A fascinating read by a Windows Kernel developer about the social dynamics of Linux vs Windows kernels.
Showing posts with label quality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label quality. Show all posts
2013/05/26
2013/02/26
Unsolicited Advise to a classmate
I've never been a politician, managed a large budget or run even a moderate sized project, so why do I have the hubris to offer some unsolicited advice to a newly minted I.T. Minister, to whom by accident, I was once briefly a classmate?
Rejecting these thoughts "because nobody else is doing them" is an option, though not a great reason.
Rejecting them "because they're too expensive" is a judgement call, but has to be measured against "Compared to What?".
Doing nothing will cost you a whole bunch, you've already have the report on that.
The core arguments in support of my observations are:
Rejecting these thoughts "because nobody else is doing them" is an option, though not a great reason.
Rejecting them "because they're too expensive" is a judgement call, but has to be measured against "Compared to What?".
Doing nothing will cost you a whole bunch, you've already have the report on that.
The core arguments in support of my observations are:
- How important to the current and future BackOffice and FrontOffice operations of your Government is I.T.? I suggest that the machinery of Government cannot operate without it I.T. systems, not simply ineffectively, but like airlines, not at all.
- There is an internal consistency in what I propose, derived from one of the toughest businesses around. The challenge is not "will this work", but "how can it be made to work for us".
2012/12/19
Recruiting FAIL: The Non-Response of ITCRA.
I'm not impressed with the ITCRA grievance process.
As a mere 'candidate', they were happy to accept a 'grievance' from me, using that term, to communicate with me on the matter over many months and to put me to some trouble to provide them 'evidence'. When I raised concerns about maintaining the confidentiality of my private emails, they were brushed aside: Our Way or the Highway was the message.
After too many months, today I finally have a letter saying the matter is 'resolved' and now closed.
I am none the wiser about the facts of my complaints or if ITCRA viewed any/all/some of them as proven.
Did they think I was a reliable witness and weigh my evidence highly or not? I've No Idea.
ITCRA was also unhappy that I should dare to write-up a DEIDENTIFIED version of the story.
As an organisation they seem to have difficulty with the notions of Freedom of Speech, Open and Transparent Governance Processes and Natural Justice.
Nor did anyone have the decency to offer me an apology.
From that, do I infer they found NO FAULT on the part of the Agency and Agent? That I've been a jerk, wasting their time and making a nuisance of myself? I've No Idea.
If anyone has a problem with an ITCRA Member Company, my advice now is:
Don't waste your time.They'll only jerk you aroud, waste your time and leave you very unsatisfied.
Previous posts on the matter:
http://stevej-on-it.blogspot.com/2012/09/recruiting-fail-how-to-foul-up-employee.html
http://stevej-on-it.blogspot.com/2012/09/recruiting-fail-part-3-itcra-complaint.html
DRAFT Complaint: 10-Sept-2012.
Mr. AAA BBB,
ITCRA Member Company Representative
XXX Recruitment
YYY Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
Dear AAA,
I am in receipt of a grievance lodged by a candidate Mr. Steve Jenkin, against a XXX consultant Mr. ZZZ ZZZ. He has certified that the information provided is correct to the best of his knowledge and that he has not provided any false or misleading claims against another company or individual and has provided additional email evidence to support the claims made. In summary the issues are:
Background (commencing in August)
• The issue is focused on a *permanent* position for a senior IT staffer and Mr Jenkin was required to move interstate.
• Agency approached Mr Jenkin, no job application ever made by Mr Jenkin.
• Job never advertised with a start date, no immediacy ever stated. Comment was made that it was expected to take 2 months to fill position [by October]
Grievances
• Misleading statements:
1. Confused an email from consultant (ZZ) to work seeker (SJ) with a written offer from the Client. Insisted this was a "Job Offer ", implying a binding contract.
2. Promised help finding accommodation for relocating interstate and none was provided. Having local accommodation was always a condition of accepting the position.
• Harassment or cyber-stalking:
1. One incident of a dozen calls/texts in 30mins by (ZZ)
2. (SJ) asked, in an email, to desist. (ZZ) repeated again later with more very inappropriate and abusive statements.
• Privacy Act breach.
1. (ZZ) used referee contact details for purposes data not supplied for. When work seeker (SJ) would not answer consultant’s (ZZ) calls, consultant (ZZ) rang referee to complain and spoke inappropriately.
• Additional Issues
1. When SJ had failed to receive a contract 10 days from first proposed start date, informed ZZ of inability to start due to personal circumstances. ZZ then harassed and browbeat SJ and seriously overstepped by continuing to demand exactly what the personal circumstances were. This was justified by saying that there was a need to explain to the Client.
2. Misspelt SJ name on contract.
3. ZZ demanded a written apology from SJ to Client for pointing this out.
4. ZZ Sent 7 emails in 15 minute period informing work SJ of Job Offer. ZZ Kept issuing recall emails for incorrect offers sent.
5. ZZ commented that his manager was continually chasing him to comply with company requirements and document all communications.
6. SJ requested 3 times in email that ZZ ask Client if 9-day fortnight [with RDO] would be acceptable during first 3 months while transitioning to Sydney. ZZ never asked Client [confirmed]. Client was happy to comply when asked by SJ.
7. ZZ deliberately misled SJ by stating the job was full-time only and RDO’s were not possible.
Formal Letter of Response: 19-Dec-2012
Mr Steve Jenkin,
Dear Steve,,
The ITCRA Board of Directors has asked me to write and thank you for raising the professional practice matter against ZZZ ZZZ of XXX Recruitment. The complaints process allows us, as an Association, to address issues and to ensure that recruitment practices achieve best practice benchmarks.
The Conduct Committee reviewed the evidence provided by both parties and asked further questions of XXX Recruitment, as the Member of ITCRA. The findings and recommendations of the Conduct Committee were discussed by the ITRCRA Directors and the following outcomes have resulted:
• XXX Recruitment were required to agree to a number of actions as a result of the Committee's recommendations and these have been committed to, with some already completed and assessed by an external quality auditor.
• The ITCRA Directors accepted the Committee's findings and the undertakings by XXX with respect to process review and consultant training.
• The ITCRA Directors raised concerns with respect to the discussions of this matter in the public domain via your blog as this could have jeopardized the process if the Member company felt the Committee had been unduly influenced prior to the matter being heard.
The purpose of the ITCR's Code of Conduct to provide a channel for complaints to be addressed and to provide improvement strategies for professional and business conduct of Members.
As explained to yo, the resolution of the matter was between ITRCA and the Member company and, as such, is confidential and cannot be made public - although the content can be used as a case study, with anonymity, for industry improvement. You would have the right to review any such case study as protection of your rights is also a priority.
The Directors wish you well in your future endeavours and hope that your experience with recruiters, in the future, is not as frustrating.
Have an excellent festive season,
Yours sincerely,
.... CEO
Email to President of ITCRA on their unsatisfactory response.
To: Russell MacDonald, President ITCRA
Subject: ITRCA complaint against XXX
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:10:36 +1100
Russell,
After many months of waiting, today I finally received a letter telling me my complaint against XXX Recruiting on multiple grounds had been resolved.
The letter is best described as "content free".
How was my complaint resolved? I've no idea, just that you've closed the book on it.
Nothing in this process has answered my complaints, nor told me what, if anything, XXX had done wrong, or if any of their malfeasance *I* perceived was supported or not.
All I can gather is they were given a good talking to and they promised not to get caught doing "it" again.
I'm a party to these proceedings, not a third party or 'the public':
these actions were visited *upon me* and were personally quite devastating and financially disastrous for me AND I personally raised the issue to get some satisfaction from you.
Releasing to me matters that *I* raised, even under a Confidentiality Agreement, doesn't involve any abuse of process or publicly exposes anyone. I already know the names of the players, I was one of them.
If you knew *all along* that I would never be told the outcome of my complaint WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY THAT in September???
That would have been reasonable, but your organisation has jerked me around for months on end...
That's beyond inconsiderate: it's deliberate and intentional misleading behaviour.
At the very least, I would've expected a response to the complaint I raised that comprised two parts:
- the findings of fact on each individual issue/point raised.
i.e. "we found a breach of the privacy act, but not harassment"
Note: I am NOT party to the internal actions, remedies and disciplinary process.
- if the Agency, or their agent, was found to have acted in Bad Faith or outside acceptable limits in your Professional Code, then an apology to me, at least, is in order.
Where is a letter to me from the management of XXX Recruiting saying "We're sorry, we've looked to fixing things"?????
I'm not just disappointed in the process and this unsatisfactory result, but that you don't understand the concepts behind of Natural Justice. If you asked me to provide a *lot* of personal information as evidence as part of your process, so why cannot I know the determinations you made?
*That* is the reason I approached you with a complaint: to have you make a determination and tell me what it was.
I wish that you:
- write me a response detailed the determination, not actions taken, on each point of complaint I made.
- direct XXX Recruitment to write (or phone) an appropriate formal apology to me.
regards
steve jenkin
2012/10/05
Unringing the Bell: Impact of IT systems on Large Business Survival
I've posited that Telstra will be severely challenged within 15 years due to Structural Change within their Industry. They aren't fast or agile enough to adapt to the new world..
What are the factors that will prevent them from adapting? My top two:
Whilst "Management" and descriptions and theories about it has become an increasingly large field of study, we don't have a "Science of Management" with precisely defined and measurable terms.
This is crucially important when ownership (shareholders) and control (managers) is separated. The owners have no nuanced, standardised measures to evaluate the most critical part of the business: management. All we've got is the Accounting Standard Reports provided in Annual Reports. This is far from enough to make informed decisions on a business' future prospects.
I can't detail or quantify the many problems of Telstra's Management Culture, just waive my hands and say "it's the vibe". E.g. they not only don't do Customer Service well, they prioritise short-term cost-savings above good service and seem to go to great lengths to not resolve customer faults, at least in some areas.
Management is about doing what's important consistently well, doing what has to be done well enough and not doing at all the things that don't need to be done. [And avoiding entirely the things that should never be done.]
My Professional expertise is in IT Infrastructure. I hold a contrary view to the mainstream Management view of "IT is a Cost Centre". IT provides automated Business Processes, like employees directly responsible for all the Business Revenues: IT is a Profit Centre, not Cost Centre.
We've already seen businesses failure due to their failed I.T. systems: One.Tel is a shining example.
IT Infrastructure has, for the last two decades at least, constrained business mergers. If I recall correctly, the St. George-Westpac merger was cancelled twice due to "incompatible IT systems". Not sure how they solved that in the end.
Westpac itself is notorious for a decade long project, CS90, that was cancelled in December 1990. It was meant to be the ultimate Banking System (an 'ERP') that IBM would resell around the world for them. It was consuming 5-10% of Westpac's operational revenue.
The $10B Telstra "IT Transformation" under Greg Winn ran for around 5 years with the intention of reducing 1500 systems to 300. It failed to meet its targets and went live in 2009 with the 30% most valuable customers not migrated [from my Case Study evidence, now full of migration errors.]
The point: large businesses are inextricably intertwined with their IT Systems - they are part of the Business DNA and essential to the Business Differentiation: What we do differently that people value.
Too often IT Systems are allowed to "grow like topsy" and are never rationalised or reorganised, presumably because no immediate savings or value can be demonstrated, but mostly because nobody is responsible for everything and ensuring IT Systems are well maintained and suitable.
Leading to "Big Bang" projects like Telstra embracing of off-the-shelf ERP and CRM systems to resolve the mess. Inevitably they find that things are much more complex and intertwined than they knew, not the least because they have no correct, current System Maps and the whole was never designed or planned, it just happened. All of which suggests Management asleep at the wheel.
It will probably take Telstra 10 years to get staff trained, most, not all, data corrected in their new systems and workaround established to cater for what the new systems don't do.
But what will it be left with then? Will those systems be nimble, quick and responsive or big, cumbersome and so hard to change as to be effectively frozen?
Young, small companies start small and add functions as needed: the I.T. equivalent of "greenfields".
They don't carry of a legacy or mindset of "we have to cope with everyone and everything".
This is the commercial advantage small ISP's had over Telstra: no past, no baggage, just simple effective systems.
This will be the problem that Telstra will have to face again in 2020 as Retail Providers using the NBN challenge it. Telstra knows the pain, cost and delay in redoing their I.T. Systems, they won't be going there again anytime soon.
This is a generic and on-going challenge for all successful businesses, including those small, nimble Retail Providers: how to keep I.T. Systems from degrading into an unchangeable morass?
When Data hardens in Organisational Arteries and structures/processes ossify, a major Cardiac event will follow... More of the Same cannot fix the problems, radical rethinking is needed.
In an increasingly automated world, a problem looms for every large business: what happens to the IT Systems when you downsize?
You get to drag the big, bloated corpse of yesterdays organisation along with you. It never gets better with age...
It's easy to lay-off staff and "reorganise", but I've never heard of any organisation looking to make commensurate simplifications to their I.T. systems.
I suspect that Large Business who aren't consciously and deliberately cleaning-up and refreshing their I.T. Systems will ultimately fail due to the complexity, inflexibility and inadequacy of their Legacy Systems.
You can lay off Staff and cut whole Departments, but where do you start with the weeds that permeate your whole organisation and choke the life out of it?
Once built, it seems you can't "Unring the Bell" of legacy I.T. systems, you're stuck with them and they define what you can do, while smaller companies whizz past you on their way to Market Domination and being strangled by their Legacy systems.
Jerry Gregoire as CIO of Dell Computers in 1999 talked about how he tackled this problem - and won.
When he joined Dell, there was a massive ERP project underway, "One System To Rule Them All". It was late, over-budget and failing. His first action was to cancel the project and front the board...
Instead, he moved Dell to a new architecture dubbed "G2", based around a message broker.
It reduces the N*N-1 or N-factorial system interface problem to one...
All every system needs to interact with every other system is one 'message broker' interface.
It comes with a cost - you need infrastructure and rule sets to switch the messages. But at least that's a known, computable cost.
Dell Business Strategy Secrets
An ERP Package for You...and You...and You...and Even You
What are the factors that will prevent them from adapting? My top two:
- Management Culture
- IT Infrastructure
Whilst "Management" and descriptions and theories about it has become an increasingly large field of study, we don't have a "Science of Management" with precisely defined and measurable terms.
This is crucially important when ownership (shareholders) and control (managers) is separated. The owners have no nuanced, standardised measures to evaluate the most critical part of the business: management. All we've got is the Accounting Standard Reports provided in Annual Reports. This is far from enough to make informed decisions on a business' future prospects.
I can't detail or quantify the many problems of Telstra's Management Culture, just waive my hands and say "it's the vibe". E.g. they not only don't do Customer Service well, they prioritise short-term cost-savings above good service and seem to go to great lengths to not resolve customer faults, at least in some areas.
Management is about doing what's important consistently well, doing what has to be done well enough and not doing at all the things that don't need to be done. [And avoiding entirely the things that should never be done.]
My Professional expertise is in IT Infrastructure. I hold a contrary view to the mainstream Management view of "IT is a Cost Centre". IT provides automated Business Processes, like employees directly responsible for all the Business Revenues: IT is a Profit Centre, not Cost Centre.
We've already seen businesses failure due to their failed I.T. systems: One.Tel is a shining example.
IT Infrastructure has, for the last two decades at least, constrained business mergers. If I recall correctly, the St. George-Westpac merger was cancelled twice due to "incompatible IT systems". Not sure how they solved that in the end.
Westpac itself is notorious for a decade long project, CS90, that was cancelled in December 1990. It was meant to be the ultimate Banking System (an 'ERP') that IBM would resell around the world for them. It was consuming 5-10% of Westpac's operational revenue.
The $10B Telstra "IT Transformation" under Greg Winn ran for around 5 years with the intention of reducing 1500 systems to 300. It failed to meet its targets and went live in 2009 with the 30% most valuable customers not migrated [from my Case Study evidence, now full of migration errors.]
The point: large businesses are inextricably intertwined with their IT Systems - they are part of the Business DNA and essential to the Business Differentiation: What we do differently that people value.
Too often IT Systems are allowed to "grow like topsy" and are never rationalised or reorganised, presumably because no immediate savings or value can be demonstrated, but mostly because nobody is responsible for everything and ensuring IT Systems are well maintained and suitable.
Leading to "Big Bang" projects like Telstra embracing of off-the-shelf ERP and CRM systems to resolve the mess. Inevitably they find that things are much more complex and intertwined than they knew, not the least because they have no correct, current System Maps and the whole was never designed or planned, it just happened. All of which suggests Management asleep at the wheel.
It will probably take Telstra 10 years to get staff trained, most, not all, data corrected in their new systems and workaround established to cater for what the new systems don't do.
But what will it be left with then? Will those systems be nimble, quick and responsive or big, cumbersome and so hard to change as to be effectively frozen?
Young, small companies start small and add functions as needed: the I.T. equivalent of "greenfields".
They don't carry of a legacy or mindset of "we have to cope with everyone and everything".
This is the commercial advantage small ISP's had over Telstra: no past, no baggage, just simple effective systems.
This will be the problem that Telstra will have to face again in 2020 as Retail Providers using the NBN challenge it. Telstra knows the pain, cost and delay in redoing their I.T. Systems, they won't be going there again anytime soon.
This is a generic and on-going challenge for all successful businesses, including those small, nimble Retail Providers: how to keep I.T. Systems from degrading into an unchangeable morass?
When Data hardens in Organisational Arteries and structures/processes ossify, a major Cardiac event will follow... More of the Same cannot fix the problems, radical rethinking is needed.
In an increasingly automated world, a problem looms for every large business: what happens to the IT Systems when you downsize?
You get to drag the big, bloated corpse of yesterdays organisation along with you. It never gets better with age...
It's easy to lay-off staff and "reorganise", but I've never heard of any organisation looking to make commensurate simplifications to their I.T. systems.
I suspect that Large Business who aren't consciously and deliberately cleaning-up and refreshing their I.T. Systems will ultimately fail due to the complexity, inflexibility and inadequacy of their Legacy Systems.
You can lay off Staff and cut whole Departments, but where do you start with the weeds that permeate your whole organisation and choke the life out of it?
Once built, it seems you can't "Unring the Bell" of legacy I.T. systems, you're stuck with them and they define what you can do, while smaller companies whizz past you on their way to Market Domination and being strangled by their Legacy systems.
Jerry Gregoire as CIO of Dell Computers in 1999 talked about how he tackled this problem - and won.
When he joined Dell, there was a massive ERP project underway, "One System To Rule Them All". It was late, over-budget and failing. His first action was to cancel the project and front the board...
Instead, he moved Dell to a new architecture dubbed "G2", based around a message broker.
It reduces the N*N-1 or N-factorial system interface problem to one...
All every system needs to interact with every other system is one 'message broker' interface.
It comes with a cost - you need infrastructure and rule sets to switch the messages. But at least that's a known, computable cost.
Dell Business Strategy Secrets
An ERP Package for You...and You...and You...and Even You
2012/09/05
Recruiting FAIL: Part 3. ITCRA complaint
Lodged an formal complaint with ITCRA [IT Contract and Recruitment Association], the Industry Body for Recruiting companies.
Several of the Agents actions were serious breaches of the ITCRA Code of Conduct.
In 30 years of dealing with Agents, this guy is by a long margin, the worst I've come across. Not just incompetent or "poor with details" such as misspelling Workseeker name on contract. Also demanded an apology as pointing this out was "offensive".
Background:
This was a *permanent* position for a senior IT staffer.
Workseeker required to move interstate.
Agency approached workseeker, no job application ever made by workseeker.
Job never advertised with a start date, no immediacy ever stated. Comment "expected to take 2 months to fill position" [by October]
Complaints.
Misleading statements:
1. Confused an email from himself to workseeker with a written offer from the Client. Insisted this was a "Job Offer", implying a binding contract.
2. Promised help finding accommodation for relocating interstate, none provided. Having local accommodation was always a condition of accepting the position.
Harassment or cyber-stalking:
3. One incident of a dozen calls/texts in 30mins.
Asked, in an email, to desist.
Repeated again later with more very inappropriate and abusive statements.
Privacy Act breach.
4. Used Referee's contact details for purposes data not supplied for. When workseeker would not answer Agents calls, Agent rang referee to complain and abuse.
Possibly Criminal over-stepping
5. When workseeker had failed to receive a contract 10-days from 1st proposed start date, informed Agent of inability to start due to personal circumstances.
Agent then harassed and browbeat client.
Seriously overstepped by continuing to demand exactly what the personal circumstances were.
Justified by saying "I need to explain to the Client".
This was uncalled for as the Client had no urgency on filling position, nor was there any advertising start date.
6. General Incompetence and lack of attention to legal details
a. Misspelled Workseeker name on contract. Demanded a written apology to Client for pointing this out.
b. Sent 7 emails in 15 minute period informing workseeker of Job Offer. Kept issuing 'recall' emails for incorrect offers sent.
c. Commented that Agents' manager was continually chasing him to comply with company requirements and document all communications.
7. Failing to act on Instructions.
Workseeker requested 3 times in email that Agent ask Client if 9-day fortnight [with RDO] would be acceptable during first 3 months while transitioning to Sydney.
Agent never asked Client [confirmed].
Client was happy to comply when asked.
Agent deliberately misled workseeker by stating the job "was full-time only" and RDO's were not possible.
Emails/SMS's documented at:
[http://stevej-on-it.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/recruiting-fail-how-to-foul-up-employee.html]
2012/09/02
Recruiting FAIL: Part2 - Red Flags and Lessons Learned
This experience was unpleasant enough that I took down my LinkedIn account with around 300 contacts, and resolved I wouldn't look for work as a System Admin again.
Whatever I do in looking for work, it's wrong, there is no point in pursuing a strategy that's failed me time and again for over 10 years.
I took a clear decision to provoke a crisis by sending my 'problem' email.
I had accommodation organised and paid for the first week, had packed and organised myself to start on the Monday and a plan, if a little shaky, to continue.
I've learnt a harsh lesson, which means "better to abandon earlier than later":
Lesson 1: If it's important to you, get it in writing early on. More so for "dealbreakers".
I never got Slippery Sam the Agent to make a written commitment on what he was promising to deliver. He, and the company, couldn't be held to it.
Lesson 2: Relocating cities is a Big Deal. Allow time, Plan the Move and organise Reconnaissance.
Driving a few hours up the road for an interview isn't the same as moving your life. Even if single, you have to devote a decent chunk of effort to the task. It will take time to do properly.
Lesson 3: You can't make these decisions alone. Talk them over with a friend.
If I'd talked through my decisions and the way I was being treated with a friend, I may have slowed the process down and set a much better process and plan to move in place.
Lesson 4: Be wary when there's a Big Rush and you're not asked when to start, but told.
There was never any hiring date from the Agent or company. They seemed to turn it into a huge rush, but hadn't declared there was any problem that needed someone there Right Now!
There wasn't a contract negotiation, there should be at least a start-date negotiation or specified in original request.
Lesson 5: One Red Flag is enough. Two is a dealbreaker.
Agents and Salesmen will always come across as Great Friends. Which you are until they got your signature, then you're a pariah.
The first Red Flag should've been the apparent haste (Job Spec on Wed 8-Aug, Interview on Mon 13-Aug, organised on Fri 10-Aug).
The next, the lack of a specified start date.
The Red Flag, par excellence, was rescheduling my interview a) earlier and b) on the day.
Slippery Sam the Agent went on to harassment (12 calls/texts in 30mins), browbeat me and completely overstepped the boundaries by demanding I explain my personal circumstances.
That little escapade was, in retrospect, an Instant FAIL.
Agents are there to facilitate the engagement, not beat-up on you and heap on abuse.
Whatever I do in looking for work, it's wrong, there is no point in pursuing a strategy that's failed me time and again for over 10 years.
I took a clear decision to provoke a crisis by sending my 'problem' email.
I had accommodation organised and paid for the first week, had packed and organised myself to start on the Monday and a plan, if a little shaky, to continue.
I've learnt a harsh lesson, which means "better to abandon earlier than later":
Things go on as they start. or It will only get worse, not better.
Lesson 1: If it's important to you, get it in writing early on. More so for "dealbreakers".
I never got Slippery Sam the Agent to make a written commitment on what he was promising to deliver. He, and the company, couldn't be held to it.
Lesson 2: Relocating cities is a Big Deal. Allow time, Plan the Move and organise Reconnaissance.
Driving a few hours up the road for an interview isn't the same as moving your life. Even if single, you have to devote a decent chunk of effort to the task. It will take time to do properly.
Lesson 3: You can't make these decisions alone. Talk them over with a friend.
If I'd talked through my decisions and the way I was being treated with a friend, I may have slowed the process down and set a much better process and plan to move in place.
Lesson 4: Be wary when there's a Big Rush and you're not asked when to start, but told.
There was never any hiring date from the Agent or company. They seemed to turn it into a huge rush, but hadn't declared there was any problem that needed someone there Right Now!
There wasn't a contract negotiation, there should be at least a start-date negotiation or specified in original request.
Lesson 5: One Red Flag is enough. Two is a dealbreaker.
Agents and Salesmen will always come across as Great Friends. Which you are until they got your signature, then you're a pariah.
The first Red Flag should've been the apparent haste (Job Spec on Wed 8-Aug, Interview on Mon 13-Aug, organised on Fri 10-Aug).
The next, the lack of a specified start date.
The Red Flag, par excellence, was rescheduling my interview a) earlier and b) on the day.
Slippery Sam the Agent went on to harassment (12 calls/texts in 30mins), browbeat me and completely overstepped the boundaries by demanding I explain my personal circumstances.
That little escapade was, in retrospect, an Instant FAIL.
Agents are there to facilitate the engagement, not beat-up on you and heap on abuse.
Recruiting FAIL: Part1 - How to foul-up employee engagement.
It began, as I recall, on a sunny winters afternoon in August, a Tuesday.
22 days later it had ended acrimoniously with an SMS and my email in response, and the removal of my LinkedIn account to avoid such agents/events in the future.
It fits my saw "your priorities are what you do, not say".
The response to my questions, I found fantastic, as in beyond belief.
In 3 separate emails, I'd asked B if CO would consider letting me work 9-day fortnights for the first 3 months or so, so I might attend to business in Canberra. While I said it wasn't a "drop-dead", it was important enough for me to keep raising the issue.
B was very adamant that "this was a full-time job, CO won't let you work a 9-day fortnight".
Only I hadn't told him I'd guessed C's email address and had a conversation about this and a few other topics. C was more than happy to arrange flexible hours and an RDO. He didn't want "stress".
C was delegated to reply to my questions, which while apparently honest, didn't strike me as being well thought through, nor complete [whole email not included]:
The first Red Flag was C rescheduling my appointment 2 hours earlier. I was rung by B while I was driving up. It cost me $45 in parking, but I was able to make their changed timetable.
At the end, C raced out without properly terminating the interview as he'd run overtime discussing his technical problem and had a taxi waiting.
At 16.05, I finally received a contract from F at CO, whom I'd not heard of or from before. Mess with names and questions is above.
The Red Flag extraordinaire was a dozen missed calls and texts from B in 30 minutes while I walked down to the Post Office, sans phone, to put a signed copy of the contract in the mail (express post) so it'd be there in their office 09:00 next working day. Canberra is treated as Regional NSW by Australia Post with normal mail normally taking 2 days going via Wollongong.
I then got The Third Degree from B, demanding four or five times to know just how my personal circumstances had changed as "he had to sell it to the client". I felt abused, browbeaten and upset after that little tirade.
All of which was pretty surprising as they'd never suggested a start date, never suggested there was any hurry to fill the position and then I found out C, the manager, was going to be away just after I started.
Just to show that B did know that Accommodation was Drop Dead for me, I include an email from him.
I got another call from B around 3PM the next day, Tuesday, while I was driving back from Bowral where B said he was having a little trouble getting anything for me from an a Real Estate agent.
I specifically asked that he sent me the contact details of at least one agent.
Nothing came that evening and I waited until around Noon the next day before sending my "problem" email.
One of the things I found "Not Quite Right" early on was a request that I take a look at a Performance Problem on one of their production systems as part of the Interview process. Turns out it wasn't fake data or a test, but I was in front of a console of a running production system, having someone else type my commands, trying to diagnose a live problem for them. Without any background, system maps or application briefing...
This had been my initial queasiness at the request.
Part of the problem was the uncertainty of employment, and since 2002, I've had 3 failed attempts to make it through to permanent employment. I've become very wary of Hidden Agendas of employers and managers...
Very kindly, the boarding house allowed me a 2/3 refund, as they'd not informed me of the 14-day cancellation policy. In the end, I got through this sorry mess for under $250.
In Part 2 I will try to extract the Red Flags and my Lessons Learned...
22 days later it had ended acrimoniously with an SMS and my email in response, and the removal of my LinkedIn account to avoid such agents/events in the future.
Please pick up your phone and talk with me steve. Like adults, let's discuss this. At the moment, you are really damaging my relationship with my client which is not fair and not right. I have really done all I can to help you and you won't even talk to me. SMS: +6145206812. 29/08/2012 15:42:49and
To: B and CI precipitated this crisis with an email just before Noon to the Agent (B), the manager (C) and (F) the person in CO that'd sent me the contract. B was very upset that I'd sprayed a message all over CO - told by my friend G, whom he'd first contacted as a referee and then again after this note when I declined his repeated calls.
Subject: Harassment
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:43:44 +1000
B,
it's bad enough that against my express wishes you've been bombarding me with calls and texts - that amounts to harassment.
BUT TO CALL MY FRIEND??? What the HELL were you thinking??
Yes I'm ignoring your calls, not because I'm petulant or sulking, but because:
a) I've been doing stuff today, including taking a load of stuff to the tip (loading, driving, unloading, driving - not available to talk), and
b) because there is only ONE thing of interest you can say to me...
Which is: "This is how we can work this out..."
Unless you've got a plan to get me reasonable temporary accommodation while I find a place I can sign a lease on, then there's nothing new to be said.
I can't afford to commit to $10,000 or more in a lease on the chance I'll still have a job in 6 months.
I'm happy to work at C/O, I like C and his team, I think the work would be interesting and think I could make a positive contribution there.
There is just one thing, no more, standing between me and starting there and that's I don't have a place to stay and you haven't helped.
If I had applied for a job in Sydney via you, then it would be my problem to look after myself, pure and simple.
But that didn't happen.
YOU approached ME.
If YOU want me THERE, YOU have to make it happen.
Moving states, you of all people should know its a big deal.
So far you've made empty promises and hung me out to dry...
So - STOP HARASSING ME.
The only message I want to get from you is "It's fixed..."
Otherwise, we've said all that needs to be said.
steve
To: B, C and FThe manager, C, responded with this, making it very plain he wouldn't help me, personally or corporately, nor attempt to negotiate a solution.
Subject: problem
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:49:41 +1000
I'd like to start by reminding you that I didn't apply for a job with CO - that you've chased me, being insistent to the point of browbeating.
You've known from before you talked to me that I had to move cities to take up your position.
I made two things very, very clear at the outset:
- I do NOT have any temporary accommodation in Sydney, not family or friends I can crash with for a week or two, and
- I required assistance to find a place. From out of town, it's very hard to find anything, especially if a constrained timetable is imposed, as you've done.
Rephrasing this: My employment with CO has always been conditional on finding accommodation, and you've been aware of this.
Two weeks ago, I was promised introductions to estate agents and assured it'd present no problem finding me somewhere to live, presumably reasonably before your selected start date.
As yet, that promise hasn't been fulfilled.
With 2 and a bit days to find a place, I really don't think I could find a place, and certainly not something that I could afford or that I would want to live in.
You've run out the clock on me. I've no idea why.
This week, there was a news item about a murder in a boarding house and I thought: "never again".
A number of times when I was contracting and working in Sydney, I stayed in these unpleasant little dives. Since the news item, I won't be forced for no good reason, to go there again.
I've not been impressed with either how you've generally communicated with me, nor the seeming absence of internal communications at your end.
So I need to spell this out:
In normal engagement scenarios, asking people move inter-city involves a bunch of things you haven't done:
- You need to get back to me on this.
- You need to come back with an explicit proposal, either of accommodation or something that's guaranteed to lead to it.
- I expect ONE professional communication back to me on this.
- no browbeating or harassment, this is a problem of your devising (I got 12 calls/SMS in 30mins when I walked to the Post Office)
- flying the candidate to the in-person interview
- making allowance for the relocation in the start-of-work date
- paying or, or contributing to relocation expenses, every airfares
- providing temporary accommodation, usually some months, while the person finds new accommodation
- providing time-off to search for accommodation and settle affairs, as needed.
regards
steve jenkin
It fits my saw "your priorities are what you do, not say".
Subject: Re HarassmentThere had been a fuss previously with the contract. I'd been invited by F to ask questions.
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:51:44 +1000
Hi Steve,
We CO have no way of providing you with a solution for your accommodation here in Sydney and as I mentioned in our phone conversation before, although it is in Agency's best interest to match CO with the right candidate for our job posting, it is not their job either. Unfortunately we will have to miss out on this opportunity to work together.
I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavours.
Cheers,
C
The response to my questions, I found fantastic, as in beyond belief.
- I was told both B and F found it "offensive" and condescending, but was never told just what I'd written they been offended by.
- The CEO was shown my email (itself an interesting move, not entirely legal) and laughed. Said he liked my directness and saw no cause for offence.
- B blew me up for writing to "his client" without permission and instructed me to never contact F directly again.
- I eventually got B to understand that he'd not mentioned this rules earlier that day when we talked and inventing rules after the event and then chastising me for not following them was impossible logic.
- I never got an apology for this abuse.
- B demanded I write F an apology the next day, with him vetting it first.
- I did so by 09:32.
- B insisted I was to not write that he'd been involved in asking for, or vetting, my apology.
- I objected against this, as it is a deliberate fabrication.
To: B and FThe issue of RDO's was critical.
Subject: Re: Employment Agreement
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:31:40 +1000
F,
Hate to do this to you, but my surname is singular, not plural:
JENKIN, no 's'. [At top and on signature line]
It happens a lot, which is why I emphasised it originally, I can't think how that may have been overlooked.
The contract needs to be redone to correct this.
I will sign and post a copy to you tonight (express post, delivery tomorrow) with the incorrect name noted. On my start day we can sign the new version.
My formal name for legal docs is "William Stephen Jenkin", but I'm called "Steve". No need to put one of my Christian names in brackets.
Questions:
0. Whom do I report to whilst my erstwhile manager, C, is away on leave?
1. Clause #3, probationary period.
The Fair Work Act sets a 6 month minimum for lodging dismal cases.
Would that be a more effective period than 3 months?
2. Clause #5, working hours.
The wording suggests fixed start/end times resulting in an 8 hour work-days or 40-hour weeks, yet ordinary hours are 2 hours less. Could you please clarify this for me.
3. Clause #5, flexible hours.
As I'll be relocating from Canberra, I was hoping for the first six months of my employment that I could work 9-day fortnights, i.e. 76 ordinary hours in 9 days with alternate Mondays off (RDO style). [An extra 51 minutes/day]
Will that be possible?
4. Clause #5 and #6. On-call duty and remuneration.
[snip]
5. Clause #10, Intellectual Property.
[snip]
Will the company advise me of all everything it does.
I can't see how in my position I could adequately fulfil that obligation.
6. Clause #10, Intellectual Property.
To be clear, the contract makes no mention of contributing to "Open Source Software". My understanding is that such work falls outside the scope of this clause.
regards
steve jenkin
In 3 separate emails, I'd asked B if CO would consider letting me work 9-day fortnights for the first 3 months or so, so I might attend to business in Canberra. While I said it wasn't a "drop-dead", it was important enough for me to keep raising the issue.
B was very adamant that "this was a full-time job, CO won't let you work a 9-day fortnight".
Only I hadn't told him I'd guessed C's email address and had a conversation about this and a few other topics. C was more than happy to arrange flexible hours and an RDO. He didn't want "stress".
C was delegated to reply to my questions, which while apparently honest, didn't strike me as being well thought through, nor complete [whole email not included]:
2. It's been a long time since I've done 40 hours of work at CO. We regularly do more than 40 hours of work on a week. I am hoping that with you joining the team this will get better, but this is not a place where we work 9 to 5. Working hours are in general flexible with some restrictions given that as a team we have to ensure our 8am to 6pm support line has someone here to answer the phone.The really important Red Flag occurred on the Friday after the Interview of Monday 13th.
3. We can manage that internally and informally. [RDO's]
The first Red Flag was C rescheduling my appointment 2 hours earlier. I was rung by B while I was driving up. It cost me $45 in parking, but I was able to make their changed timetable.
At the end, C raced out without properly terminating the interview as he'd run overtime discussing his technical problem and had a taxi waiting.
Subject: Re: FW: Confirmation of OfferThe first Red Flag was a total of six emails from 09:43 to 10:05 on Fri 17, first confirming the job offer, then "recalling" the email as he'd made an error, and again and again... Geting the contract details right is a necessary competency for an agent.
Date:Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:00:27 +1000
B,
I'm happy to accept the offer generally BUT my personal circumstances have changed slightly since the informal offer on Tuesday/Wednesday and I can no longer start on the 27th.
With C now going on holidays, it wouldn't be operationally effective for me to start on the originally advertised date, Mon 3-Sept-2012.
I'm happy to negotiate a start date when or after C returns from holidays, but realise that CO may wish to rescind this offer to me and go with a "Plan B".
Hope to hear from you soon.
regards
steve jenkin
At 16.05, I finally received a contract from F at CO, whom I'd not heard of or from before. Mess with names and questions is above.
The Red Flag extraordinaire was a dozen missed calls and texts from B in 30 minutes while I walked down to the Post Office, sans phone, to put a signed copy of the contract in the mail (express post) so it'd be there in their office 09:00 next working day. Canberra is treated as Regional NSW by Australia Post with normal mail normally taking 2 days going via Wollongong.
I then got The Third Degree from B, demanding four or five times to know just how my personal circumstances had changed as "he had to sell it to the client". I felt abused, browbeaten and upset after that little tirade.
All of which was pretty surprising as they'd never suggested a start date, never suggested there was any hurry to fill the position and then I found out C, the manager, was going to be away just after I started.
Just to show that B did know that Accommodation was Drop Dead for me, I include an email from him.
I got another call from B around 3PM the next day, Tuesday, while I was driving back from Bowral where B said he was having a little trouble getting anything for me from an a Real Estate agent.
I specifically asked that he sent me the contact details of at least one agent.
Nothing came that evening and I waited until around Noon the next day before sending my "problem" email.
Subject: Are you free to chat today?
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:39:30 +1000
Will you be free to chat today?
I have some people that can talk to you regarding accommodation and keen to catch up.
Thanks
B
One of the things I found "Not Quite Right" early on was a request that I take a look at a Performance Problem on one of their production systems as part of the Interview process. Turns out it wasn't fake data or a test, but I was in front of a console of a running production system, having someone else type my commands, trying to diagnose a live problem for them. Without any background, system maps or application briefing...
This had been my initial queasiness at the request.
Subject: Re: Interview RequestI had paid $350 to a boarding house for a weeks' accommodation. I had organised accommodation for the first week, but decided I was going to be miserable living there in a state of permanent anxiety both for my safety and if I'd have to find a new room at short notice.
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:14:18 +1000
B,
On reflection, I'm thinking there's a mismatch between this part of the Interview process (snippet below) and the job description as given...
Still going to do the interview, but I'd like to flag my concerns with you first.
The questions they are asking in the Interview are specifically:
- Capacity Planning (circuit planning, load forecasting, provisioning) and
- Performance Analysis (scalability, bottlenecks, rearchitecting, design, interactions, ...)
The closest thing in the job description is:
"A multi-skilled technical profile is required with proven ability to monitor and troubleshoot database and web server performance."
Which includes fault analysis but NOT architecture redesign and Performance Analysis.
If they're wanting a free consult (with current data), I'm not happy with that. I've done enough consulting gigs to be wary of customers asking "just one little question", then getting stiffed on the purported contract
I'd be very happy to look at data from a year ago and analyse that, then compare my analysis with what they did and what happened.
That's completely fair to both them and me.
They don't give away their secrets and I can't be conned into a freebie.
I'm not inclined to give them high-quality consulting advice for free.
Remember that I have bailed multiple large, high-profile Govt. sites out of extreme situations before, so they might just be casting around for that.
Extremely happy to be engaged by them as a consultant for an appropriate daily fee and look at any problems they give me, if that's what they truly want
Anyway, I hope they are being straight with me or just a little naive.
That's the position I'll take until I confirm otherwise.
cheers
steve
Part of the problem was the uncertainty of employment, and since 2002, I've had 3 failed attempts to make it through to permanent employment. I've become very wary of Hidden Agendas of employers and managers...
Very kindly, the boarding house allowed me a 2/3 refund, as they'd not informed me of the 14-day cancellation policy. In the end, I got through this sorry mess for under $250.
In Part 2 I will try to extract the Red Flags and my Lessons Learned...
2011/09/16
QPRSUCOST: Software Design has more dimensions than 'Functionality'
Summary: There are multiple Essential Dimensions of Software Design besides "Functionality".
There are three Essential External Dimensions, {Function, Time, Money} and multiple Internal Dimensions.
I'm ot sure where/how "Real-Time" is covered, it isn't just "Performance": the necessary concurrency (not just "parallelism") and asynchronous events/processing require 10-100 times the cognitive capacity to deal with, and problems scale-up extraordinarily (faster than exponential) due to this added complexity. This is why Operating Systems and embedded critical systems (health/medicine, aerospace control, nuclear, Telecomms, Routers/Switches, Storage Devices, ...) are so difficult and expensive.
Not understanding and enumerating these multiple Dimensions whilst seemingly teaching Functionality only is perhaps currently the single biggest single failure of the discipline of Software Engineering.
The Necessary or Essential Dimensions of the further Software phases of Software Construction, Software Deployment and Software Maintenance besides the meta-processes of Software Project Management and I.T. Operations are beyond the scope of this piece.
This non-exhaustive taxonomy implies that there are additional Essential Dimensions, such as Maintainability and Manageability, elsewhere in the Computing/I.T. milieu.
My apologies in advance that this piece is in itself a first pass and not yet definitive.
+++ Need to deal with "Documentation" vs "Literate Programming" vs "Slices & tools"
+++ Dev - Ops. Infrastructure is part of the deliverable. Scripts on PRD/DEV/TST must be same. Software Config Mgt and Migration/Fail-back/Fail-over are different and essential/necessary
Software Design:
I'm using Software Design in an unconventional sense:
everything that precedes and defines Coding and Construction.
While noting that Software Design and Construction are closely intertwined and inter-dependent and that all Software Projects are iterative, especially after notional Deployment and during Software Maintenance.
The acts of coding and testing uncover/reveal failings, errors, assumptions, blind-spots and omissions in the Design and its underlying models and concepts.
Where do the various Testing activities belong?
Wherever your Process or Project Methodology define them to be.
Many Software Design problems are revealed when first attempting to construct tests and later in performing them. Thus creating feedback, corrections and additional requirements/constraints.
What's an "Essential Dimension"?
In Formal Logic and Maths, there's the notion of "necessary and sufficient conditions" for a relationship or dependency to hold.
It is in this sense that I'm defining an "Essential Dimension" of elements or phases in the Software process, that they individually be Necessary and together be Sufficient for a complete solution/result.
Defective, or colloquially "Buggy", Software, has many aspects, not just "Erroneous, Invalid or Inconsistent Results".
The term is meant to be parsed against each of the Essential Design Dimensions for specific meanings, such as "Hacked or Compromised" (Security), "Failure to Proceed or Complete" (i.e. crash or infinite loop: Quality), "Too Slow" (Performance), "Corrupt or Lose Data" (Quality), "Unmaintainable" (Quality) and "Maxed out" (Scalability).
Initial candidate Essential Dimensions.
From my experience and observations of the full Software cycle and I.T. Operations, a first cut, not in order of importance:
Which Dimension is most important?
All and None: it depends on the specific project or task and its goals, constraints and requirements.
An essential outcome of the Specification phase of Software Design is to precisely define:
Which of its many aspects are critical for any project, sub-system, task, phase or component, and how they will be monitored, controlled and confirmed, must be defined by your meta-processes or derived through the execution of your Methodology.
Minimally, any Professionally produced Software component or product must be shown to conform both to the Zeroth Law requirements (keep running, terminate, Do no Damage and produce results) and its written Functional Requirements/Specifications.
Quality
Zeroth Law requirements (keep running, terminate, Do no Damage and produce results)
From "The quality of software", Hoare, Software-Practice and Experience Vol 2, 1972 p103-5
Security/Safety
Performance
Usability
Reliability/Recovery
Scalability
Testability
Operability/Manageability
There are three Essential External Dimensions, {Function, Time, Money} and multiple Internal Dimensions.
I'm ot sure where/how "Real-Time" is covered, it isn't just "Performance": the necessary concurrency (not just "parallelism") and asynchronous events/processing require 10-100 times the cognitive capacity to deal with, and problems scale-up extraordinarily (faster than exponential) due to this added complexity. This is why Operating Systems and embedded critical systems (health/medicine, aerospace control, nuclear, Telecomms, Routers/Switches, Storage Devices, ...) are so difficult and expensive.
Not understanding and enumerating these multiple Dimensions whilst seemingly teaching Functionality only is perhaps currently the single biggest single failure of the discipline of Software Engineering.
The Necessary or Essential Dimensions of the further Software phases of Software Construction, Software Deployment and Software Maintenance besides the meta-processes of Software Project Management and I.T. Operations are beyond the scope of this piece.
This non-exhaustive taxonomy implies that there are additional Essential Dimensions, such as Maintainability and Manageability, elsewhere in the Computing/I.T. milieu.
My apologies in advance that this piece is in itself a first pass and not yet definitive.
+++ Need to deal with "Documentation" vs "Literate Programming" vs "Slices & tools"
+++ Dev - Ops. Infrastructure is part of the deliverable. Scripts on PRD/DEV/TST must be same. Software Config Mgt and Migration/Fail-back/Fail-over are different and essential/necessary
Software Design:
I'm using Software Design in an unconventional sense:
everything that precedes and defines Coding and Construction.
While noting that Software Design and Construction are closely intertwined and inter-dependent and that all Software Projects are iterative, especially after notional Deployment and during Software Maintenance.
The acts of coding and testing uncover/reveal failings, errors, assumptions, blind-spots and omissions in the Design and its underlying models and concepts.
Where do the various Testing activities belong?
Wherever your Process or Project Methodology define them to be.
Many Software Design problems are revealed when first attempting to construct tests and later in performing them. Thus creating feedback, corrections and additional requirements/constraints.
What's an "Essential Dimension"?
In Formal Logic and Maths, there's the notion of "necessary and sufficient conditions" for a relationship or dependency to hold.
It is in this sense that I'm defining an "Essential Dimension" of elements or phases in the Software process, that they individually be Necessary and together be Sufficient for a complete solution/result.
A Dimension is Essential if it's removal, omission or non-performance results in Defective, Incomplete, Ineffective, Non-Performing or Non-Compliant Software and Systems.A marker of an Essential is
Or more positively, a Dimension is Essential if it must be performed to achieve the desired/specified process and product outputs and outcomes.
Defective, or colloquially "Buggy", Software, has many aspects, not just "Erroneous, Invalid or Inconsistent Results".
The term is meant to be parsed against each of the Essential Design Dimensions for specific meanings, such as "Hacked or Compromised" (Security), "Failure to Proceed or Complete" (i.e. crash or infinite loop: Quality), "Too Slow" (Performance), "Corrupt or Lose Data" (Quality), "Unmaintainable" (Quality) and "Maxed out" (Scalability).
Initial candidate Essential Dimensions.
From my experience and observations of the full Software cycle and I.T. Operations, a first cut, not in order of importance:
- F - Functionality
- Q - Quality
- P - Performance
- R - Reliability/Recovery
- S - Security/Safety
- U - Usability
- C - Concurrency/Synchronousness
- O - Operability/Manageability
- S - Scalability
- T - Testability
Which Dimension is most important?
All and None: it depends on the specific project or task and its goals, constraints and requirements.
An essential outcome of the Specification phase of Software Design is to precisely define:
- The criteria for each Essential Design Dimensions for the Product, Project, all Tasks and every Component.
- The relative importance of the Dimensions.
- How to assess final compliance to these criteria in both Business and Technical realms.
Which of its many aspects are critical for any project, sub-system, task, phase or component, and how they will be monitored, controlled and confirmed, must be defined by your meta-processes or derived through the execution of your Methodology.
Minimally, any Professionally produced Software component or product must be shown to conform both to the Zeroth Law requirements (keep running, terminate, Do no Damage and produce results) and its written Functional Requirements/Specifications.
Quality
Zeroth Law requirements (keep running, terminate, Do no Damage and produce results)
From "The quality of software", Hoare, Software-Practice and Experience Vol 2, 1972 p103-5
Hoare's Software Quality Criteria:
(1) Clear definition of purpose
(2) Simplicity of use
(3) Ruggedness
(4) Early availability
(5) Reliability
(3) Ruggedness
(4) Early availability
(5) Reliability
(6) Extensibility and improvability in light of experience
(7) Adaptability and easy extension to different configurations
(8) Suitability to each individual configuration of the range
(9) Brevity
(10) Efficiency (speed)
(9) Brevity
(10) Efficiency (speed)
(11) Operating ease
(12) Adaptability to wide range of applications
(13) Coherence and consistency with other programs
(14) Minimum cost to develop
(15) Conformity to national and international standards
(13) Coherence and consistency with other programs
(14) Minimum cost to develop
(15) Conformity to national and international standards
(16) Early and valid sales documentation
(17) Clear accurate and precise user’s documentsSecurity/Safety
Performance
Usability
Reliability/Recovery
Scalability
Testability
- Functional Testing or Specification Compliance Testing?
- Load Testing
- Regression Testing, post-Release esp.
- Acceptance Testing. Commercial Compliance?
- Others?
Operability/Manageability
2010/09/20
Quality and Excellence: Two sides of the same coin
Quality is predicated on Caring.
High Performance, also called "Excellence", first requires people to Care about their results.
They are related through the Feedback Loop of Continuous Improvement, also known as O-O-D-A (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) and Plan-Do-Check-Act (from W. Edwards Deming).
The Military take OODA another level with After-Action-Reviews or After-Action-Reports (AAR's), a structured approach to acquiring "Lessons Learned".
High Performance has two aspects: work-rate and consistency.
It's not enough to produce identical/consistent goods or results everytime, but you have to do it with speed.
There's an inviolate Quality Dictum:
You can't Check your own work.
For Organisations, this Dictum becomes:
Objective assessment requires an Independent Expert Body.
From which follows the necessity for an External Auditor:
Only Independent persons/bodies can check an Organisation and its people/processes for compliance and performance.
For around 80 years, Aviation has separated the roles of Investigation, or Root Cause Analysis, from Regulation, Compliance and Consequences. In the USA the NTSB Investigates and the FAA Regulates. This has led to consistent, demonstrable improvement in both Safety and Performance. Profitability is linked to Marketing, Financial Management and Administration, not just Performance.
All of which leads to the basic Professional Test for individuals:
"Never Repeat, or allow to be repeated, Known Errors, Faults and Failures".
And the Raison d'être of Professional Associations or Bodies:
To collect, preserve and disseminate Professional Learnings of Successes, Failures, Discovery and Invention.
Barry Boehm neatly summaries the importance of the Historical Perspective as:
All these statements are about Organisations as Adaptive Control Systems.
To effect change/improvement, there has to be reliable, objective measures of outputs and the means to effect change: Authority, the Right to Direct and Control, the ability to adjust Inputs or Direct work.
Which points the way as to why Outsourcing is often problematic:
The Feeback Loop is broken because the hirer gives up Control of the Process.
Most Organisations that Outsource critical functions, like I.T., completely divest themselves of all technical capability and, from a multitude of stories, don't contract for effective Quality, Performance or Improvement processes.
They give up both the capability to properly assess Outputs and Processes and Control mechanisms to effect change. Monthly "management reports" aren't quite enough...
High Performance, also called "Excellence", first requires people to Care about their results.
They are related through the Feedback Loop of Continuous Improvement, also known as O-O-D-A (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) and Plan-Do-Check-Act (from W. Edwards Deming).
The Military take OODA another level with After-Action-Reviews or After-Action-Reports (AAR's), a structured approach to acquiring "Lessons Learned".
High Performance has two aspects: work-rate and consistency.
It's not enough to produce identical/consistent goods or results everytime, but you have to do it with speed.
There's an inviolate Quality Dictum:
You can't Check your own work.
For Organisations, this Dictum becomes:
Objective assessment requires an Independent Expert Body.
From which follows the necessity for an External Auditor:
Only Independent persons/bodies can check an Organisation and its people/processes for compliance and performance.
For around 80 years, Aviation has separated the roles of Investigation, or Root Cause Analysis, from Regulation, Compliance and Consequences. In the USA the NTSB Investigates and the FAA Regulates. This has led to consistent, demonstrable improvement in both Safety and Performance. Profitability is linked to Marketing, Financial Management and Administration, not just Performance.
All of which leads to the basic Professional Test for individuals:
"Never Repeat, or allow to be repeated, Known Errors, Faults and Failures".
And the Raison d'être of Professional Associations or Bodies:
To collect, preserve and disseminate Professional Learnings of Successes, Failures, Discovery and Invention.
Barry Boehm neatly summaries the importance of the Historical Perspective as:
Santayana half-truth: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”
Don’t remember failures?
Don’t remember successes?
- Likely to repeat them
- Not likely to repeat them
All these statements are about Organisations as Adaptive Control Systems.
To effect change/improvement, there has to be reliable, objective measures of outputs and the means to effect change: Authority, the Right to Direct and Control, the ability to adjust Inputs or Direct work.
Which points the way as to why Outsourcing is often problematic:
The Feeback Loop is broken because the hirer gives up Control of the Process.
Most Organisations that Outsource critical functions, like I.T., completely divest themselves of all technical capability and, from a multitude of stories, don't contract for effective Quality, Performance or Improvement processes.
They give up both the capability to properly assess Outputs and Processes and Control mechanisms to effect change. Monthly "management reports" aren't quite enough...
2007/06/03
Basis of Quality - What I learnt in my first years at work
On the 17th of January 1972, with 70+ others, I started as a cadet at CSR. This early work experience set the stage for how I approached the rest of my life at work. I'm come to the conclusion that these early formative experiences are crucial to a persons' performance and attitude for their entire working life. Breaking these early patterns can be impossible for some.
The cadets of my intake had the privilege to have unrivaled experiential life lessons in quality, safety, team building & working, skills development and personal responsibility.
The lessons I took with me into my career:
At these NATA certified laboratories, we were trained in Chemical Analysis - but also safety and quality methods - with lives and ‘real money’ at stake.
Routinely large quantities of flammable and explosive alcohols, and highly toxic and corrosive acids were used and safely disposed of.
Deadlines were tight and fixed – each day samples for 50-100,000 tonnes of raw sugar and full analysis had to be delivered with a very high degree of accuracy and certainty that same day.
Speed, precision and absolute dependability were instilled in us alongside a clear knowledge of the value and consequences of our work - and mistakes.
We were tutored in analytical techniques, trained in reading and following exactly processes, statistical analysis, fire and safety (OH&S) skills, certified first-aid and our duties and responsibilities to our clients - the sugar producers.
It was expected that "people make mistakes" - the first rule of any precise analysis is the error range (+/- ??). The system was designed consistently to produce accurate, repeatable results with a very low margins of error. Calibrated samples were fed through the process alongside multiple samples and any 'repeats' that had failed the checking process. The performance of individual analysts and groups was tracked and monitored. People were assigned to tasks suited to their particular talents - based on objective results, not presumption or basis.
We all acquired robust team working skills. Along with how to do the boring things like time sheets with exactitude.
The next year I spent working as an Analyst in the Pyrmont Sugar Refinery.
Lots of routine and tight deadlines - and the same attention to detail, importance of results and a necessity to understand 'the big picture'.
There'd been an analyst, an ex-secretary, who'd dropped her (mercury) thermometer into the 'product stream'. She hadn't realised it was a problem, and a few hundred tons of sugar had to be thrown away and the process shutdown for cleaning. A tad expensive - many more times her wage and the cost of training and supervision to prevent.
My routine work led to uncovering a systematic problem with a very simple and preventable cause. We had a power station on-site - a real live coal burning, electricity and high-pressure steam (50 atmosphere?) producing plant. It used enough coal that when a fire in the furnace hopper caused a malfunction, the whole of the Sydney CBD was covered in a thick pall of black smoke - which made the TV news.
The plant feed-water was supposed to be closely maintained near a neutral pH - not acidic. A test station was on the factory floor, with a reagent bottle next to it. The reagent ran out, so I made a new batch - only to find that the measurements were now grossly wrong. The bottle was stored without a lid and slowly evaporated and concentrated. Over a couple of years, the pH measurement had slowly drifted and the water pushed way out of spec.
Serendipitously a major explosion or equipment failure was avoided. Replacement of the power-station, and shutting down the whole of the Pyrmont facility dependent on it for a couple of years, would've seriously impacted the whole company.
The cadets of my intake had the privilege to have unrivaled experiential life lessons in quality, safety, team building & working, skills development and personal responsibility.
The lessons I took with me into my career:
- Quality workmanship and precision techniques
- Formal quality techniques and analyses
- Following precise analytical processes
- Managing high work loads and meeting tight deadlines
- Responsibility for high-value processes/outcomes
- Satisfying stringent customer requirements
- Respect for, coping with and managing work in dangerous
environments - and experience in handling/responding to hazardous
incidents. - And doing time sheets and "filling in the paper work" as a natural part of things.
At these NATA certified laboratories, we were trained in Chemical Analysis - but also safety and quality methods - with lives and ‘real money’ at stake.
Routinely large quantities of flammable and explosive alcohols, and highly toxic and corrosive acids were used and safely disposed of.
Deadlines were tight and fixed – each day samples for 50-100,000 tonnes of raw sugar and full analysis had to be delivered with a very high degree of accuracy and certainty that same day.
Speed, precision and absolute dependability were instilled in us alongside a clear knowledge of the value and consequences of our work - and mistakes.
We were tutored in analytical techniques, trained in reading and following exactly processes, statistical analysis, fire and safety (OH&S) skills, certified first-aid and our duties and responsibilities to our clients - the sugar producers.
It was expected that "people make mistakes" - the first rule of any precise analysis is the error range (+/- ??). The system was designed consistently to produce accurate, repeatable results with a very low margins of error. Calibrated samples were fed through the process alongside multiple samples and any 'repeats' that had failed the checking process. The performance of individual analysts and groups was tracked and monitored. People were assigned to tasks suited to their particular talents - based on objective results, not presumption or basis.
We all acquired robust team working skills. Along with how to do the boring things like time sheets with exactitude.
The next year I spent working as an Analyst in the Pyrmont Sugar Refinery.
Lots of routine and tight deadlines - and the same attention to detail, importance of results and a necessity to understand 'the big picture'.
There'd been an analyst, an ex-secretary, who'd dropped her (mercury) thermometer into the 'product stream'. She hadn't realised it was a problem, and a few hundred tons of sugar had to be thrown away and the process shutdown for cleaning. A tad expensive - many more times her wage and the cost of training and supervision to prevent.
My routine work led to uncovering a systematic problem with a very simple and preventable cause. We had a power station on-site - a real live coal burning, electricity and high-pressure steam (50 atmosphere?) producing plant. It used enough coal that when a fire in the furnace hopper caused a malfunction, the whole of the Sydney CBD was covered in a thick pall of black smoke - which made the TV news.
The plant feed-water was supposed to be closely maintained near a neutral pH - not acidic. A test station was on the factory floor, with a reagent bottle next to it. The reagent ran out, so I made a new batch - only to find that the measurements were now grossly wrong. The bottle was stored without a lid and slowly evaporated and concentrated. Over a couple of years, the pH measurement had slowly drifted and the water pushed way out of spec.
Serendipitously a major explosion or equipment failure was avoided. Replacement of the power-station, and shutting down the whole of the Pyrmont facility dependent on it for a couple of years, would've seriously impacted the whole company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)