Thursday Apr 14, 2016

My Oracle Support (MOS) Portal Blog Has Moved

Please Visit Us at Our New Location

As of Friday, April 15, 2016, the MOS Portal blog has moved to a new location within My Oracle Support Communities.

Come find us here, and be sure to bookmark the new page URL:

Going forward please direct any comments and discussion to the new site. Comments left here in the future will not receive responses and will be discarded.

Thank you, and we look forward to seeing you at the new site! 

-The Oracle Software Support Team

Thursday Jan 07, 2016

Customer User Administration in Cloud Portal

New in My Oracle Support December 2015 Release

The December 2015 My Oracle Support Release added Customer User Administrator (CUA) functionality to the Oracle Cloud Support portal. The change makes it much easier for customers using the Cloud Portal (including many Oracle MICROS and Oracle Hospitality customers) to manage user access and Support Identifier (SI) tasks.

If you are a CUA, you will be notified of current administrative tasks in the notification area in the top area of the Cloud Portal page. You can also click your name, then the Administration sub-link, and you'll be taken to the CUA information view in the Cloud Portal.

Notification icon
User Request View
Video Training

Review the video found in "Cloud Support Portal - How to Use the CUA Functionality" (Document 2072499.1).

You can also review existing trainings on how to perform common CUA tasks by visiting "Customer User Administrator (CUA) Roles and Responsibilities" (Document 1544004.2).

The Cloud Portal allows you to verify user approval actions and review Support Identifier notices. However, Cloud Portal does not fully support managing Support Identifier assignments and renewals. To perform these actions you will need to continue using the standard My Oracle Support portal for the time being. Review the video training linked above for more details.

Tuesday Jul 07, 2015

Oracle Support Essentials Blog

Untitled Document


Do not miss this opportunity to attend a live Training Event for My Oracle Support or Cloud Support Portal.

Do you want to be more effective in using Cloud Support Portal or My Oracle Support? Then the My Oracle Support Essentials Live Webcast Series is for you. It covers the basics such as: An overview of the Cloud Support Portal, How to use My Oracle Support and Working effectively with Oracle Support. It also covers more detailed feature based topics such as How CUA’s can group users and assets to improve their efficiency when using My Oracle Support.

The benefits of the My Oracle Support Essentials is the ability for you to engage directly with Support subject matter experts by asking questions in the live session. You can also download and review PDF files for the session’s materials or make use of the accompanying Oracle Support Training How-To video series Document 603505.1 to re watch specific examples in more detail.

You can verify your knowledge after completing the Oracle Support Essentials series by undertaking the Oracle Support Accreditation Level 1 for My Oracle Support Users Document 1579751.1


Never miss out on a session: View the schedule Document 1676694.1 and enroll for topics that interest you. Stay informed of new topics via an email notification process by clicking the star icon to mark this document as a favourite in My Oracle Support. Complete the notification process by turning on Hot-topics. For example click My Account > Hot Topics E-Mail and select notifications for your favourite documents.

Influence future topics by voting and supplying feedback via the community poll. If your area of interest is not in the current schedule or listed in the poll, then add your topic as a comment and describe features or tasks you would like included in this series.


Wednesday Jul 01, 2015

Three Scenarios for Using Support Identifier Groups

Support Identifier Groups are a way to manage and organize hardware and software assets in the My Oracle Support (MOS) application. While many customers are already utilizing this feature, Oracle Portal Services has noticed there are still large swaths of customers who have not set up any SI groups, or who have set up SI groups but haven't added any assets to the groups to activate them.

We've put together some quick examples to help Customer User Administrators, or CUAs, set up their Oracle support assets more functionally and logically.

Benefits of Support Identifier Groups (SIGs)
  • Simpler, easier management of your Support Identifiers, hardware, and software assets.
  • Logically organize by geography, asset, or role.
  • Establish defaults so that future hardware and software assets get automatically added to your chosen support identifier.
  • Improve service request (SR) visibility and simplify SR reporting.
  • Streamline access to relevant support information.
What's a Support Identifier?

If you're new to My Oracle Support, an SI is an automatically-generated record "tag" that links purchased Oracle hardware or software to support resources.

Large organizations might have dozens (or possibly hundreds) of SIs scattered across multiple lines of business and geographic areas. In order for a user to receive support on Oracle products—say a database admin or HR manager—they must be assigned to an active SI. An SI is "active" as long is it has 1) an asset assigned to it and 2) hasn't expired.

Setting up Groups

So how are SI groups different from a standard SI? From a functional standpoint they're identical; the difference is an SI "group" is one generated by a CUA, rather than one generated automatically by Oracle. Normally assets and users get assigned to whatever support identifier they happen to land in when a purchase is made. This can make it hard to keep track of where assets and assigned users reside—functionally, geographically, based on role, and so on.

By creating their own SI groups, CUAs can organize assets and users as they see fit.

To make the most of Support Identifier Groups, you will need to pre-plan how users and assets are best organized. Once defined you can set up your Groups, adding users and assets logically the way you need them.

Make a Plans
Plan Steps
Expanded SI Group

In this scenario a group of CUAs might want to reorganize their current SIs to reflect specific projects or lines of business.

When to Use

Keep in mind that assets can reside in more than one SI at a time. The idea behind this scenario is to group assets according to specific projects or operations. An asset might be used for more than one project at a time; the goal is to organize them to make it easier to track.

Expanded SI
Consolidate SIs

In this scenario, the CUAs have a batch of SIs with assets assigned and scattered all over the place. They want to move the assets from their current SIs, and organize them into new SI groups consolidated by location.

When to Use

Location-based operations are obviously good candidates; grouping by location makes it easy to chart how and where assets are being used.

Consolidating SIs can also be useful if you have assets that are used exclusively by one group with little or no crossover between lines of business.

Note that when you choose to remove all active assets from a current SI, that SI gets deactivated automatically. Any users assigned to a deactivated SI would need to be moved to one of the new SI groupings.

Consolidated SI
Consolidating with a Default SIG

This scenario is similar to the previous consolidation scenario; the main difference is that one of the new SI groups is set up as a default for all future purchases going forward.

Note that all new hardware or software assets are automatically be assigned to the default going forward.

When to Use

This scenario is useful when you have a specific set of assets and users that are logically segregated from other operations, and you want to keep them separate. Often this might include assets used for specific operations, while the "default" group is for the primary workflow.

Consolidated SI with Default
Bottom Line

When planned and managed properly, SI groups can help reduce time spent managing Oracle assets. Visit Document 1569482.2 for more information.

Monday May 11, 2015

Mobile My Oracle Support: Knowledge Search

Untitled Document


Search the knowledge base using simple or advanced search. Advanced search allows mobile users to customize and refine searches using these options:

Source - Select All Sources, Knowledge Base, Bug Database, Oracle System Handbook, or Knowledge Base Archive.

Product or Product Line - Filter either by product or product line.

Mobile users can share a document link or bug report link via email by selecting “Share” on a document or bug page.

Mobile users may tag a document or bug as a favorite in either the Mobile application or the My Oracle Support Portal. Users may also access a list of the most recently viewed documents or bugs. Review My Oracle Support How-to Series to use Mobile My Oracle Support (Document 1683083.2) for more information. Select the “Just the Facts” tab and choose “Searching for Content via Mobile MOS”.


Monday Apr 07, 2014

Are You an Oracle Cloud Support Customer?

Untitled Document

The Get Proactive Essentials series includes a webcast for customers who need to learn more about Oracle Cloud Support portal. In this introduction, you will learn about the resources available to you, terminology, and best practices.

Learn how to engage with Oracle Support—sign up now!

Friday May 17, 2013

How to Score Customer Feedback/Bugs and Stores (for Agile)

I am sure some of you are doing Agile Scrum to manage your own software development. We do this as well for My Oracle Support Development. In the past I have talked about user research and touched on how we score issues we find or want to address. I thought in the spirit of the Agile world I would elaborate on this.

Here is the question...

How do I order my stories and bugs in way that is repeatable and consistent with being Agile?  How do you decide what stories to do first? What order should I fix bugs vs. do new features and enhancements?

My answer is that you score them. Scoring is more powerful than just an order and allows for a natural sort order (supporting the concept of doing "the most important" stories first, from the customers perspective). Scores can be compared between teams and in SAFe for getting stories that other teams need to complete for you, into a fair and manageable order (or at least to have the discussion). Whatever is "most important" is ranked first and should be done first. We do this rank ordering by scoring each item. Then the highest scores for features or bugs go first. This is more repeatable than just "moving things around" in your Agile tracking tool till it looks right.

See what you think...

How to Score Items

First let me tell you about the wrong way...

Look at your list and see which ones you (as a Product Owner) think should be done first, maybe the ones where you know the developers can do it quickly.

The right way: Use an "unbiased" method to put the items in order using a three step rating system. This score could be generated by you or someone else. You do this by answering the following questions

How Many Users Does it Impact (3 - All, 2 - Some, 1 - A few or a Limited User Role)
How Often Does it Occur (3 - All of the Time, 2 - Some of the Time, 1 - Infrequently)
How Bad is the Problem (4 - Severe, 3 - Critical, 2 - Important, 1 - Minor Importance)

Take the "score" from each item and multiple it together (3x2x2=12). Now order your stores by the score. As new stories come in, score them. They will naturally fall into the right order.

How to Score Consistently

By learning some simple rules, two independent people with a common understanding of the scores should be able to score the same item the same way. But just like playing "Poker" to come up with development time estimates for stories, there can be differences. Let someone else score the same story and if they come up with a different score, discuss why. Nine times out of ten you can easily resolve the difference and come to a common agreement. If you don't, use the higher score of the rating. Why? Because if there is confusion about the scope of the problem, you are likely underestimating it anyway. Scope rarely shrinks over time, so go conservative.

How Many Users Does it Impact

How Many Users Does it Impact (3 - All, 2 - Some, 1 - A few or a Limited User Role)

This score has to be done based on the total number of customers for the product. it canNOT be the number of people who use the specific feature in question. That is "everyone" signs in. So no question about rating something to do with Sign In a "3", but only a very limited number of people customize their home page. So something to do with that would be a "1". You can't change the scope and say, "well WITHIN the people who customize, ALL of them will use this feature". It doesn't work that way. You are trying to create a score that can be measured against other stories. So, one can easily see where the most good would come out of applying resources.

Examples of 3's for My Oracle Support (the product I spend most of my time thinking about)

  • Sign In
  • Issues on the Landing Page
  • Searching Knowledge (because "everyone" does this)
  • Viewing Trouble Tickets (we call them Service Requests or "SRs")
  • My Settings

Examples of 2's

  • Advanced Filters in Tables
  • Editing SRs
  • Creating SRs
  • Creating On Demand RFCs (Request for Change to our on-demand serice)
  • SR Profiles ("templates" used to file SRs)

Examples of 1's

  • Customizing a Region
  • Approve User (to access content)
  • Help Link in a Feature used by a small audience

So you can see, it is sort of a the top 20% of use are 3's, the middle 80% are 2's and the bottom 20% are 1's.

How Often Does it Occur

How Often Does it Occur (3 - All of the Time, 2 - Some of the Time, 1 - Infrequently)

If every time you come here, the problem exists, it is easy to make this a "3". If it only happens in a specific mode or state (say when someone does a complex filter on a table THEN your region exhibits this problem), then it is a 2, and those annoying errors that pop-up rarely would be a "1". Of course, you have to judge if those "errors" are some of the time, or infrequent, because as you might expect when you multiply the values together multiplying by "1" doesn't do anything. ;-> So we do consider that "intermittent" errors that are difficult to reproduce, but you have personally seen them more than once would be a "2". Again you have some flexibility, but all of the time means all of the time, just use your judgement between 2's and 1's. I would say if it is less than 10% of the time, then it is a 1.

Examples of 3's

  • Every time you open a dialog box it is empty
  • A typo would be "all of the time".
  • A scroll bar always appears even when not needed or wanted

Examples of 2's

  • If your saved filter's name is too large then it truncates
  • You get a time-out error after using the product for 10 minutes and clearly you have not timed-out (the time-out is say 4 hours)
  • A dialog box appears off screen some of the time

Examples of 1's

  • An error appears rarely and you have no idea why. It only happened once that session and everything seems to be working
  • When you save an SR profile, on rare occasions it will error out
  • Every once in a while, I go "Back" in the setup wizard or flow and it forgets that I completed a step and shows the wrong state for the step
    -- Remember this is just frequency, don't get freaked out because some of these appear to be bad issues, we should catch that next...

How Bad is the Problem

How Bad is the Problem (4 - Severe, 3 - Critical, 2 - Important, 1 - Not Important)

This is probably the easiest one for anyone to score. It is basically the inverse of Bug Severity. Likely you have something well understood in your organization. In our organization a true "Severity 1" issue doesn't come up that frequently. Severity 1 means "service down" - totally unavailable and no work around. We don't tend to see Sev 1's very often in development, because the code is not in production and the system is not down. But from a usability perspective, if I can't complete the task that is a usability "Sev 1" and thus is worth a score of 4. Likely these are just bugs. We have a long list of definitions of Prioritization of Bugs. I have this printed out by my desk so if I forget. We have a category one down from a "Sev 1" called a Sev 2 Showstopper. That too would get scored a 4.

You might already have a well tuned definition of what is in each severity in your organization, I would use that. But here are a few examples I would share.

4- Severe ("Sev 1" or P2 Showstoppers in my world)

  • ADA: Major Accessibility issues, including missing labels, non-standard abbreviations, using only color to distinguish UI elements, etc. (These would be flagged as P1s by ADALint)
  • NLS: Missing msg files causing pages not to render; garbled error msgs, can't translate the string
  • Help doesn't come up
  • Performance Issues (beyond our stated level of service)

3- Critical (typically a P2 in a bug system)

  • UI: A significant percentage of users would need assistance to complete the task
  • UI: Context lost during workflow
  • UI: Typos
  • Scalability issues (such as using a shuttle when it's likely that there will be thousands of elements)
  • User isn't prevented from making a serious mistake.

2- Important (P3's)

  • UI: A large number of users would need assistance to complete the task
  • Hard to understand concepts
  • UI: Layout is confusing.
  • UI: Incorrect page header
  • UI: Incorrect breadcrumbs (may be a P2 if severe because the user may lose context)
  • UI: Incorrect time format
  • UI: Grammatical errors

1- Minor Importance (P4s)

  • UI: Minor inconsistencies (like button order, using Delete instead of Remove, using OK instead of Continue, missing units after numbers even if the value is obvious)
  • UI: Incorrect usage of blank table cells versus N/A or unavailable.

Examples of Scoring

Sample (Real) Issue # Users Bad Often Total Dev
1. The Browser Back button does not take you "Back"
3 4 3 36 H
2. Text: "Run" should be called "Search" in toolbar
3 2 3 18 VL
3. Can't submit a search by pressing return in a field
3 2 3 18 L
4. Vertical Scroll bar is missing from Patch Recommendations
2 3 3 18 M
5. "Enterprise Patch Recommendations" is confusing term
2 2 3 12 VL
6. Deploy column (in Patch Plans) is not sorting correctly
2 2 3 12 M
7. No way to select all language packs you need for an EBS patch
2 2 3 12 M
8. Download Text and number should align correctly
3 1 3 9 VL
9. Download Trend for Patch Downloads has no labels
2 2 2 8 L
10. Task Region cannot be dragged onto the screen when empty
1 2 3 6 M

Some discussion of this can be found in the Blog post.

How to use this in your Agile tool to Show the Rankings of Scores

Most tools can expose additional fields or columns. Typically you might have a Development Priority drop menu (1 to 4 is typical). This is similar.

I like to expose all 4 fields (the three scores and then the final score to sort by). This allows for discussion to validate the assumptions made. Like I said, you might have slight disagreements, and this brings it into the open to clarify. Expect to be able to use this to drive the sort order for your stories and bugs, so that the sprint teams, release management and your customers can see how and why this order exists. Transparency is best here.

Why do to this and not "more"?

Of course, you can go "all the way" and create a score so complex that no-one would really understand the difference between something with a score of "2032" and "2840". I know a system that has 17 factors, adds and subtracts based on who is escalating the issue (a VP escalating the issue is worth more than if I do it), how old the issue is, when it was filed, and its severity among the many factors. I just find that (and I would suspect some simple research into this would confirm) that mortals like me would have no chance in getting a good feel for working with the output of a score based on 17 factors. So I will approach this as a "Keep it Simple" method.

And it is true that this simple score will not differentiate enough when you have 20 stories all with a score of 12. Clearly you might want to either include more rules for ranking these scored items (a 12 that is for more customers (a 3 on that scale) is higher than a 12 coming from a worse bug that is for few customers (a 2). You decide. But the more complexity you add the more difficult it is to understand and judge differences. And you have to decide if it worth the additional complexity, confusion and overhead. I am minimally advocating that you do NOT just rank stories and and nor just score arbitrarily. Use a method that is repeatable and even can be consistently applied from team to team. So when you aggregate your rankings or your backlog you are comparing apples to apples.

Why have one Backlog for a Large Product?

Clearly we have more than one backlog. The scrum team for the sprint as a backlog, so does the project, maybe the program and even the release. But effectively these are virtual and clearly tagging an item for a sprint doesn't mean you can't look at it in the context of all other backlog items. I am suggesting that a single large backlog is sometimes useful to get a few key metrics out of, if done right. In Agile at scale you are looking at different roll-ups of stories. At the Program level you are looking at features that decompose into stories. If the feature has a score of 36, it won't mean that all stories in that feature will have the same value. Clearly as you break it down, some of the stories are more important than others.

The backlog at the Program or Product level might span say 30 or more teams, like it does for my organization. If a few of those teams represent 50% of the backlog (thinking now in terms of story points or work effort, not in terms of number of items), then maybe you should reconsider how you have allocated your teams. Looking at this Backlog across your teams and knowing the value completing those stories would bring to the customer helps you do this allocation. Cool!

Looking at it another way...

If you have one backlog, and use a scoring method, you can see how many "customer points" are being delivered by each team, compared to other teams. That is a team with 5 stories each with a score of 12, is delivering (5x12) 60 customer points in that sprint. While another team might be doing just three stories with scores of 36, 24, and 12, and thus delivering about the same (62 points) value to the customer. But even a team tackling 15 stories, if their summed value is 30, they are delivering 1/2 the value. Maybe a reallocation of teams to projects that have more customer points out there is warranted. This is not a challenge for a single sprint team working one list top down, but when doing Agile at Scale, one has to consider when to reallocate sprint resources to be the most effective. 

This is the same argument we had about moving away from counting bugs. If you lived in most development organizations it was bugs that were counted and reported. A team with 50 bugs should not be compared to a team with 3 bugs on how quickly they fixed those bugs or if it was worth the time and energy. The team with 3 bugs might have been doing something far more valuable and even more costly (development cost) than the team who has 50 "easy" bugs to fix. For design, we look at customer points. For development, in Agile, we can look at Story Points, or level of effort in days. Then we can look at this single virtual backlog based on scores and learn something valuable.

I might add, a backlog which is just ordered, is not as useful. We learned this in basis statistics. Ordinal numbers (1 comes before 2) are not as powerful and are not able to be given more thoughtful interpretation unless they are on an "interval" scale (where the difference between 2 numbers is of an equal interval). A score of 5 to 10 is effectively twice as important. But something just ranked 5th and 10th does not communicate this. Ten is at best 5 behind 5. That is, items 6, 7, 8 and 9 might have huge differences in value or might not. An interval scale explains this. A "score" is an interval scale. A ranking is not. This is why you now see College Football rankings also showing the points used to get that ranking. So now you know how far "behind" your team really is from the next spot up.

How does this fit into Reinertsen's Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF)?

Primer (for those who have read this far and don't even know what I am talking about).

Please see this short discussion, or read his amazing book (I am still working through it, but if you like numbers and methods, this is so the book for you...) - Reinertsen, Don. Principles of Product Development Flow: Second Generation Lean Product Development. Celeritas Publishing, 2009.


I have not flushed out an answer for this. But I am leaning towards my scoring as a proxy for his numerator (relating User|Business Value, Time Criticality and Risk Reduction|Opportunity Enablement Value). With his use of a fibonacci type number and adding, there is more breadth in his scale. Likewise once divided it by job size it creates more spread. But my focus is on the requirements side, hence the numerator. I let development decide the denominator.

I am considering (and, you the reader) might want to weigh in, if I should weight my values more. Right now a Sev 1 is worth 4 points, only 33% more than a Sev 2 at 3 point, and only 50% more than a Sev 1 at 2 points.

How I "Invented" This

I did not. I took this from a ranking method provided to me by Philip Haine, now at Success Factors, many years ago. And I also know that he got it from another well known UX expert. So it has been around the block a few times. I am just saying that this model can also be applied to Agile Scrum to help us all keep our Backlogs in priority order without resorting to magic.



Monday Apr 08, 2013

MOS Upgraded, Mobile search improved

(Thanks to Jean-Pierre for this one)

On 5-April-2013, MOS was updated. I personally seem to notice some performance improvements, especially with Oracle Configuration Manager, but we will leave that for another post.

We released Mobile My Oracle Support, Version 6.5 which does provide an improved search experience.Here are the two improvements you might enjoy.

1. Easier Search Bar

The search bar is redesigned with visible and quick links for easy switching between Knowledge, SR, RFC or Advanced Search. Now you will have the same look and feel in every search screen.

2. Oracle On Demand Customers can now search Change Requests.

• Added RFC Advanced Search and ability to save RFC searches.
• Ability to search RFCs by a partial or full RFC Number or a Summary text.
• Search on the status, RFC type, support identifier, scheduled start, target and severity.

New Advanced Search bar

RFC search

Wednesday Sep 19, 2012

OpenWorld Approaching... A few opportunities to share your needs with Oracle

At OpenWorld from Monday the 1st to Wed. the 3rd. The My Oracle Support and Enterprise Manager user research team will be in action. 

If you are someone who does patching, edits configurations, or uses either MOS configuration management (the collector) OR Enterprise Manager configuration compare or search, we have a treat for you!  Come give us your feedback on how you do your tasks, what needs you have, and how we can do better in this space. We will be doing this during OOW, but an OOW badge is not required to participate.


If you are someone who downloads large amounts of software (say, the entire EBS stack) and wants to understand how one customize a "recommended" stack of software for yourself, or your customers, let us know!  We have a study looking at how to create, customize and download all of the software needed for an installation. This will be done after OOW via webconference, so customers from anywhere in the world can participate. We want to hear from you, so we can get this right!

E-mail us directly at - or leave a comment with your email, so we can get your feedback into one or both of these two discussions.

Hope you can participate!

Friday Jul 20, 2012

MOS Users Get OFF Internet Explorer 6... Now

My Oracle Support has been messaging since January 2012 that IE 6 will no longer supported. With the release of the new HTML portal, the countdown will begin shortly to remove the Flash interface. Thus, you need to upgrade your browser. 

Supported Browsers

You can use the following browsers to access My Oracle Support:

For our Japanese, Chinese and Korean Customers...

My Oracle Supportには、IE6はサポートされなくなったことが1月以来、メッセージングされています。新しいHTMLポータルのリリースでは、カウントダウンがFlashのインターフェイスを削除するには、まもなく開始されます。したがって、ブラウザをアップグレードする必要があります。


あなたは、My Oracle Supportにアクセスするには、次のブラウザを使用することができます。

Internet Explorer 7と高い - ダウンロードサイト

Mozilla Firefoxの3以上 - ダウンロードサイト

Chrome クロム5以上 - ダウンロードサイト

Safari 4の、より高い - ダウンロードサイト

My Oracle Support的1以来消息IE6不再支持发布HTML门户不久将开始倒计时删除闪存接口因此,您需要升级您的浏览器


您可以使用以下浏览器访问My Oracle Support的

Internet Explorer 7和更高 - 下载网站

Mozilla的Firefox 3和更高 - 下载网站

Chrome 浏览器5更高 - 下载网站

Safari 4和更高 - 下载网站

마이 오라클 서포트는 IE 6가 더 이상 지원되지 않는 것입니다 월부터 메시징되었습니다.새로운 HTML 포털의 출시 카운트 다운 플래시 인터페이스를 제거하려면 시작됩니다. 따라서 브라우저를 업그레이 드해야합니다.

지원되는 브라우저

당신은 나의 오라클 지원에 액세스하려면 다음 브라우저를 사용할 수 있습니다 :

인터넷 익스플로러 7 이상 - 다운로드 사이트

모질라 파이어 폭스 3와 높은 - 다운로드 사이트

크롬 5 이상 - 다운로드 사이트

사파리 4와 높은 - 다운로드 사이트



« July 2016