Skip to main content
T
23-Emerald IV
TomU23-Emerald IV
23-Emerald IV
June 13, 2014
Question

"works to product specification" - who writes these things???

  • June 13, 2014
  • 5 replies
  • 7640 views

Saw this come through today: https://www.ptc.com/appserver/cs/view/solution.jsp?n=CS174472

24.PNG

Who writes these things? Why would anyone write a product spec to randomly name files when batch printing?

I could understand if they said, "oops, we didn't think about that", but instead, "we designed the product to name your files is such a way so that you have absolutely no idea what they are." Really?

    5 replies

    T
    TomD.inPDX17-Peridot
    17-Peridot
    June 14, 2014

    The specification didn't exist before you complained... but now that you complained, miraculously, it does exist, -and- what do you know, it meets it -perfectly- !

      C
      ClintWalton1-Visitor
      1-Visitor
      June 23, 2014

      Hi Tom,

      Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I've pulled this article from the public domain and submitted it for rework by an engineer in that product area.

      In the future, the "Did this document help you?" feedback widget is available in the lower right to let us know how such documents can be improved.

        T
        23-Emerald IV
        TomU23-Emerald IVAuthor
        23-Emerald IV
        June 30, 2014

        Here is another one that came out today. Seems like a similar issue.

        https://www.ptc.com/appserver/cs/view/solution.jsp?source=subscription&n=CS175394

        26.PNG

        I find it hard to believe that the product specification actually spells out this behavior. It seems more likely that this is undefined in the spec., and therefore automatically considered in compliance (since no other behavior is specified). Absence of pre-defined behavior in the spec. shouldn't equal compliance, especially when the resulting behavior is completely illogical (unless it really isn't).

        I guess the root issue is this, if tech support is going to tell me something "works to product specification", then I expect them to be able to produce that portion of the specification both proving it and explaining the "why" behind it. Doing so would help us understand the software better and maybe even show us new/better ways of using it.

          D
          dschenken1-Visitor
          1-Visitor
          July 6, 2014

          How long would it take for the database Admin to make a search of that database for "Works to product specification" and flag each one that doesn't link to the applicable product specification? Years, probably.

          D
          dgschaefer21-Topaz II
          21-Topaz II
          June 30, 2014

          Several years ago I was sitting at the PTC User conference over lunch with the head of tech support. I expressed my frustration with the canned "intended Functionality" response, which is what they used to say instead of "works to product specification". He told me that if the support rep tells you that he ought to be able to produce documentation to support it. Ask to see it if you think he's simply trying to close the case without action.

            L
            LawrenceS18-Opal
            18-Opal
            July 30, 2014

            I have asked on several cases to produce documentation, but even on the cases where I think it was legitimately accounted for they have never produced any kind of documentation. When pressed they just tell me what R&D said, and their reasons. Have you ever had success asking for this? And if so how do you word it?

            T
            23-Emerald IV
            TomU23-Emerald IVAuthor
            23-Emerald IV
            July 30, 2014

            Frankly, no, I've never actually gotten anything back. The closest I've come is receiving custom written documentation from R&D explaining certain aspects of Pro/e that were (and still are) undocumented. Making the request for proof does help me move cases to higher level personnel who often have a deeper understanding of the software. The vast majority of the cases I open end with the tech saying, "please create an idea on the PTC community". I don't think I've ever been told "why" something is a certain way. I'm slowly learning that "why" really doesn't matter. Instead I make sure I really understand how it is supposed to work, then either submit suggestions to change it, or find a way to work around it.

            P
            ptc-54987171-Visitor
            1-Visitor
            July 7, 2014

            It is fine.

            T
            23-Emerald IV
            TomU23-Emerald IVAuthor
            23-Emerald IV
            March 17, 2017

            Here's another one.  It's like the people writing the spec's don't actually use the software.  I just don't get it. 

            https://support.ptc.com/appserver/cs/view/solution.jsp?source=subscription&n=CS219704

            M
            22-Sapphire I
            MikeLockwood22-Sapphire I
            22-Sapphire I
            March 17, 2017

            You know you're dealing with tech support when you see "Works to Product Specification"

            You know you're dealing with Marketing when you see "You know, this is a valuable feature and we're going to charge extra for it"

            T
            23-Emerald IV
            TomU23-Emerald IVAuthor
            23-Emerald IV
            March 17, 2017

            I'm less frustrated with tech support and more frustrated with the person who wrote the spec.  Why in the world would someone go to the trouble of making it possible to display an image on a part but then not have it display on all the copies of that part in an assembly?  Maybe there is some good reason.  I just can't figure out what it would be.

            Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement