Should ISP's put more pressure on BTOpenReach et al

[#1]

As per the title
Should ISP's put more & keep pressure on BTOpenReach especially when a BTOpenreach engineer finds a fault that is not listed on their jobsheet but makes the end user have to re-contact their ISP's to request for EX: SFI (Special Faults investigator) if that engineer is a qualified in SFI

[#2]

That is really down to Openreach management but my first reaction is not usually unless it is a very quick job otherwise it will throw the engineers work schedule out and cause one or more other customers to miss their appointment

[#3]

A typical BTOpenreach engineer is assigned a 2 hour time slot per customer they do however like to get in and get out as quick as possible and where possible pass the buck to the next engineer so they can get their bonus for getting to the next customer on their list (and yes that has come from a BTOpenreach engineer that lives a couple of streets away from me and is also a damn good mate)
Therefore if it is within the time slot they should get their jobsheet amended

[#4]

If a BT/OpenReach engineer detects a fault which s/he cannot immediately repair, then it is surely a no-brainer that the engineer is in the best position to immediately log the fault onto the BT/OpenReach system, so that it can be rectified ASAP.

[#5]

There are a number of issues here which are not working in the best interest of the end user, which need to be addressed by BTOR.
1. The task on the job sheet might only be a best guess to address what is thought to be wrong.  If a different fault is found and is within the ability of the engineer to fix, they should fix it there and then.  This avoids
- delay
- passing the issue back to the ISP
- another appointment booking (possibly to be missed)
- another day off work.
2. If the fault is found to be without the current engineer's ability, then the problem should be passed back to BTOR to manage until resolution.  This avoids
- delay arising from passing problems back to the ISP (and the system failures inherent in BTw's ISP interface)
- possibility of the ISP providing wrong follow-up information
- the need for the ISP to micro manage BT, where BT should be capable of fixing their own infrastructure unaided by a 3rd party
It is quite evident that in many cases the way thins are working does not best serve the end user.  Things are being run for the "benefit" of BTOR and not their direct and indirect customers.
All that sad, other than measuring user views, I do not see that this poll will have any impact on the issue.  Users have been asked to give the new CEO suggestions for his top 5 hit list.  Clearly dealing more forcefully with the BTOR issues has to be in there, however there as been no response forth coming; I conclude therefore that the CEO is not up to sorting out these issues.

[#6]

If PlusNet need some advice on how to deal with their "Suppliers" I'd be happy to give them some of my time free of charge (+ expenses), I've spent quite a few years helping organisations improve their service received from large suppliers. Even BT discovered how to realise their potential and avoid unnecessary obstacles. The very first thing they could do is listen (in a non-threatening mode) to their engineers on the ground, these gentlefolk seem to have a good grasp on the problems which appear so slippery to their managers.

[#7]

Everyone,
Rather than starting (or responding) to a poll, why not do something pro-active about this instead?
Ofcom are currently running a consultation on Fixed access market reviews: Openreach quality of service and approach to setting LLU and WLR Charge... (my highlighting)
In there it is clear that Openreach have one single objective (SLA) related to repair of lines: That a set percentage of faults should be fixed within a certain period of time. Ofcom are looking to set the percentage to 70%, 75% and 80% over the course of 3 years. The period of time varies, based on the SLA agreement. Residential standard care says that something should be fixed by the end of the 3rd day after the fault was reported (although reporting after 9pm is only counted as reported at 0830 next morning). And it seems that the 3 day target disappears if you agree an appointment time with them. But these SLA terms can vary from product to product and from ISP to ISP.
There is no SLA related to fixing unreported faults, and no SLA related to the amount of time it can take beyond the first 3 days. There is no SLA related to minimising the number of appointments needed.
Altogether, this means that:
- Openreach are not motivated to fix faults not yet reported (it doesn't help any SLA figures)
- Openreach *are* motivated to close a job as quickly as possible, and move on to the next reported job instead (helping the SLA for other jobs)
- Openreach are not motivated to complete a job, once it has gone beyond the 3 days
- Openreach are not motivated to minimise the number of appointments you need
In effect, Openreach are most motivated for the first engineer to perform a sort of triage; if he assesses that you can be fixed within the SLA, it should be worked on (NB: not necessarily immediately, but to the SLA deadline). If he assesses that you cant be done within SLA, and it's a busy period, then he's actually motivated to scarper quick, and leave you to be dealt with at a quieter time.
Ofcom are looking at one aspect - the "tail" of jobs that goes unrepaired after 3 days; however, they are suggesting that they won't regulate it, but they will monitor it with some extra KPI (key performance indicators, i.e. statistics). Unfortunately, they are still only monitoring time.
If you want to get Openreach to change behaviour, can I suggest you write a response to Ofcom? A simple web form is enough.
I'm thinking of writing something about consumers being inconvenienced by more than just the length of outage; that some targets on appointments may be needed, or that at the very least some KPI's set. I may also add something about intermittent faults too.