Very poor that they didn't.That Friday Feeling wrote:You can lie about your number, or repeat a personal one.
Took me less than 5 minutes to enter my f&f details, including ringing a mate for his cust number and postcode so no biggy, but odd that they didn't write a script to bring the information over.
.
Yes it is very slow. Also just tried to buy my ticket for Charlton away & would not let me select the option to have ticket posted. "Collect" was already selected and I could not change it. After several attempts I gave up & phoned the TO.The Real Sandhurst Royal wrote:I have found the new Reading FC Direct web site to be very slow, anyone else experiencing similar download issues?
I hope this is not the case we we all go to book our tickets on-line for cup games later this season.
See the discussion in another thread on the potential reasons for this. (page 3 of this thread : http://hobnob.royals.org/forum/viewtopi ... 0#p2999204)RoyalBlue wrote:Just what was wrong with the old ticketing site/system?
Sure, it threw a bit of a wobbly at the time of the peak demand for Man City tickets but nothing compared to that pile of shyte operated by TicketZone!
If it ain't broke, why fix it - particularly with a broken replacement!
I have no doubts they'll get it right, just not on day one.roadrunner wrote:Well done RFC, how very unlike you to try and do software implementations at the last minute and to "tune" them on the fly, rather than go through a proper project implementation cycle.
But will those things be put right before it really matters. And wouldn't it be nice if they tried to get things working a little bit earlier, ideally before they go live. It sounds as though there are some pretty fundamental faults/bugs that could and should have been picked up before launch.Svlad Cjelli wrote:Corrected for you ====>>>I have no doubts they'll get it right, just not on day one.roadrunner wrote:Well done RFC, how very unlike you to try and do software implementations at the last minute and to "tune" them on the fly, rather than go through a proper project implementation cycle.
Yes, yes and yes.RoyalBlue wrote:But will those things be put right before it really matters. And wouldn't it be nice if they tried to get things working a little bit earlier, ideally before they go live. It sounds as though there are some pretty fundamental faults/bugs that could and should have been picked up before launch.Svlad Cjelli wrote:Corrected for you ====>>>I have no doubts they'll get it right, just not on day one.roadrunner wrote:Well done RFC, how very unlike you to try and do software implementations at the last minute and to "tune" them on the fly, rather than go through a proper project implementation cycle.
Someone should suggest they secure more support from their IT supplier during implementation then - generally this can be done when negotiating the contractual details with the supplier. Is this not the system that virtually every other club uses now? If so then conversion paths and initial configurations should be well understood by the supplier if they are any good.Svlad Cjelli wrote:Yes, yes and yes.
For an organsation with the turnover of RFC, it employs precious few people, and it's especiall when they try to implement systems like this that it inevitably shows in places.
Agreed - but the problems here seem to be the data conversions and compatibility with data from the legacy system. Not sure if that's part of teh package or if they're trying to do it themself. I'm sure it'll all be sorted out in due course.Starry Blue Hooped Wonder wrote:Someone should suggest they secure more support from their IT supplier during implementation then - generally this can be done when negotiating the contractual details with the supplier. Is this not the system that virtually every other club uses now? If so then conversion paths and initial configurations should be well understood by the supplier if they are any good.Svlad Cjelli wrote:Yes, yes and yes.
For an organsation with the turnover of RFC, it employs precious few people, and it's especiall when they try to implement systems like this that it inevitably shows in places.
You mean to say that there was no legacy or regression testing prior to deployment? What about lessons learned from previous rollouts? Talk about doing things on the cheap.Svlad Cjelli wrote:Agreed - but the problems here seem to be the data conversions and compatibility with data from the legacy system. Not sure if that's part of teh package or if they're trying to do it themself. I'm sure it'll all be sorted out in due course.Starry Blue Hooped Wonder wrote:Someone should suggest they secure more support from their IT supplier during implementation then - generally this can be done when negotiating the contractual details with the supplier. Is this not the system that virtually every other club uses now? If so then conversion paths and initial configurations should be well understood by the supplier if they are any good.Svlad Cjelli wrote:Yes, yes and yes.
For an organsation with the turnover of RFC, it employs precious few people, and it's especiall when they try to implement systems like this that it inevitably shows in places.
In the current economic climate a lot of companies are doing upgrades like this on the cheap, not just football clubs.Terminal Boardom wrote:You mean to say that there was no legacy or regression testing prior to deployment? What about lessons learned from previous rollouts? Talk about doing things on the cheap.Svlad Cjelli wrote:Agreed - but the problems here seem to be the data conversions and compatibility with data from the legacy system. Not sure if that's part of teh package or if they're trying to do it themself. I'm sure it'll all be sorted out in due course.Starry Blue Hooped Wonder wrote:Someone should suggest they secure more support from their IT supplier during implementation then - generally this can be done when negotiating the contractual details with the supplier. Is this not the system that virtually every other club uses now? If so then conversion paths and initial configurations should be well understood by the supplier if they are any good.
And those companies are likely to save a little in tangible terms in the short term and lose more, tangible and intangible, in the longer term.Wycombe Royal wrote:In the current economic climate a lot of companies are doing upgrades like this on the cheap, not just football clubs.Terminal Boardom wrote:You mean to say that there was no legacy or regression testing prior to deployment? What about lessons learned from previous rollouts? Talk about doing things on the cheap.Svlad Cjelli wrote:Agreed - but the problems here seem to be the data conversions and compatibility with data from the legacy system. Not sure if that's part of teh package or if they're trying to do it themself. I'm sure it'll all be sorted out in due course.
Glad you are son confident about the first. And organisations that operate with lean workforces tend to have the wisdom to supplement that workforce with high quality contractors when they wish to undertake special projects like this.Svlad Cjelli wrote:Yes, yes and yes.RoyalBlue wrote:
But will those things be put right before it really matters. And wouldn't it be nice if they tried to get things working a little bit earlier, ideally before they go live. It sounds as though there are some pretty fundamental faults/bugs that could and should have been picked up before launch.
For an organsation with the turnover of RFC, it employs precious few people, and it's especiall when they try to implement systems like this that it inevitably shows in places.
Users browsing this forum: RG30 and 74 guests