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 jennifer.me...@nc.gov<mailto:jennifer.me...@nc.gov> 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:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Guillaume Rheault Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:54 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG 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"_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
