 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Does anybody else feel frustrated at work?
It just seems that HQ are forever taking simple systems that work, and
replacing them with complex systems that don't work.
The irony of all this is that they do this to "simplify" and
"streamline" our business process. Ha!
One of the main things they like to do is change it so that al 5 sites
do things the same way. Well, it does make sense to standardise. But
*why* do they insist on standardising on the worst possible thing?
Examples:
1. We had a different accounts package at all 5 sites. Obviously, this
is highly suboptimal. So we decided to standardise. On Micro$oft Axapta.
This cost us $1 million US. And yet it doesn't seem to "understand"
about VAT.
(But then, neither do the guys in HQ, despite us explaining it multiple
times. They even had our accountant phone the Inland Revenue to
offocially ask if we can call it "sales tax" on the invoice. They were
really shocked when the answer was "no"...)
Initially the software was configured with the UK currency as "lbs". (!)
Due to the software's total inability to print an invoice that shows our
VAT registration number on it, the application administrator in HQ
helpfully suggested that we just write that onto the invoice afterwards
with a black pen. (Dude, WTF? You get somebody to do a few hundred
thousand pounds worth of work for you, and then they send you a printed
invoice with hand-written corrections, *what* are you going to think
about that company??)
Last I heard, we're still running the old accounts package in parallel
with the new one *just* so it can do the correct VAT calculations and
print out usable invoices that we can actually send to customers. This
has trippled our accountant's workload. (She has to process every
transaction twice, and then there's a whole heap of extra work cross
checking the two sets of accounts against each other and rectifying
differences...)
2. It was decided that we would standardise on a specific model of PC
and a specific model of laptop, so they would all be the same. So who
did they choose? IBM? HP? Acer?
Nope. They chose Dell, the most overpriced supplier on the market.
Brilliant!
(It turns out that not only are Dell on average 2.2x more expensive,
they also take several weeks to deliver each item.)
My company must be wasting *tens of thousands* of dollars a year on
Dell. I mean, how stupid can you get?
3. We currently have a system with 5 seperate Active Directory domains
(in the same tree), one for each site. This works very well. So they
want to merge all the domains into one. I cannot seem to make them
comprehend what a stupid idea this is.
Our existing domain layout works just fine. So *why* are we expending
effort changing it in the first place?
If we merge all the domains, any time anybody in the company changes
their password, the change will have to be replicated to all 5 sites
globally. Why? It's extremely rare for anybody to try to log in from a
different site. Not to mention that the other sites are all about 10x
bigger than the UK site. So we're now going to be flooded with useless
network traffic over our already massively-overloaded Internet connection.
But for me, the biggest problem is managability. We're taking 5 seperate
things which *should* be clearly seperated, and mashing them all
together into 1 big unmanagable blob. Oh, but don't worry - we'll use
OUs! [bangs head against well]
4. I was going to buy new network switches for the new building. It
Gigabit Ethernet switches, so it'll go a bit faster for certain PCs.
But then HQ got involved. And they want me to buy Cisco Catalyst
switches we already have. So right there, you just wiped out the entire
advantage of upgrading plus you made it 4x more expensive than I was
5. This just in - HQ have proposed a new, standardised company-wide
computer naming scheme.
They want to name each computer according to where it is in the building.
The obvious problem here, of course, is that as soon as you move a PC,
you now have to rename it. Quite apart from the occasional software that
breaks if you change the computer name, computers names are how we track
our hardware. So having more than one name for a given computer is an
*extremely bad thing*.
(I refer you to C. J. Date, who says that "a primary key should be an
arbitrary code having absolutely no real-world significance, so that it
will never ever need to be changed". Well, the computer name is our
primary key!)
If I rename a computer, I have to print a new label to stick to the
case, I have to annotate the logbook, I have to file a new computer
hardware record page and have the old page officially archived, and so
forth. And it now means that if you see a document referring to a
computer name that isn't around any more, you have to go search through
all the logbooks to find out what that computer is called now. (And if
you can't find it, then it must have been decommissioned.)
Even better, since machines are named according to where they are, there
is even the terrifying possibility that the same name might refer to
different physical computers at different points in time! This, surely,
our QA guys will simply not accept.
And why have they chosen this silly scheme? "So that when you browse the
network, all the computers will appear in sorted order. And whenever you
see an error about machine XXXXX, you'll instantly know where it is."
Yeah, well, that's why I assign machines an arbitrary unique number and
keep a database of where each one is. It's very easy to update a
database; much harder to rename a PC.
My question has to be *WUUUUIIIIEEE* don't they just use the "computer
description" field? That can be changed on a whim and has no impact on
anything. Then to find out where a computer is, all you have to do is
browse the network and right next to the name, it'll say where that PC
is. And you don't even have to "encode" the information in any way; it's
a free-form text field. WHAT'S SO DAMN HARD ABOUT THAT?!??
(Even more amusing is their suggestion that we similarly name servers
according to what they do. So each time that changes I have to rename
servers - guaranteed to break software in nontrivial ways, not to
mention all the procedure doucments that will have to be revised,
officially reviewed and reissued because they mention servers by name...
No, I'm sorry, this is absurd!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:11:41 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
spake, saying:
> Does anybody else feel frustrated at work?
>
> It just seems that HQ are forever taking simple systems that work, and
> replacing them with complex systems that don't work.
>
> The irony of all this is that they do this to "simplify" and
> "streamline" our business process. Ha!
>
> One of the main things they like to do is change it so that al 5 sites
> do things the same way. Well, it does make sense to standardise. But
> *why* do they insist on standardising on the worst possible thing?
>
> Examples:
>
> 1. We had a different accounts package at all 5 sites. Obviously, this
> is highly suboptimal. So we decided to standardise. On Micro$oft Axapta.
> This cost us $1 million US. And yet it doesn't seem to "understand"
> about VAT.
>
> (But then, neither do the guys in HQ, despite us explaining it multiple
> times. They even had our accountant phone the Inland Revenue to
> offocially ask if we can call it "sales tax" on the invoice. They were
> really shocked when the answer was "no"...)
Perhaps because shockingly Sales Tax isn't the same as VAT :-)
> Initially the software was configured with the UK currency as "lbs". (!)
Hey it's historically accurate.
> they send you a printed invoice with hand-written corrections, *what*
> are you going to think about that company??)
That they're a small firm with no grasp of IT systems, which is fine if
they're plumbers.
<snip>
> This has trippled our accountant's workload.
And HQ have been told this?
<snip>
But at a 4x heightened efficiency no doubt.
> 5. This just in - HQ have proposed a new, standardised company-wide
> computer naming scheme.
>
> They want to name each computer according to where it is in the building.
Beautiful; you have pointed out that this will break the audit trail
currently in place, breaks some software, only really works if you have
one computer per location, and will cost time and money every time a
computer is moved - whereas using the description field solves the problem
that they state (being able to see where a computer is) without any of
these problems.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:11:41 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
> spake, saying:
>
>> This cost us $1 million US. And yet it doesn't seem to
>> "understand" about VAT.
>>
>> (But then, neither do the guys in HQ, despite us explaining it
>> multiple times. They even had our accountant phone the Inland Revenue
>> to offocially ask if we can call it "sales tax" on the invoice. They
>> were really shocked when the answer was "no"...)
>
> Perhaps because shockingly Sales Tax isn't the same as VAT :-)
Yeah... These guys don't seem to comprehend that the UK isn't the USA.
When we tell them things like this, they seem to think we're making a
fuss about nothing.
>> Initially the software was configured with the UK currency as "lbs". (!)
>
> Hey it's historically accurate.
Do you have a cite for that?
>> they send you a printed invoice with hand-written corrections, *what*
>> are you going to think about that company??)
>
> That they're a small firm with no grasp of IT systems, which is fine if
> they're plumbers.
Yeah. Not so good in an industry that's ruled by computers.
But then, this company generally seems to talk like a big firm and act
like a small 1-man band...
> <snip>
>> This has trippled our accountant's workload.
>
> And HQ have been told this?
Endlessly. Our accountant spent *months* trying to get them to
reconfigure the software to allow her to do her job properly. They
variously didn't understand what she meant, or thought she was just
being awkward for the sake of causing trouble.
> <snip>
>
> But at a 4x heightened efficiency no doubt.
Well, it's Cisco, so at least you can geniunely say it's the best
product on the market. (Unlike the Dell thing...) It's expensive, but at
least you can say you're getting build quality.
OTOH, our current switches have worked perfectly for over 10 years too...
>> 5. This just in - HQ have proposed a new, standardised company-wide
>> computer naming scheme.
>>
>> They want to name each computer according to where it is in the building.
>
> Beautiful; you have pointed out that this will break the audit trail
> currently in place, breaks some software, only really works if you have
> one computer per location, and will cost time and money every time a
> computer is moved - whereas using the description field solves the
> problem that they state (being able to see where a computer is) without
> any of these problems.
You just sumerised the whole CF, right there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:46:50 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:11:41 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> This cost us $1 million US. And yet it doesn't seem to "understand"
>>> about VAT.
>>>
>>> (But then, neither do the guys in HQ, despite us explaining it
>>> multiple times. They even had our accountant phone the Inland Revenue
>>> to offocially ask if we can call it "sales tax" on the invoice. They
>>> were really shocked when the answer was "no"...)
>> Perhaps because shockingly Sales Tax isn't the same as VAT :-)
>
> Yeah... These guys don't seem to comprehend that the UK isn't the USA.
> When we tell them things like this, they seem to think we're making a
> fuss about nothing.
Try http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php for more 'the US is the World' fun.
>>> Initially the software was configured with the UK currency as "lbs".
>>> (!)
>> Hey it's historically accurate.
>
> Do you have a cite for that?
which also refers to weight and is what the currency was originally based
on...no :-) Oh and it should be lb for the plural like sheep, so they did
get that wrong.
>>> they send you a printed invoice with hand-written corrections, *what*
>>> are you going to think about that company??)
>> That they're a small firm with no grasp of IT systems, which is fine
>> if they're plumbers.
>
> Yeah. Not so good in an industry that's ruled by computers.
>
> But then, this company generally seems to talk like a big firm and act
> like a small 1-man band...
Been there...
>> <snip>
>>> This has trippled our accountant's workload.
>> And HQ have been told this?
>
> Endlessly. Our accountant spent *months* trying to get them to
> reconfigure the software to allow her to do her job properly. They
> variously didn't understand what she meant, or thought she was just
> being awkward for the sake of causing trouble.
Invite their accountant over to 'show' her how to do her job properly.
>> <snip>
>> But at a 4x heightened efficiency no doubt.
>
> Well, it's Cisco, so at least you can geniunely say it's the best
> product on the market. (Unlike the Dell thing...) It's expensive, but at
> least you can say you're getting build quality.
It is kind of like buying gold-filigreed oars carved from the finest woods
by master craftsman in order to paddle your hide coracle.
> OTOH, our current switches have worked perfectly for over 10 years too...
Ah due for failure then :-)
>>> 5. This just in - HQ have proposed a new, standardised company-wide
>>> computer naming scheme.
>>>
>>> They want to name each computer according to where it is in the
>>> building.
>> Beautiful; you have pointed out that this will break the audit trail
>> currently in place, breaks some software, only really works if you have
>> one computer per location, and will cost time and money every time a
>> computer is moved - whereas using the description field solves the
>> problem that they state (being able to see where a computer is) without
>> any of these problems.
>
> You just sumerised the whole CF, right there.
It's a knack,now just COPY* and paste it into an email to HQ.
*Just for you Warp.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 5. This just in - HQ have proposed a new, standardised company-wide
> computer naming scheme.
>
> They want to name each computer according to where it is in the building.
roflcakes!
I just had the most amusing conversation with the head of IT...
I tried to explain to him that renaming a PC is an expensive operation
and something that should be avoided at all costs. Some of his responses
were really quite amusing.
"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*?"
For anybody who doesn't work in this kind of righly-regulated
environment: Being able to provide an audit trail of *exactly* what has
happened to a particular computer system is an elementery requirement of
the industry regulations. (In particular, the same requirements also
apply in the USA.) The fact that the company head of IT didn't know that
is... disturbing.
"Wow, that's *insane*! You can't do that...! OK, I'm gonna have to get
that fixed."
Ahem. Good luck with that one honey. I think the auditors might have a
little bit to say about the matter. ;-)
Seriously. The very idea that we would actually *record* an audit trail
and be accountable rather than just do whatever the hell we feel like
utterly blew his mind. It was a total shock to his system.
Clearly, at HQ they do things a little bit differently. ;-) I always
thought it was an exaggeration, but now I'm not so sure...
[Hint: If you go to QA and say "oh hai, i r deleted ur audit trails,
kthxbye" I can *actually guarantee* - as in, I can put money on it -
that QA will say, in no uncertain terms, "ME NO WANT!!1!". And what QA
doesn't approve, does not happen. Not without severe legal implicatiosn
anyway...]
OMG, I should stop reading lolcat!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:46:50 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
> spake, saying:
>
>> Yeah... These guys don't seem to comprehend that the UK isn't the USA.
>> When we tell them things like this, they seem to think we're making a
>> fuss about nothing.
>
> Try http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php for more 'the US is the World' fun.
Wait... In Sweeden it's legal to copy protected works? ._.
>> Do you have a cite for that?
>
> which also refers to weight and is what the currency was originally
> based on...no :-) Oh and it should be lb for the plural like sheep, so
> they did get that wrong.
Ooo.. I didn't know that. (About lb being plural.) I'm pretty sure I've
seen it wrong in a number of places though...
>>> And HQ have been told this?
>>
>> Endlessly. Our accountant spent *months* trying to get them to
>> reconfigure the software to allow her to do her job properly. They
>> variously didn't understand what she meant, or thought she was just
>> being awkward for the sake of causing trouble.
>
> Invite their accountant over to 'show' her how to do her job properly.
Heh. Well, the trouble is, the Big Boys want to control everything, but
don't want to do any actual *work* and certainly don't want to be held
*responsible* for anything. They want all the glory when it goes wrong,
they want to be the control freaks who get to boss everyone around, but
they're not interested in doing anything helpful...
>> Well, it's Cisco, so at least you can geniunely say it's the best
>> product on the market. (Unlike the Dell thing...) It's expensive, but
>> at least you can say you're getting build quality.
>
> It is kind of like buying gold-filigreed oars carved from the finest
> woods by master craftsman in order to paddle your hide coracle.
Indeed.
>> OTOH, our current switches have worked perfectly for over 10 years too...
>
> Ah due for failure then :-)
Doubt it. :-P
>> You just sumerised the whole CF, right there.
>
> It's a knack,now just COPY* and paste it into an email to HQ.
>
> *Just for you Warp.
Well, I don't know, I don't think even He is omnipresent... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:18:56 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake, saying:
> Invisible wrote:
>
>> 5. This just in - HQ have proposed a new, standardised company-wide
>> computer naming scheme.
>> They want to name each computer according to where it is in the
>> building.
>
> roflcakes!
>
> I just had the most amusing conversation with the head of IT...
>
> I tried to explain to him that renaming a PC is an expensive operation
> and something that should be avoided at all costs. Some of his responses
> were really quite amusing.
>
> "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.
Knowing what you do I'm not surprised that you need such a trail;
disconcerting at the least that your IT head doesn't know that.
> For anybody who doesn't work in this kind of righly-regulated
> environment: Being able to provide an audit trail of *exactly* what has
> happened to a particular computer system is an elementery requirement of
> the industry regulations. (In particular, the same requirements also
> apply in the USA.) The fact that the company head of IT didn't know that
> is... disturbing.
>
> "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. I do like "You can't do that" always funny when used in a
situation where not only have you done that, but have done that for quite
some time now.
> Ahem. Good luck with that one honey. I think the auditors might have a
> little bit to say about the matter. ;-)
>
> Seriously. The very idea that we would actually *record* an audit trail
> and be accountable rather than just do whatever the hell we feel like
> utterly blew his mind. It was a total shock to his system.
>
> 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?
> [Hint: If you go to QA and say "oh hai, i r deleted ur audit trails,
> kthxbye" I can *actually guarantee* - as in, I can put money on it -
> that QA will say, in no uncertain terms, "ME NO WANT!!1!". And what QA
> doesn't approve, does not happen. Not without severe legal implicatiosn
> anyway...]
>
> OMG, I should stop reading lolcat!
Yes, yes I think you should.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Does anybody else feel frustrated at work?
>
[Snip]
> No, I'm sorry, this is absurd!)
You must be a masochist. Tell us that you enjoy this :)
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?")
Within days we had more work than we could handle coming through the
door, but you have to wonder why this didn't happen months ago when our
lab director is phoning these bozos *daily* to tell them we've got no
work. I imagine because they though "no work" was an exaggeration...
> Knowing what you do I'm not surprised that you need such a trail;
> disconcerting at the least that your IT head doesn't know that.
Er, YES. o_o
>> "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??)
> I do like "You can't do that" always funny
> when used in a situation where not only have you done that, but have
> done that for quite some time now.
Yeah, isn't it great? :-D
>> 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.
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!)
>> OMG, I should stop reading lolcat!
>
> Yes, yes I think you should.
pleez to stop poking me now?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Does anybody else feel frustrated at work?
>>
> [Snip]
>
>> No, I'm sorry, this is absurd!)
>
> You must be a masochist. Tell us that you enjoy this :)
Well... It *can* be amusing sometimes! ;-) Watching all the stupid ideas
these guys come up with, watching them shoot their own arms and legs off.
And sometimes it's significantly *less* fun - like when they start
shooting *my* arms and legs off. o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
