And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:18:38 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:18:56 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> "My *God* - you have a log book for *every* PC on your network?? What  
>>> on earth is the *point* of that?!?"
>>>
>>> I manage to avoid exclaiming "...and you *don't*?"
>>  I trust your answer was more along the lines of "We keep them as part  
>> of the audit trail that is legally required for our industry, both here  
>> and in the USA" and watched him turn a whiter shade of pale.
>
> Actually, he'd probably just not believe me. :-P
>
> The guys at HQ tend to not believe anything anyone in the UK says.
>
> For example, a while back we had a period where the lab was utterly  
> empty. Bored analysts were dusting shelves and rearranging paperwork  
> (and leaving work *hours* early) because there was simply no useful work  
> to be done. There were even rumours that the site might close, it was so  
> damn quiet.
>
> And then the Big Bosses came over, and we had a meeting. So they're  
> standing there telling us how we all need to pull our weight and work  
> hard and work unpaid overtime if necessary (!!) to complete work on time  
> and someone piped up "why? We haven't got any work to do right now."
>
> "Oh, I don't believe that."
>
> "No, seriously. We've got no work."
>
> "Well, you might not have much, but you must have *something*. Anyway,  
> what we-"
>
> "No, we've got NO WORK."
>
> "Well I don't believe that for a second."
>
> Only when our exasperated lab director *dragged* these guys over to the  
> lab and physically *showed* them the empty freezers did they all gasp  
> and go "holy crap! We gotta get some samples in here right away! We're  
> losing a fortune here... Jeez, why didn't you guys *tell* us you had no  
> work?!" (Obviously, the answer being "We *have* been telling you about  
> this - for many *months* before the gap in the schedule actually hit the  
> lab. Why didn't you LISTEN to us?")

At which point you say "well we did email you on the 1st, then the 5th,  
the 11th, the..." ah gods bless the paper trail.

>>> "Wow, that's *insane*! You can't do that...! OK, I'm gonna have to get  
>>> that fixed."
>>  Hehe that's easy just hire a good lobbying company and get the  
>> regulations changed for the whole industry - piece of cake it'll all be  
>> done in a couple of years.
>
> These are the kind of idiots who seem to think that major national  
> governments will just change their laws to suit the company. Obviously,  
> they are sadly mistaken. (What *is* it that gives people these ideas  
> that the world revolves around them??)

Well it depends on the size of the country, the size of the company and  
the laws in question. Remember if a government passes a law preventing the  
sale of some goods in its country then this is a trade restriction, if a  
company prevents retailers selling its goods in stores that's copyright.

>>> Clearly, at HQ they do things a little bit differently. ;-) I always  
>>> thought it was an exaggeration, but now I'm not so sure...
>>  What are they doing over there?
>
> Well, from what I can tell, they spout a lot of grand talk about  
> compliance with regulations, and then just do whatever they feel like  
> whenever following the rules isn't convinient.

Are you sure they're not French? (no please I'm just kidding really I am)

> For example, a lot of their "procedure documents" basically say, in  
> flowery language, "the person performing this task will decide on the  
> best way to do it based on their expertise". Or perhaps "there will be a  
> procedure. The people doing it will know what it is. It may change from  
> time to time. We won't actually write it down anywhere though."
>
> The entire *point* of a procedure document is to rigidly define  
> *exactly* what the procedure is. So that you can be tested against it.  
> Also, official procedure documents go through an extensive review and  
> approval process, to ensure that the procedure is acceptable. Also,  
> these documents get archived, so that when you reconstruct a project,  
> you can determine exactly which version of the procedure the people  
> would have been working to at the time.
>
> All of this goes straight out the window when you have cursory "there  
> will be a procedure" documents. I seriously wonder how they get away  
> with it - our QA department in the UK would *never* allow such a thing.  
> (In fact, they regularly refuse to adapt "global" procedure documents  
> because they don't specify any procedure - or they specify a dumb  
> procedure!)

Sadly the flip side is not being able to get a client to sign off some  
documentation while they're physically there as the procedure says it has  
to be faxed to their office for approval and faxed back with their  
signature.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message