Feedback regarding a companies comments on user expectations

Hi Kas,

I don't think the comments you've received from the company are negative, they're perhaps a little defensive, but also informative. However, there's definitely in part a technical communication barrier. For a start, it's wrong to assume that engineers will know all the acronyms - even in the response, they refer to BEMF. Well, I've always called it back-emf, not BEMF. As for other acronyms and motor control algorithms, after a 4-year general university course, I'm still likely to not know industry-specific terms, and only know at a high-level how some things operate. I can google some stuff, read books or papers, but there's a limit, it depends how deeply I need to work in any area. Looking at the screenshots of the software in your review, I would have no clue what SVM or VSI means. If there is 'tooltips' or a glossary for that, that would helps. I think your review reads well, the only slight thing I'd say (and everyone is different, this is just my opinion) is that personally I'm uninterested in the first 25-30% of the review, because although you encountered difficulty determining which documents were useless and which were useful, I'd just prefer you got to the point and told me about the useful information. The information that you found that was wrong or useless could be summed up in a single paragraph, mentioning your experience. It's a story that is less interesting to someone more interested in learning about the technology basically.

So, personally I'd have liked to have read a brief explanation of what the board and software is doing with FOV, Back EMF, and SVM etc (not to the extent that it is teaching people like in a tutorial, but just at a high level). I can appreciate if you don't have this information, then that's difficult to do.

The things you mention in the hardware section sounds like very fair criticism, it is weird if they're using those single pins for connections, they would slide off too easily when moving the motor.

In summary, I don't think the response from the manufacturer is criticising the review, and from what I can your review seems fair too (just that I personally would have cut out some of the first 25% of it, were it me, but everyone is different). You're the perfect target audience for writing the review in my opinion, because you're technically aware, but not so deeply involved in motor control algorithms that you would assume others would be too when writing your review.

In general I think writers should not overly assume that all target readers (those that have an interest and use for their technology) will be aware of the acronyms and algorithms in detail. Some will, but some won't. Personally I like expanding acronyms, but others think I go over the top with expanding so many acronyms before using them, but it's good not to over-assume what areas the reader will be specialised in. You can't please everyone all of the time : (

Anyway, long story short, it was a good review, and also it was good to see the comments you pasted too.

Hi Kas,

I agree with Shabaz, you did a very good review and the response from NXP did not dispute your findings.

The response did correctly point out some of the science and engineering issues with the supplied material. The device was not a simple DC motor control and there are a lot of subtle issues involved with the newer motor control device.

I agree that the tone of the response was a little deprecating, but I do not think it was openly hostile. There was clearly some bias about "non engineers" trying to use the sophisticated and advanced motor control features, but he did have a point about the user needing some decent background in the new motor control techniques.

In the end, he agreed that there are some serious short comings in the current documentation and in the software provided with the kit. I would take that comment as a vindication of your detailed review. I thought most of your observations to be pertinent and valid.

Overall, I would take his response as good feedback on a job well done. There is too little dialog between users, both professional and novice, for this technology. Using motors today is much different from what they used to be.

There is clearly a valid need for better documentation and a simplification of the description of the technology before it will transition into wide spread use.

If you have helped move that process along, I think you should declare victory for now and hopefully you will get a chance to review some of the updates to see if they are moving in a direction you feel is beneficial.

DAB

The companies response doesn't make a good first impression. It reminds me of an instructor chastising students for doing poorly on an exam. It not the instructors fault they did poorly. The students had the material.

I have followed the RoadTest coordinators difficulties in awarding and receiving RoadTest results. The assumption is, there are no problems on the vendor side submitting products for a review.

The response from the vendor to me, is a brush off. It causes me to question the vendors goal when the product was submitted for a RoadTest exercise. If you think the RoadTest review was just an exercise to say the product was reviewed, then the goal was achieved. Maybe thinking the review would bring about change was your goal and not the vendors.

I feel your review was commendable in light of the difficulties you pointed out. I don't think your suggestions are beyond the realm of being fixed. My confidence level is low that any feedback from RoadTests will bring about positive change. Support cost money. It draws away from profits. So the customer had to struggle. In the end they got it working on their dime and not ours. We care about our customers but not if it costs us money.

Sean

That is a reply from an engineer (probably the designer) without filtering by the communication team .

If I make something that I care for and am proud of, and I get the slightest remarks as feedback, these same things typically spin in my head. Then my communication coach comes along and says: "this is the type of message where you don't reply what you think ".

She is right. It never leads to something fruitful.

I thought your review was excellent and found it very interesting to read. At the end of the day a roadtest is a personal appraisal of a product and how well it worked in your particular review scope, that the vendors know before you are selected for the review.

Communication in the engineering world is always an issue, especially from engineers working in niche areas needing to explain the workings of their products. All to often engineers are quick to believe that people should understand their explanations and if they don't then it is not the engineer that is wrong, but in reality it probably is. I agree with shabaz that acronyms should always be written in their expanded format first, or a list of acronyms provided with the documentation.

Whilst it is great, if the person you are conversing with can understand your field and product, this is often not the case, and sometimes engineers do need to look at how they explain things and reduce their jargon. But, I guess, criticism is sometimes hard to swallow and I wonder if the company saw your review as more of a criticism than you probably intended.

As @DAB has said, if your review has opened their eyes a little and made them realise some parts that they can improve on, then your roadtest has achieved more than any of mine ever have.

Kind regards.

three-phase  wrote:

 

..sometimes engineers do need to look at how they explain things and reduce their jargon.

Agree : ) it is a major benefit of RoadTests, that it is a good way for people to become world-experts at that : ) Products are complicated enough, it's a nice skill to have. Here people are not shy to even use colouring pencils to draw cute explanations : )

I often think "what would Apple do".. even though I don't own an Apple device, I admire how they can really simplify tech so that everyone can understand and use their products.

First of all, I found the review to be very good and with a strong bottom line.

Likewise, I found the NXP engineer's response to be good and the explanation to make sense. I also think they got the message, that they have to dumb it down a little (where possible) in order to make it more accessible to engineers that don't have the required background, and for which making proper use of the current "advanced mode" would be more difficult.

I've been on his side and it's a difficult reply to give to a customer. What they meant to say was "Ok, seems like you don't know what you're doing, but here's some resources to get you on the right path.". People don't take this kind of straight answer easily, so you have to tip-toe around it, which sometimes results in a confusing situation, because the customer is smart and sees through that, so he ends up not knowing how to feel about your reply. The reality is that they had the best intentions at heart, it's just that it's difficult to tell people they don't know stuff.

All in all, I think it was a good and fruitful exchange for both parties. They received a fair review that shows them how to improve their solution, and you received some high quality feedback on the areas you can improve upon, if you ever want to drive your motors like a pro.

Going forward with the conversation, I don't think it's necessary to pile on, on the things you've already said, because there are only two ways in which that can go:

1) They already got it, they agree, and it's pointless to make any further arguments.

2) They already got it, but they have decided that you are wrong, in which case you'll put them in the awkward situation in which they have to further explain why you are wrong (could be useful for you).

I'm very curious to read about your interpretation of the feedback you received and the answer you had in mind.

Communicating with the product company is always a good idea. I've so far roadtested 2 products. One company didn't respond my email but the other did and was quite helpful. They even gave me access to unpublished info of the product (which of course I didn't publish in the roadtest).

neuromodulator  wrote:

 

Communicating with the product company is always a good idea. I've so far roadtested 2 products. One company didn't respond my email but the other did and was quite helpful. They even gave me access to unpublished info of the product (which of course I didn't publish in the roadtest).

When info is needed that's not publicly available, I try to mention that in the road test. Not as a good or bad thing, just as a heads-up.

I agree!, but I was referring to NDA stuff...