?

Log in

No account? Create an account
The Mad Schemes of Dr. Tectonic [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Beemer

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Micro-rebellion [Apr. 25th, 2007|11:19 am]
Beemer
Observation for the day:

If someone doesn't follow your detailed directions precisely, it may not be because they didn't understand or you weren't clear in your explanation.

It may be because they thought your directions were stupid and obnoxious, and they decided that, while they would still perform the appointed task, it wasn't worth their while to bother with the idiot details you attached to it.

And now, I'm off to misapprehend some details.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: boat_of_car
2007-04-25 08:46 pm (UTC)

'smart' people


If a manager has 9000 conversations like the one above, IMHO there's another, much more serious issue, because it indicates either a) the manager is incapable of actually communicating what he wants for some reason b) the technologist can't or won't follow instructions (that NEVER happens, right? *wink*) c) the manager doesn't understand the magnatiude or the actual importance of the results ('this part'??? WTF) he is questioning, or hasn't made it clear to the technologist. Sadly, in most cases all three of these things are true and the cycle repeats.

Mainly, the manager is probably a micro-managing schmuck, and will be one of the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: hapaxeslegomena
2007-04-25 10:04 pm (UTC)

Re: 'smart' people

You’re assuming it’s a manager. It could just be some poor shmoe who’s trying to finish his QA on time, but isn’t allowed to touch the test machines for some lame corporate security reason. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: boat_of_car
2007-04-25 11:15 pm (UTC)

Re: 'smart' people


...Ah, but security is NOT a lame reason at all to control access. Coming from the 'pure IT' side as I do, I am totally in agreement with not allowing QA types full access to my systems: and furthermore, sysadmins and support staff should *never* take orders from QA directly. QA should observe chain-of-command and change managment procedures EVEN MORE DILIGENTLY then suzy in accounting, especially if they presume to know and understand the systems as well as the admins. In actual fact, QA is no more qualified to give instructions to systems support staff than the marketing department. I've known some exceptional QA folks, and even they, the best ones anyway, would agree.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dr_tectonic
2007-04-26 12:09 am (UTC)

Re: 'smart' people

Security in general is not lame, but particular security policies can be. And I think you guys are probably talking about different things when you refer to "QA".

There's a perpetual balancing act that has to happen between security and usability. After all, the most secure machine is one that's turned off and unplugged, right?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: hapaxeslegomena
2007-04-26 01:00 am (UTC)
Funny thing is that I am the security admin for the test environment; nobody gets in without my say-so. I hold all the keys to all the locks, except the one on the physical door to the room with the machine with the button that says “start end-of-day now”.

So I get to wreak merry havoc as king and god of my own little domain… until I have to beg the castellan two castles over for the keys to the bathroom. Then we go through the “who’s on first?” routine.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: hapaxeslegomena
2007-04-26 12:51 am (UTC)
You seem to be determined to take offense at everything I say. And it’s not fair to the Doc here to get into a pissing match on his journal.

So let me just suggest that, as both the change management team lead and the person who built the QA department here from scratch, I might actually know what I’m talking about. And that it would be a waste of time and bandwidth for me to explain to you the very many ways in which you are mistaken about the way we run our shop.

And let us draw this tangent to a close.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)