Ok fair point, i am assuming from your response that the purchase is complete. My point of raising logs with the vendor still stands, basically cause a stink with them until you have their attention therefore their help.
I agree that is the typical scenario which is why the client should either carry out a proper evaluation themselves or turn to a test consultancy earlier before a purchase is made. Though i dont suppose this helps your current predicament.
my point is if a more informed purchase decision is made then the vendor shouldnt have to be included in the solution, ie if the tool was purchased on its own merit rather than what the sales guy says it will do.
I dont mean to hijack your thread but if firms were better informed then there would be no need for fire fighting consultants to save tools from becomming shelfware.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wooks: The typical scenario is where the vendor has made the sale based on a flimsy POC exercise, and the customer is having trouble with his automation and turns to a test consultancy for help.
I think the post is referring to "What after ?" than to "Why not before ?" ...
never say die
[This message has been edited by witchcrop (edited 07-17-2002).]
Life, that dares send, A challenge to his end,
And when it comes say, Welcome friend.
Depending on the sales scenario, would it be possible for your organization to write into the sales contract terms that the vendor will participate in the installation/training/etc. for $xx.00 for a set period of time? That makes the vendor stand behind their product and could help minimize problems for your organization later. There can be many creative variations on this theme but the main key is that vendor assistance is included as a condition of the sale.