Able to report defects in an agreed format

During the course of a software development project, one of the most critical workflows is the defect workflow. The software coding team releases features and code to the testing team, which tests these features against their test cases and if there are defects, these are typically logged in a defect tracking system where their progress can be monitored and they can be tracked to closure (either with the defect being closed and an upgraded feature released, or with the defect having been closed as not to be fixed or not even being a defect at all).
However, this is an area that leads to a lot of dispute. There can be significant discussions and disputes between  the coding team and the testing team over what the severity and priority of a defect can mean, and from my experience, what I have seen tells me that even if one were to define a sort of standard for these terms across the organization, individual teams still need to work out their own precise definition of what these terms mean. Even more critical is the fact that individuals coders and testers also understand these terms and even though these can be subjective criteria, they also have developed a level of understanding with their counterparts in the different teams so that even though there may be some dispute over these terms when applied to a specific defect, the individuals can work it out.
Even though I stated some easy solutions in the above paras, there are many complications that come  about during the course of a software development project. For example, there can be senior coders who have a lot of heft and hence can speak with a lot of authority to members of the testing team. I remember a case where a senior developer called a new tester and asked him to explain the defect he had raised - it was marked as a very high severity and the developer felt that it was a side case and should not have been marked as a very high severity. This discussion ended with a conclusion, but there have been other cases where the tester felt that they were right and resented the fact that the developer used his / her seniority to try and talk them down. These issues can become serious if they happen many times, and it may become necessary for a defect review committee or the respective team leads/  managers to resolve these kind of issues. Because human nature being what it is, there  will be teams where you will have some individuals who get into these sort of disputes and they need to be resolved quickly.
For the above case, I remember one team which took a more drastic approach. They had set up an defect review committee that met once every few hours and every new defect that was created had to be reviewed by the committee before it could be taken up for any action. Without trying to criticize, it did seem odd because it meant the senior members who were part of the committee had to spend their time even on trivial defects that could be in most cased discussed and resolved between the developer and the tester.
Another problem that seemed to be happening at regular intervals was when a new member would come into the team, whether through new hiring or through a transfer from another team. People from another team could sometimes cause more challenges since they would have their own conceptions of the defect workflow and would find it hard to understand why this team may have a different version of the same. In these cases, some amount of hand holding by a more senior member of the team would really help. 
These cases can go on and on, but the basic idea is that there needs to be a spirit of discussion and cooperation between team members that will help to understand these workflows and follow them in a manner that reduces disputes.

Customers forum - Need to monitor and update

I was going through a forum for one of those new age smart watches, and one could see the level of frustration among some users because they felt that their feedback was not being taken. Now, there might be an argument that an organization cannot really respond to every level of feedback that might be posted anywhere, but in this case, this was a user forum that was present on the site of the product, and users have a reasonable expectation that any such forum would be a way to present their feedback and the company does respond on some of the feedback at least from time to time. However, there was a feeling that was developing among regular users on the forum that any suggestions they made were not being responded to. So, even if employees from the company were picking up the feedback, the response loop was not being completed and users were not getting the impression that their feedback was being responded to.
This led to a level of frustration among the users, and even if new users commented on something, they were told by the regular users that there was no point in giving feedback or suggestions since the company did not respond on the forum. This seems like a reputation that is damaging for the company. When you ask any customer representation or product management from reputed companies, they say that users are the source of a number of different suggestions and defects, and these provide the company an invaluable source from which they can iterate further and select future features. Getting such feedback, especially when people are searching for a consumer forum, come to the site and provide their feedback is something that companies should really want, and ideally, the company should train customer support as well as product management to monitor and intervene in customer forums - this helps in getting inputs and keep customers interested enough to come and monitor the forums. In fact, if you look at another angle, many companies spend a lot of time and money to have beta forums that float new features and get user feedback; this is not exactly a beta forum, but is still a way to get inputs.
What should ideally be done ? There should be customer forums where representatives of customer support and product management should be empowered to regularly monitor and post in, and even members of the product team should get a quick training on how to respond in user forums and visit them. Members of product teams in many cases typically have strong opinions on new features, workflows and so on - exposure to customers and their actual world problems helps to make them more open to new ideas and understand user workflows in a better manner.

Project Manager - Keeping the morale of people up

The job of a Project Manager in a software project is a complex one. Technically, the Project Manager is supposed to lead the project in the best possible manner, and try his / her best to understand the issues faced in the project, raise them to the best possible manner in order to resolve it and keep as much as on schedule as possible.
In reality, the Project Manager is the person who is the last resort person. He or she is the one who needs to understand issues which have rose in terms of complexity and drive /delegate the process of resolving the problem. This may also include resolving issues related to morale within the team.
Now, morale can be a team problem, or it can be a problem with specific members of the team. I remember a large project I was involved with, critical to the future of our team. Rumors started floating in that the project was being cancelled since the client was dis-satisfied and would drop the project. However, senior management was not conveying any sort of decision and team members were getting very low in morale, with the subconsious feeling about why work so hard for customization for a client where the project would be dropped.
It is in such a situation that the Project Manager and the team leads have to play a critical role. One part is to try to find out from senior management about whether the project is indeed being cancelled, or was there a chance. Once the status is know as well as knowledge about what parts can be shared with the team, it is important to share status with the team on an ongoing basis. Getting information from rumors can be incredibly bad for morale, it is better to discuss within the team, take questions and ensure that people are in a better way, and getting into such a discussion helps (and this is applicable not just in a case where the project may be cancelled, but there may be other issues that could cause morale problems).
More tricky is the case where one or more of the team members are having morale issues, or some other emotional issues. This is tricky to resolve when this kind of problem is causing productivity issues (and in a lot of morale and emotional issues, there will be impacts on productivity). It is the responsibility of the Project Manager and the team leads to identify cases where a team member might be having some kind of morale issues. This kind of becomes critical when there is an associated impact on productivity. Discussion needs to happen with the team member, although the discussion can become very limited if the issue is more of a personal or family nature, something that the manager needs to handle with some delicacy. What cannot be left unsaid, whether delicately or clearly, is that the impact on productivity needs to be set right - the Project Manager would be remiss in his or her duty if this is not handled well.