For the price they charge for support I'd expect more quality.
For the price they charge for support I'd expect more quality.
Internally big tech would need to prioritise customer satisfaction as some OKR to incentivise engineers - but this doesn’t happen for some reason. As a result you’re at the whim of whether the engineer cares enough to spend time on your case.
Note in my experience AWS has great support - so their internal incentives seem to be aligned with customers.
We managed it by assigning someone to support on a rotating weekly basis. During that week, project hours missed due to support tasks were acceptable. If you had a critical task due and it was your support week, you could swap support with someone, or we'd reassign the task. But with Software being the "last line of defense" after Field Service and Product Technical Support, we couldn't just ignore it.
There are solutions. You just have to act like you want it solved.
But there's nothing like an engineer seeing the struggles people have for themselves and choosing to fix it so they don't have to field that damned question anymore (I'm saying this tongue-in-cheek).
Plus, you know as well as I do, the more people between your customers and your engineers, the more agenda's get injected into the mix.
The problem actually comes from the fact that big tech is becoming increasingly cheap on creating good support organizations. Experienced support engineers are fired and replaced with outsourced low-cost inexperienced personnel. In most cases, issues can be resolved or worked around with the help of a support engineer with access to some extra knobs. When those engineers are removed and are replaced with people who act like a pipe for cat to send the customer's stdout to product engineers, you get what you describe.
The list of companies providing support for GCP can be found in their subprocessors list.
I thought that was above and beyond, but honestly I don’t know the support contract my company had with GCP