people that answered the phone to the developers that actually wrote the code that was causing the issue. Not any more. Now we wind up calling into call centers run out of third world countries, or at least staffed with third world natives that barely speak English, and have to work from a script because if they deviate at all from said script they'll have no idea how to deal with you or where to route your call.
Not to kiss butt of the very generous hosts of the site that is hosting this article, but there are very few Stardock Corporations left out there in the software business world, and instead far more companies like the ones I've written about here (not the WordPerfect of old either, but the big X and the M{strike}S ones). Companies that have decided that in order to bolster their own bottom lines they'll cut their customer service and support staffs to the bone, and cut out things like *testing* of their products while rushing development of products so they can get them out to the market no matter how badly bugged they may be.
Nevermind going back and actually *fixing* known problems in tools that you are still making available to your customer. Nevermind documenting these issues in ways that customers can find for themselves. Nah, just leave your customers to call in and wait for days for a solution to a problem that won't be forthcoming.
That is the state of customer service in the computer industry now.