On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 12:39:06 -0500, John McKown wrote: > >Do you mean IBN's Tech Support, or a company's? I ask because one of my >duties in Tech Support is to question why something is "done that way". >And suggest / recommend possible, more efficient, alternatives. > So we have tech support, help desk, and you suggest a third function, that of monitoring/auditing resource use and suggesting improvements to programmers with inordinate resource use, even if they are satisfied with the current results and their departments have no objection to any chargeback.
But if a programmer is working on a one-shot which in its one execution will use $100 of computing resources, suggesting a refactoring which will run for $10 in resources is counterproductive. OTOH, if the programmer encounters a facility which fails to work as documented and must experiment to discover which few among many documented techniques actually work, there is a greater waste of resource. So, I wonder, do SLAs generally require suppliers to repair all reported defects, regardless how inconsequential, provided only that the functional specification violation is undisputed? It might be reasonable for tech support to sometimes be able to respond, "Don't you really think that's just a SEV 4?" -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
