ADSM-L

IBM Participation..was Usefulness of ADSM Requirements..

1996-12-06 18:43:32
Subject: IBM Participation..was Usefulness of ADSM Requirements..
From: Martha McConaghy <URMM AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 18:43:32 EST
I know there's already been a lot of traffic on this subject.  However,
as list owner, I feel I should make some comments.

When I started the list a number of years ago, ADSM was brand new and no
one (including myself) knew much about it.  I had some problems grasping
the concepts and decided to start up a list so that I could communicate
with other struggling ADSM users.  Since then, however, the success of
the list has gone way past any of my expectations.  IMHO, this is 95%
due to the participation of the ADSM developers, support programmers
and others at IBM.  They have set a new standard in being responsive to
customers' needs, comments and problems.  I have often encouraged other
IBM divisions to follow their lead.  Second only to the VM developers in
Endicott, I think they are the most progressive group of IBM'ers I have
met.

Not only has their participation on this list made it successful, but several
of the ADSM folks have saved my butt on a couple of occasions.  Especially,
I remember Mike Kazmarski coming to my rescue after I had lost most of my
database and didn't have a good backup.  As other postings have attested,
I'm not the only customer who received critical assistance from the ADSM
developers who monitor this list.

We may not always say it, but we all appreciate the extra effort and applaud
the way you have conducted yourselves on this list.

Francisco, after reading your postings, I still don't have a clear
understanding of your frustrations.  What do you mean by "usability"?
I admit I had problems setting up the initial ADSM server, however, that
was in the very beginning.  The new manuals and red books have improved that
considerably.  I have rarely had problems with the clients, although I
have only used the OS/2, Windows (3.1 and 95) and AIX versions.  I have
been able to put these clients out on the desks of payroll admins, secretaries
and even application programmers and all seem to be able to use them with
no help from me.  I think that's pretty good "usability".

Therefore, I think you need to be more specific about your problems.  Where
do you think ADSM has poor usability, and, please specify the platforms
involved?  What concerns do you have that aren't being addressed by
ADSM development?  Have you attempted to submit formal requirements via a
user group, or through a letter to ADSM development?  The ADSM-R list was
an experiment which, unfortunately, did not succeed as ADSM-L did.  However,
there are a number of ways to bring your requirements to IBM's attention.
Both SHARE and GUIDE have formal requirements processes.  Each requirement
submitted to IBM must receive a response and normally do by the next major
meeting.  There are other, less formal ways of doing it as well.

However, I think its unreasonable to expect that IBM can implement every
requirement, especially within a few months.  After all, ADSM development
has limited resources too.  They must make decisions on scope and necessity
of every code or design change.  Some are just not going to make the cut.
That's hardly a situation unique to ADSM.

I grant that ADSM is not a perfect product ( I haven't run across one
yet).  There's always room for improvement.  Still, I remain a fan (although
I never got a response on my question about ADSM on VM...hint...hint...).

Francisco, why don't you explain some of your problems with ADSM usability.
The resulting discussion might help the developers make their choices.

Martha
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • IBM Participation..was Usefulness of ADSM Requirements.., Martha McConaghy <=