Newsgroups: bit.listserv.advanc-l
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 12:19:31 PST
              <ADVANC-L@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         "(Priscilla Peters)" <pechi@ALTAIR.CSUSTAN.EDU>
Subject:      Enhancements

      Before leaving on a vacation trip I wanted to send a quick
      message encouraging sites to participate actively in submission
      of enhancement requests in response to the call just issued by
      User Group President Matt Goldner.

      Stanislaus experienced some disappointments during the previous
      round of enhancement requests, and in reflecting on our
      disappointments we have come up with some ideas and suggestions
      which we want to share with Geac and other users in the hope of
      avoiding a repetition of these experiences and ultimately in
      strengthening the ADVANCE product.  (Credit goes to my colleagues
      Valerie Bross and Shirley Fonseca for ideas included here.)

      1.  Distinguishing between enhancements and fixes: In reviewing
      the "User Group Enhancement List" which was recently distributed,
      we are struck by the fact that there seems to be a mixture of
      fixes and (true) enhancements on the list.  Clearly non-
      functional aspects of the system need to be reported, but
      Customer Support in Dallas seems the place for this sort of
      thing.  We suggest it would be constructive if Geac would
      routinely notify all customers of unresolved system problems or
      bugs.  The enhancement process itself, then, would be
      unencumbered by things other than true enhancements.

      2.  The big picture vs. the small detail: In many instances we
      seem in our requests to be focusing on details rather than
      looking at the big picture.  This is not to say that there aren't
      instances where a significant change can't involve just a small
      aspect of functionality.  At the same time, however, we need to
      be looking at the bigger picture as well.  Cataloging edit
      functions as a whole would be an example of the latter.

      3.  An opportunity to review Geac's initial responses:  Two very
      important requests submitted during the last round by Stanislaus
      have clearly been misunderstood by Geac.  We had no idea there
      was any misunderstanding until we saw the just received "User
      Group Enhancement List", which, unfortunately at this late date,
      means that a great deal of time has been lost in securing some
      enhancements we feel most users will want when they begin
      actively using the Acquisitions module.  To avoid this in the
      future, we suggest that requesting sites be clearly identified  in
      all requests so that Geac can contact them if questions  arise,
      and that perhaps the User Group be given preliminary  responses by
      Geac to the requests so that it can alert Geac when  development
      might not be on track.

      Others of you may have additional suggestions to offer which
      could strengthen the enhancement process.  Whether you agree
      with our suggestions or not, we hope that you will share your
      suggestions for improving the process and participate actively in
      it so that all of us will benefit.

      By the way, in a recent phone conversation with Matt Goldner, I
      learned that we are to submit enhancement requests on the special
      forms produced last year by the User Group.  I'm sure  Matt could
      make these forms available to any site which doesn't  have them at
      hand.

                                        Priscilla Peters
                                        Serials/Systems Librarian
                                        pechi@altair.csustan.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU