We're too efficient?

When we report a fault on a broadband line to our suppliers, wherever possible, we try and identify a clear quantifiable test criteria which we can test.

This means that when our favourite telco send it back "for retest" we can carry out the retest automatically, confirm if fixed or not, and reject the clear back to them if the retest fails. We make a point of clearly stating the test we carried out, when we carried it out and what the outcome was whenever clearing the reject.

Obviously we also monitor manually and escalate and so on as necessary, but our systems can handle the basics 24 hours a day.

The numpties only have the cheek to complain via the account team that we have some automation clearing rejects and they do not like it!!!

Rather than address the real issue - that they send back faults without actually fixing them, sometimes hundreds of times, they are actually complaining that we are efficient in performing the retest THEY ASKED US TO CARRY OUT...

Talk about losing the plot.

They clearly run the fault desk as a game - getting points for rejecting faults quickly, etc, rather than actually trying to resolve issues. And our efficiency upsets their high score.

Needless to say I have sent in an official complaint at the number of times they reject faults without fixing them, and have a list of example faults and number of rejects which was, err, copy/paste from their complaint to us!!!

It is a waste of time I am sure. But who knows.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated purely to filter out obvious spam, but it means they may not show immediately.


There are lots of ways to debug stuff, but at the end of the day it is all a bit of a detective story. Looking for clues, testing an hypothe...