6 ms·

Update 1: Info. Update 2: Same info Again. Update 3: The same info again phrased differently. What's the point of giving regular "updates" when you don't add

Update 1: Info. Update 2: Same info Again. Update 3: The same info again phrased differently. What's the point of giving regular "updates" when you don't add any information? Is it just to tick a managerial box somewhere?

Operyl 8y ago
Some clients will feel ignored, even if you don't regurgitate the same stuff over and over again while there's no new useful information to disseminate (or not had the time to properly write it up). At my job, I wrote a small slack bot that'll ping the person who is dealing with the status page/customer impact, it'll ask "I'm posting an automated update in 15 minutes, would you like that or do you have a full size one?" That way, in the heat of a fire, nobody forgets about the client's status page updates. It works rather well.
jressey 8y ago
If you're on a flight, do you not appreciate when the pilot updates you, even if he says "We are still investigating the maintenance issue?"
- gerardnll 8y ago
  It's funny because if you think it carefully it's like you think they look at the problem for a while and stop until you ask again for updates. haha Like you need to keep asking for them to work on it. Sounds like an oldschool boss expecting you to be on your chair even if that doesn't mean you're working.
- samirm 8y ago
  No, because there's literally nothing I could do to change the situation...
abathur 8y ago
This is probably SLA compliance stuff (stipulations for how quickly they have to provide notice of issues, how often they're obliged to provide updates, and how quickly they'll fix an issue). These stipulations, obviously, don't say much about the quality of the notice or updates. So, yes--ticking a box (but a box that will matter for securing and maintaining contracts with larger organizations).
- justinjlynn 8y ago
  Adhering to the letter of an agreement and not the spirit of that agreement is exactly the opposite I'd want to see from an org when I specify and they agree to x-hourly updates during outages.
  - abathur 8y ago
    It might be the opposite of what the people writing the provisions expect, but the quality of the updates will necessarily have at least some correlation with how long the people most-capable of investigating and fixing the problem spend explaining it to people who are less-capable of either investigating or fixing it. I guess anyone could try to negotiate further stipulations on content of those updates, but I don't think it takes much to make the requirement so absurd that no one who knows what they're doing would agree to it. Unless the provider is clairvoyant/crazy enough to predict when the issue will be resolved, there's very little actionable signal here beyond a list of what's down, acknowledgement that the provider knows and is working on it, and the eventual recovery notice.

Operyl 8y ago

Some clients will feel ignored, even if you don't regurgitate the same stuff over and over again while there's no new useful information to disseminate (or not had the time to properly write it up). At my job, I wrote a small slack bot that'll ping the person who is dealing with the status page/customer impact, it'll ask "I'm posting an automated update in 15 minutes, would you like that or do you have a full size one?" That way, in the heat of a fire, nobody forgets about the client's status page updates. It works rather well.

jressey 8y ago

If you're on a flight, do you not appreciate when the pilot updates you, even if he says "We are still investigating the maintenance issue?"

gerardnll 8y ago
It's funny because if you think it carefully it's like you think they look at the problem for a while and stop until you ask again for updates. haha Like you need to keep asking for them to work on it. Sounds like an oldschool boss expecting you to be on your chair even if that doesn't mean you're working.
samirm 8y ago
No, because there's literally nothing I could do to change the situation...

abathur 8y ago

This is probably SLA compliance stuff (stipulations for how quickly they have to provide notice of issues, how often they're obliged to provide updates, and how quickly they'll fix an issue). These stipulations, obviously, don't say much about the quality of the notice or updates. So, yes--ticking a box (but a box that will matter for securing and maintaining contracts with larger organizations).

justinjlynn 8y ago
Adhering to the letter of an agreement and not the spirit of that agreement is exactly the opposite I'd want to see from an org when I specify and they agree to x-hourly updates during outages.
- abathur 8y ago
  It might be the opposite of what the people writing the provisions expect, but the quality of the updates will necessarily have at least some correlation with how long the people most-capable of investigating and fixing the problem spend explaining it to people who are less-capable of either investigating or fixing it. I guess anyone could try to negotiate further stipulations on content of those updates, but I don't think it takes much to make the requirement so absurd that no one who knows what they're doing would agree to it. Unless the provider is clairvoyant/crazy enough to predict when the issue will be resolved, there's very little actionable signal here beyond a list of what's down, acknowledgement that the provider knows and is working on it, and the eventual recovery notice.