>> Well we're not doing that at any other sites, so I don't think it's
>> necessary.
> 
> "Well, regulation 10.3.723 subsection b, paragraph 6 says it is required 

If only.

The regulations only say that backups have to be taken every day.

If I make too much of a fuss about it, the head IT people will probably 
just nominate some random person and promote them to be a member of IT. 
(Despite the fact they have no clue what they're doing.) And then I'll 
have solved one medium problem and created a large problem...

This is always the worry - rather than do the simple and easy thing that 
completely solves the problem, they always want to do something more 
complicated that generates new problems. I really hate it!

Still, with a little unauthorised access to centralised systems, I was 
able to sort this particular problem out without their help. "The" 
sysadmin may be God, but when you have several of them things start to 
get... interesting.

(Wasn't there a Pratchey book gooded "small gods" or something?)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:42:33 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Well we're not doing that at any other sites, so I don't think it's
>>> necessary.
>> 
>> "Well, regulation 10.3.723 subsection b, paragraph 6 says it is
>> required
> 
> If only.
> 
> The regulations only say that backups have to be taken every day.
> 
> If I make too much of a fuss about it, the head IT people will probably
> just nominate some random person and promote them to be a member of IT.
> (Despite the fact they have no clue what they're doing.) And then I'll
> have solved one medium problem and created a large problem...

So then you step up pointing out the issue.  Has the person been properly 
trained?  Do the regs require any specific training for the additional 
person?  What is the financial exposure to the company if the audit is 
failed because of inadequate training, or if the backups fail and 
critical data is lost?

> This is always the worry - rather than do the simple and easy thing that
> completely solves the problem, they always want to do something more
> complicated that generates new problems. I really hate it!

It's sometimes hard to do, but don't worry about what might be.  You can 
spend years thinking up worst-case "what if" scenarios and let that 
prevent you from solving an immediate problem.  Deal with the problems 
you have, not with the problems that might be.

And on that note (and pardon the total non-sequitor here), I realise I 
have to take my own advice here so I *can* get some sleep.  (Without 
getting into details, I learned about a potential really really bad 
health issue today in my family, but there hasn't been a diagnosis yet, 
but I've been worried absolutely sick about it all night = dealing with a 
problem that *might* be, rather than waiting for a diagnosis to be made 
by a qualified doctor.  Yes, it's time I take my own advice on this one.)

> Still, with a little unauthorised access to centralised systems, I was
> able to sort this particular problem out without their help. "The"
> sysadmin may be God, but when you have several of them things start to
> get... interesting.

Yep, they do.  Especially in a distributed environment.  There are 
certain operations that require centralised control.  The trick is in 
knowing which ones are.

Be careful about using unauthorised access, though - it can bite you in 
the ass if things go wrong.

> (Wasn't there a Pratchey book gooded "small gods" or something?)

Might've been.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> It just annoys me when some manager says "we should do X". And I 
> carefully explain "X is a bad idea because of A, B, C, D, E and F". And 
> the manager says "...yeah, well, I don't think those are problems". I 
> mean, WTF can you say to that??
> 
> Poor decisions are one thing. When you carefully explain why a dicision 
> is bad, and you get a reply that says no it isn't - no explaination, 
> just "I think you're wrong" - it's rather irritating.
> 
> Or when I say "I need to do X", and they say "nah, I don't think that's 
> necessary". Er, well actually, yes it is. But hey, they're not the ones 
> who are going to get screamed at when the auditors can. I am.
> 


As I read the posts it occurred to me that there is another aspect of 
the situation.

How are you perceived at being able to do your job?

This isn't about your actual capabilities, it is what you are able to 
project to the manager.

If your manager sees you as young, immature, or unconfident, he may 
dismiss your expert views.

If your manager sees you as smart and confidant your wildest suggestions 
may be taken without question.

I know I struggle with this.


Tom

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:

> How are you perceived at being able to do your job?
> 
> This isn't about your actual capabilities, it is what you are able to 
> project to the manager.

That's probably it, you know.

The current set of IT managers are less egocentric than their 
predecessors, but still tend to ignore any outside input - I kind of 
"I'm the expert, I know best" attitude. Who knows, maybe that's how they 
got to be put at the top? Non-experts can't tell how good they "really" 
are, only how confident they seem...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message