|Re: HP 20B Prediction weirdness?|
Message #11 Posted by Tim Wessman on 14 May 2010, 9:27 a.m.,
in response to message #10 by Bart (UK)
Now please don't anyone take this out of context. I am just going to put on my "if I were a businessman hat" and ask a few questions that I would imagine someone in charge of setting a policy might ask.
This has nothing to do with HP policy, nor any internal discussions I've ever heard. I suspect this type of issue has come up with many varieties of products before though, both inside and out of HP. If it was just software you could send out a fix. Since there is hardware involved, everything is more difficult.
1. Does publishing a list of defects gain me more ($) than not doing so? (<-- that is the golden business question, when in doubt - follow the money!)
2. If I publish known defects, does that simply increase the number of people aware of problems that would have otherwise not known there were problems? I have deemed this to be a very minor issue that affects only a tiny percentage of users.
3. If I publish known issues, does that make me legally liable if I choose not to fix it due to time or cost?
4. If I publish known issues, does it cause the general customer who is not affected by the problem call my support center and ask for a replacement even though they aren't affected at all, simply because they now have the perception of a "bad product"?
There are probably more quesitons, but those were the ones that popped into my head while writing them down.
Of course, everything changes with a product if a failure means someone could die or is seriously injuered. Then from a business standpoint, you want to do everything possible. **NOT** from the "it is the right thing to do" standpoint, but rather the "Oh crap! We will lose so much money if we are sued over this". Again, follow the money.
Now think of this imaginary scenario. Let's say that HP suddenly became aware of 10 serious issues in the 12c. These issues were there from the beginning, and are definitely giving "bad" results. However, they are very obscure and nobody has found these issues since the very beginning and reported them. Are these serious issues that should be published? Would it be better to publish this info and possibly risk a core, longstanding product regarded so highly in the industry? It has been highly regarded for over 25 years. Should a business risk changing that, even thought nothing about the product has changed?
My personal view has, and always will be that transparency is best. However, I do recognize that there are some valid concerns those in charge of this type of thing have to weigh and evaluate.
Edited: 14 May 2010, 9:30 a.m.