Where does the IPO stand now a days? 4

[bwilch]

A little over a year and a half ago, I was an IPO tech, working on VMPro, IPO 406v2, etc. I know the system still had a lot of kinks to get worked out of it and was curious the overall impression people had of the system now from a year ago. From the posts I've been seeing, it still has it's quirks (and I'm sure it always will), but just looking for general feedback on the system as a whole now from the folks in the field.

Thanks for any feedback you can provide.

 

[aarenot]

There is no phone system I will ever recommend. I only recomend implementors, and will only ever recommend implementors. Anyone who does any different in my opinion is not being real, and has drunk the mnufacturer koolaid.

All phone systems suck until they are put in the hands of someone who knows what to do with them. With the IPO there are numerous ways to accomplish the same thing when it comes to application. In some cases there may be 10 different ways to accomplish something with the IPO, 4 of which are reasonably reliable, 2 of which are reliable, and one which is the most reliable. Experience leads to the latter one as the first choice for the solution, some techs settle for reasonably reliable, some for reliable, and some for the most reliable way of accomplishing something. To some degree the BP has influence on this as well in that it controls in many cases how many corners get cut to make a buck, or if the tech gets the time needed to learn.

Many BP's do not have the experience, training, manpower to properly program, and provision the IPO. Install the min spec in VMPRO, let shareware/freeware/trial apps run in the background, and then slap a TFTP server, and CCC on the same machine, using a non-supported OS, and you get what you deserve,. issues. Skip your network assessment, and cry to someone else, skip your PA's, and mess with the IPO, don't blame it on the IPO.

Now could the product be better, yes, is it good, yes. Do GA releases have the same reliability as the maint. releases, ofcourse not, be real. Do less than Guru's have any sense to install a GA release in my opinion, NO!

To the whiners, if this was not an inconvienence, we would not get paid. We do not get paid for just when it all goes good but for what we can do when things do not all go well. If not, get yourself a raise, and learn to handle the headaches.

To BP's train your people, provide courses, and support, as well as experienced field tech training. If not, don't wonder why they leave once they learn it. Also, do not wonder why the IPO has a bad name, it is because of Bad BP's, who put the IPO in unqualified hands for the most part.

 

[BoyRacer1001]

I agree the vast majority of problems are techs doing non supported things, or sales people cutting corners on specs.
However, to brush aside core, re-occuring bugs as a minor inconveniance that a workaround could fix is naive.

Workarounds are fine from a technical standpoint but often not from a customer/user perspective. Try telling a customer who has paid the big dollars that they can't use a certain feature such as drag and drop because it is now broken.
As a distributor if the customer isn't happy because things don't work as sold, we lose money, not Avaya.

In Avaya's favour, they are now very good at supporting us when trialling new Beta/trial versions, and have made big improvements with supplying PB's to get signoff and payment from customers/dealers.
We expect problems and bugs especially with new features, but it is frustrating when old or exisitng apps or features still get broken.

 

[PlatinumGuy]

Instead of just sitting there and saying it could be alot better, give us an example of what could be better.

Dont say that it is buggy, all systems have bugs, we have no more or less than anybody else.

Give us an example of what could be better.



ACA - IP Office Implement
ACS - IP Office Implement
ACE - IP Office Implement
ACI - IP Office Implement

 

[mforrence]

Our biggest issue with IP Office deals with "auto answer" feature and transferring calls. When a station has auto answer enabled, the caller hears one standard ring then silence. The CALLER doesn't know if the recipient has auto answer enabled, hence they don't know if silence is the lull before a second ring, or if they should begin speaking. From the recipient's perspective... they hear one ring and don't know if they should expect a second ring because it is an outside call - or to start speaking toward their phone after ring one. I understand that recipient could look at their display, listen carefully to ring cadence, etc.

In our perfect world, IP Office "auto answer" would have distinct sound like the "dial direct" feature (two sharp beeps) so that both parties clearly know that that auto answer has been enabled.

Further, when performing a supervised transfer to a station with auto answer enabled, the recipient's phone should announce - and in the event that no one responds verbally, and the transferring party decides to release the call anyway, the repient's phone should begin ringing then follow whatever coverage may be in place.

Customers see the current IP Office functionality in this area as a step down from whatever they have now.
Mike

 

[ronromano]

mforrence, what you just pointed out is the single biggest obsticle to overcome in every install I do that requires voice announce. You basically have to change the way the company operates to work around the way this feature works. The idiots who designed the system just don't get it. I don't want to hear that its spec. Its not spec, its stupid. I manks buyers wonder if they have made mistake buying IPO.

 

[PlatinumGuy]

That sounds like a new feature request to me then.

Things like this will be taken on board if you contact your disty and ask them to raise a new feature request.

If you think the IPO is lacking in an area then Avaya are open to suggestions.

If you just sit there and grumble it will never get changed, send a request in to your links in to Avaya and get things moving.

ACA - IP Office Implement
ACS - IP Office Implement
ACE - IP Office Implement
ACI - IP Office Implement

 

[ronromano]

I've opened a feature request twice about it. You know, the friggin' developers should have to go out on some end user installs and then they might see why the ivory tower is so cozy. They are disconnected from the real world. They should have to go get thier heads beat in a bit by some office manager who also thinks the feature is stupid!

 

[PlatinumGuy]

I agree with you Ron.

To add to that scenario, the yanks are also sometimes oblivious to the things that people in the uk want.

ACA - IP Office Implement
ACS - IP Office Implement
ACE - IP Office Implement
ACI - IP Office Implement

 

[aarenot]

A work around is a way to get you to do Avaya's job after you have already done your job in the first place.

Then, once Avaya does their own job after the fact in the second place they expect you to do their job, and implement the work around to fix their lack of performance in the first place.

Then when they fix the actual issue instead of just using a work/Run around, they expect you to do their job again, and fix the issue their work around caused because it does not comply any longer with the practice they now expect after fixing their issue which caused the whole mess in the first place(maint release fixes).

Solution, wait for the maint releases before implementing so your customers do not suffer, and neither do your profits which lowers everyones(within your org.) possibility for financial gain, except Avaya's.

 

[ronromano]

waiting for maint releases accomplishes nothing. There hasn't been a release that addresses this! What makes anyone think a maint releaes is any better than any other release? 4.0.18 vm pro is a prime example. Put the systems in with the latest release THAT WILL DO THE JOB FOR THE CLIENT, not because you're a chicken s**t

 

[aarenot]

Ron,
I may have a different experience than you, but in mine the new feature releases have way more bugs, and issues than the following maint releases. There may be exceptions, but not yet has the exception been that the new feature release has less issues than the last maint release of the previous feature release(IMO). There is nothing wrong with waiting until a new feature release is field tested, and many might say that there are less manhours in a maint release implement than a new feature set release implement.
I was also not speaking to just your post Ron, but to the thread in general.

 

[120823]

It has improved light years since I started using it in 2003. Whoever said "every system has bugs", yeah that is true but no business can survive without telephones - even on the 2.* releases this system would do very strange things that seemed like engineering problems. You wouldn't have to make any changes for strange additions/subtractions to the system. But I am satisfied with the system 4 years later.

At first we were trying to run a few over wireless bridges with 2.4 and no QoS, since all the gear is now reasonably priced I use 5.4 w/ QoS with no problems with IPO.

 

[ronromano]

I didn't think you were speaking to me. Look everyone out there has to do what's best for them. For me, going with the newest release at all times has been best. But, as I have said before, upgrading existing customers is a different story.

 

[oldskoolindex]

Hmmmmm...

I have been in telecoms a long time and have progressed through the ages from, SDX - INDex - Argent - IP Office.
Ive come across many different resellers and engineers.
I have worked with almost every other system out there.
All of them have issues, All of them are unable to do what another system will do.
Name me one system that goes in and you never return to a bug, issue etc, of course you cant! if you can then the system is infantile and fundamental.
New feature request via your disty that will be passed to AVAYA, Laughable!!. I might as well be speaking to the carpet.
There was a time when you could go to a good ol Tech forum at WGC and speak with an AVAYA techy about new features etc.
99.9% of customers and clients IPO's that I have worked with are extremely satisfied, Apart from a flakey IPdect solution the IP Office suits perfectly,
Fixing bugs with yet more bugs is just the way of the world, This is nothing new nor specific to the IPO,
Infact this can sort the men from the boys.
Inadequate engineers and salesman, why dont you get training, With online courses and assesments what is the excuse.
I suppose it is in you or its not,
I am AVAYA to my core,
IP office runs through my veins.