Compatible with LabVIEW support requirements for free products

[rdr]

We (NI) revamped the Product Partner and Compatible with LabVIEW programs over the past few years and I wanted to ask the LAVA community for feedback on the support requirements for Compatible with LabVIEW Silver and Gold products. I wasn't sure where to post this topic, so I'm sorry if the Lounge is not the correct forum!

Our requirements for this program are for Silver products to have a documented support plan or policy; we want users to have somewhere to go for support for these products! This is a pretty straightforward requirement where we accept pretty much any support offering (email, forums, telephone, etc) as along as it's documented in the product.

The purpose of this thread is really intended for feedback on the Gold Product requirements, where we require a documented support policy with a minimum 2-day response time. We're open to companies or organizations having a pay-for-support policy, but it must meet this requirement in order for a product to reach the Gold level. We see a potential issue for free products like the OpenG libraries where they are maintained by a community and no one individual is responsible for support; how can these free products offer a guaranteed 2-day response time on support inquiries?

Why is the 2-day response time relevant? Well, we are anticipating these APIs being used by customers in mission critical applications and we don't want these customers to be stuck if a bug or some other issue is found.

So, what are your thoughts?

Thanks!

-RDR

NI Partner Program Staff Engineer

[Anders Björk]

Not good at all!

Downgrading high class community ware like OpenG libraries is a statement in it self. Your grading should be based on itself product quality not the support. Also the basis for your classification can not be easily realized from your web page.

http://sine.ni.com/n...SWT_L_Standard/

Well your own support can not always help out with simple problems even in 30days...

[Black Pearl]

Doesn't LAVA fullfil these requirements?

1. I'm sure every single post was replied to in much less than 2 days. When I had issues to solve, posted them on lava, I received the support even on public holidays.

2. Many of the members in this community also have a brilliant record on helping others on the public NI forums. Very few of the offical NI support team will be able to compete with this on all levels (inside knownledge, number of posts, response time, real-wolrd app experience).

Just using these two arguments, I think the complete LAVA CR (certified) section should go for Gold.

Felix

[rdr]

Not good at all!

Downgrading high class community ware like OpenG libraries is a statement in it self. Your grading should be based on itself product quality not the support. Also the basis for your classification can not be easily realized from your web page.

http://sine.ni.com/n...SWT_L_Standard/

Well your own support can not always help out with simple problems even in 30days...

Good points! We're working with our web teams to improve the LabVIEW Tools Network going forward and have plans for improving the sorting and display of products. The Compatible with LabVIEW Levels require more than just a support requirement, we perform "black box" tests on products with a list of criteria and obtain surveys from users of a product to help determine how well it functions when used in real applications. So we hope to hit on quality as well!

The support requirement is not for resolving an issue within 2 days, rather we want to provide customers and users with an expectation for how long they will wait for a response after submitting a support inquiry...

My question is more along the lines of what are your thoughts on requiring support for free products like OpenG and other freeware APIs/Add-ons? Is this a feasible requirement for all free products or should we treat free products differently?

-RDR

Doesn't LAVA fullfil these requirements?

1. I'm sure every single post was replied to in much less than 2 days. When I had issues to solve, posted them on lava, I received the support even on public holidays.

2. Many of the members in this community also have a brilliant record on helping others on the public NI forums. Very few of the offical NI support team will be able to compete with this on all levels (inside knownledge, number of posts, response time, real-wolrd app experience).

Just using these two arguments, I think the complete LAVA CR (certified) section should go for Gold.

Felix

I was not intending to take shots at the OpenG library! Definitely not! Your forums are very active and are great for LabVIEW developers! The OpenG libraries are also widely used and we're open to taking these libraries through our Gold product testing; however, with the current program requirement for a 2-day turnaround on support requests we hit a snag for one of the Gold product prerequisites as the turnaround time for support inquiries is not documented and therefore is not guaranteed for a customer/user.

http://decibel.ni.com/content/docs/DOC-8981

Perhaps Chris B will chime in with input on the OpenG library as he's our team member who reviewed this product for the Silver level...

-RDR

[Ton Plomp]

I appreciate how you are open about this! And I can understand how it's viable to keep your standards high (and pure) for the LVTools Network.

Regarding OpenG:

As a community member I cannot guarantee that there always will be an appropriate response within 2 days, some of the packages are more obscure than the others.

However I think there is a possiblity to use the SourceForge's issue tracker. We should be able to set that issue tracker up in a way, that when an issue (bug/feature request/support request) is raised a certain group (yes, those are volunteers) get a direct notice (email) about the issue.

And beyond that there is no better promise than any other (commercial) party can make, but I guess that there is some sort of complaint from a customer that could revoke the Gold status of any package (commercial or community supported).

One thing that might 'scare' people is the public nature of these discussions. However I believe in an open communication about bugs etc. But that should be stated clearly at the LVTN page.

Regarding other community supported packages that might want to go LVTN:

I think it's not possible to keep the community active to keep these packages supported. It needs commitment, if I look at the Code Capture Tool, I sometimes don't have the inspiration to respond to a question (and sometimes I just lack time). However if I look at the community supported packages that I use (Mantis, Mercurial) I have noticed that the response time is very short. For instance a question on the Mercurial Mailing list results in a very fast (and correct) answer by the main developer. It will be though for us to get the same standards running.

Regards,

Ton

[Black Pearl]

I was not intending to take shots at the OpenG library! Definitely not! Your forums are very active and are great for LabVIEW developers! The OpenG libraries are also widely used and we're open to taking these libraries through our Gold product testing; however, with the current program requirement for a 2-day turnaround on support requests we hit a snag for one of the Gold product prerequisites as the turnaround time for support inquiries is not documented and therefore is not guaranteed for a customer/user.

http://decibel.ni.co...t/docs/DOC-8981

Then propably NI should hire someone to document that LAVA is doing a 7/24h support for OpenG.

We like to do software. Documentation is a pain. So we only do it if we get paid for it. Got it?

Felix

[ShaunR]

To guarantee a response time requires resources, budgets and funding to be specifically allocated to that goal. For most companies, the resource is already in place as it is considered as an integral part of a company as an accounts or purchasing department s are. Free software (not trial or shareware, but truly.free of charge and royalties) in this environment is really a loss-leader - a gateway to sales for paid products and it is the companies interest to use existing support structures to capitalise on this and a proportion of the cost of a paid product is calculated to provide this support.. I think that is reflected in that (as far as I'm aware) all "Gold Compatible" are paid-for products with only 1 exception.

However. Open source software (like the OpenG) is a non-commercial environment. As such, there are no allocated resources, budgets or funds. There is no existing support infrastructure. There is only community/personal pride, commitment to self improvement and a willingness to share; often at personal cost in both time and monies. Of course. There may not be a team of 30 engineers on the end of a telephone and the software might only be created and supported by a lone individual, but in my experience the support response is far superior as you are actually interfacing with a technical specialist rather than a telephone jocky and they have a vested interest in the product - not your wallet .

But the biggest advantage is it has source code, and that empowers the user to be able to support themselves in a way that they cannot with proprietary, closed-source products so reliance on a fast support response is greatly diminished..

What does it actually mean "2-day turn around time on technical support". Is that to resolve an issue (I don't think anyone can guarantee that given time-zone differences). Is it to get an automated response to an email enquiry (It doesn't mean my problem will be solved). How does a 2 day support turn-around make some software more "compatible"?

I think the Standard and Silver have the right idea - Peer tested and reviewed. If you view the "Compatible" award system as a measure of excellence then I think the issue of support is a bit moot since it is catered for within reviews. If another measure (or alternative) is required to distinguish Gold from Silver, then perhaps it should be relevant to the quality, number of commendations, platform dependence or whether it comes with source?

I think if it was a quality metric, then the OpenG tools would be (and should be) Gold.

Oh. And is "Compatible With LabVIEW" the right name? Surely all software written in LabVIEw is "Compatible" (versioning aside)

[jdunham]

What if the metric were the actual percent of requests handled within 2 days or some similar metric? I bet LAVA would score well without anyone having to give a future commitment on support, which is not really feasible with open software.

[Francois Normandin]

Let's look at Linux for a moment. It's open-source and was originally supported by the community. Then came along companies like RedHat whose business model was to offer support for the free open-source linux. They don't sell Linux, but rather a business solution with full support. I know OpenG is at least an order or two of magnitude smaller than Linux, but that model looks like it could work. A company or contractor could very well offer paid-support for OpenG if an integrator wants to have fast turnaround time garantee on critical path tasks.

Whether or not this parallel stands further arguments, I don't think support response time is an appropriate metrics for classification. It will be part of the pros & cons of choosing to use OpenG or not, but as stated before, open source code means that you can hire anyone with a strong LabVIEW experience and he can fill this gap. That person could be an internal resource or an hired contractor... that is, if free LAVA support is not fast enough.

[Antoine Chalons]

The support requirement is not for resolving an issue within 2 days, rather we want to provide customers and users with an expectation for how long they will wait for a response after submitting a support inquiry...

Well... If you go on the OpenG forum and check the timestamp difference between post asking for support and replies you may find out that in most cases answers come faster than 2 days and you also probably can find a few post that waited a bit longer than that. But what's the big deal?

Anyway, for a company that has a product on LVTN and applies for the gold level, how do you make sure they *always* provide support within 2 days?

Are you going to test them each week?

The OpenG community has been providing great support for a long time now. Amongst companies that have products on LVTN, who's going to provide the same level of support (in terms of response time AND quality) over the same period of time?

[Chris Bolin]

This is a great discussion. Please don't think we don't want OpenG to be a Gold product - personally I think it's one of the best examples of a LabVIEW product available. We are just working to codify how this all fits together. Here's the line of reasoning ...

Two things are usually necessary when a customer using any product needs help:

1. Response
2. Accountability

The response helps them resolve their current issue. But if the provider doesn't respond or the issue isn't resolved, there needs to be some accountability for the product.

I have no doubt whatsoever of OpenG's quality and the community's ability to support it. But where does the accountability lie? As with any open source software, it lies with the user, not the provider.

But after reading the above discussion, I am now thinking maybe open-source (code) add-ons could be "Gold" because users can support themselves...

[ShaunR]

2. Accountability

The response helps them resolve their current issue. But if the provider doesn't respond or the issue isn't resolved, there needs to be some accountability for the product.

This is good point. But .....

if I pay monies for a product then there are certain responsibilities that the provider must adhere to by law. This is true of not only tangible product but things like services too. If support is offered as a product or, if it is an inclusive part of a product (as stated in their literature), then the provider is bound to provide that service and is legally accountable to the terms of that service.

However, if it is not offered in this way, then the provider is only "socially" accountable and is under no obligation to provide that service and, if it is supplied, it is as a "value-added" service rather than a "rightful" one, with much less stringent responsibilities. From this definition, open source products are a socially accountable products and are no different than equivalent commercial offerings and the metric can be considered by customer satisfaction and review.

[Chris Bolin]

However, if it is not offered in this way, then the provider is only "socially" accountable and is under no obligation to provide that service and, if it is supplied, it is as a "value-added" service rather than a "rightful" one, with much less stringent responsibilities.

I completely agree. We simply wanted the possibility for legal accountability (even at an extra cost), as this is necessary for certain applications and industries. We wanted 3rd party products (especially the top tier) to have the possibility of being used in the same strict environments as LabVIEW.

[ShaunR]

I completely agree. We simply wanted the possibility for legal accountability (even at an extra cost), as this is necessary for certain applications and industries. We wanted 3rd party products (especially the top tier) to have the possibility of being used in the same strict environments as LabVIEW.

Those industries/companies that demand support, do so as a separate contract from the product. Some (for example) require 24 hr call-out and dedicated telephone numbers and contact names. As such accountability (legal or social) has nothing to do with the original product; II is a separate contract drawn up by the two involved parties and, accountable in it's own right.

As was pointed out before with the Linux example, There is nothing to stop a 3rd party entering into a contract to supplying support for an open source product and, indeed, there is nothing prohibitive about purchasing a product without support. It is a company policy restriction (like acceptable licenses - some companies don't allow open source at all) and that will change from one company to the next.

So the possibility is already there - It is possible to draw up a support contract regardless if you are the provider or not.

[Chris Bolin]

So the possibility is already there - It is possible to draw up a support contract regardless if you are the provider or not.

Hmm, definitely. We hadn't encountered this before. By design "Gold" status applied both to the product and to the provider's ability to provide accountably (again, this could be an additional cost), so the user only has to go to a single source.

Has anyone ever provided paid support for OpenG? I'd be interested to hear about the experience.

[Aristos Queue]

Hmm, definitely. We hadn't encountered this before.

Oh, actually we have... alliance members don't produce NI products, but they sure as heck provide support for them, often in a contractually binding way. :-)

On another point... earlier someone mentioned the distinction between quality products and quality support, and I was thinking that there would be an obvious solution -- separate our certification into Gold Product and Gold Supported Product, or something like that. But I got to thinking -- part of being a quality product is that it gets at least enough regular attention to continue operation as time goes by. Maybe no one is actively adding features, but making sure that it works with the next version of LV, or the next version of the operating systems, or the latest hardware. Without some sort of committment there, it would be hard for a mission critical project to adopt an OpenG tool, unless they had the internal staff expertise to update the tool when LV/OS/HW changed. That's a very different kind of support than the "I have a bug, can you find me a workaround" type of support. We haven't been discussing that sort of "updating" support, but I think that is possibly more important than the "I have a bug" support. Thoughts?

[dannyt]

Oh, actually we have... alliance members don't produce NI products, but they sure as heck provide support for them, often in a contractually binding way. :-)

On another point... earlier someone mentioned the distinction between quality products and quality support, and I was thinking that there would be an obvious solution -- separate our certification into Gold Product and Gold Supported Product, or something like that. But I got to thinking -- part of being a quality product is that it gets at least enough regular attention to continue operation as time goes by. Maybe no one is actively adding features, but making sure that it works with the next version of LV, or the next version of the operating systems, or the latest hardware. Without some sort of committment there, it would be hard for a mission critical project to adopt an OpenG tool, unless they had the internal staff expertise to update the tool when LV/OS/HW changed. That's a very different kind of support than the "I have a bug, can you find me a workaround" type of support. We haven't been discussing that sort of "updating" support, but I think that is possibly more important than the "I have a bug" support. Thoughts?

Though I fully agree with the comments about the quality of the software provided and also the fact that if all source code is provided you can maintain something yourself if you need to, I feel you have raised key point here.

To be a open source / free LabVIEW product that gets a Gold or Silver Product recommendation by NI, the Product or community behind it must still be active and vibrant.

As said previously the Open Source tools that work all have healthy & active communities behind them look at Bugzilla, Subversion, Python and many more.

Without that active & vibrant community behind the tools, they will die off leaving you in a dead end situation when they no longer work with newer version of OS or LabVIEW. Some new user of LabVIEW may never even really get to grips with the tools and use them with some level of support & help.

I think the LAVA CR tools & JKI free tools are all example of good and active communities. I regretfully for this reason have concerns regarding the OpenG tools.

I am a keen user of the OpenG tools, I have taken part in the OpenG forums and even once posted a possible fix for a tool that no longer works for LabVIEW 8.2.1 or newer. So with apologies to Ton and other who I know have and do work hard on OpenG I must say that to me it no longer fit this criteria. Looking at the OpenG forums there is very little activity and has been for a long time now. In fact the most recent posts are all spam one. As I said this is a personal option, but as LAVA CR's grow & the NI community grow OpenG feel to be faltering.

Dannyt