 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 31.01.2014 23:45, schrieb Doctor John:
> On 31/01/14 20:14, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> "Hi guys. Can I get a list of all the file formats we don't support?"
>>
>> *facepalm*
>
> Whoever asked you the question has got a bright future in Senior Management.
I'd rather guess they already have a bright /history/ in Senior
Management...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 04:19:11 +0100, clipka wrote:
> Am 31.01.2014 23:45, schrieb Doctor John:
>> On 31/01/14 20:14, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> "Hi guys. Can I get a list of all the file formats we don't support?"
>>>
>>> *facepalm*
>>
>> Whoever asked you the question has got a bright future in Senior
>> Management.
>
> I'd rather guess they already have a bright /history/ in Senior
> Management...
Well, some sort of history. ;)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Whoever asked you the question has got a bright future in Senior
>>> Management.
>>
>> I'd rather guess they already have a bright /history/ in Senior
>> Management...
>
> Well, some sort of history. ;)
Yes, this is a question direct from our MD, so...
We quite often asks us what features we *don't* have. There's a logic
there - whatever feature we don't have, that's probably what we want to
go implement next. Except... this set is extremely poorly defined!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.02.2014 10:34, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>>> Whoever asked you the question has got a bright future in Senior
>>>> Management.
>>>
>>> I'd rather guess they already have a bright /history/ in Senior
>>> Management...
>>
>> Well, some sort of history. ;)
>
> Yes, this is a question direct from our MD, so...
>
> We quite often asks us what features we *don't* have. There's a logic
> there - whatever feature we don't have, that's probably what we want to
> go implement next. Except... this set is extremely poorly defined!
Sounds more like the sales department is poorly "defined". Shouldn't
they keep an eye open to what customers are asking for, and what the
competitors are offering?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2014-02-01 12:42, clipka a écrit :
> Am 01.02.2014 10:34, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>>>> Whoever asked you the question has got a bright future in Senior
>>>>> Management.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather guess they already have a bright /history/ in Senior
>>>> Management...
>>>
>>> Well, some sort of history. ;)
>>
>> Yes, this is a question direct from our MD, so...
>>
>> We quite often asks us what features we *don't* have. There's a logic
>> there - whatever feature we don't have, that's probably what we want to
>> go implement next. Except... this set is extremely poorly defined!
>
> Sounds more like the sales department is poorly "defined". Shouldn't
> they keep an eye open to what customers are asking for, and what the
> competitors are offering?
>
Yes, but they're not technical enough to understand that mumbo jumbo, so
they're asking the techies, in this case, Andy and his team.
It reminds me of a dilbert Cartoon where the Pointy-Haired-Boss asked
Wally and Dilbert what was the model number of their competitor's
product, and they replied "the 6000." So, of course, the PHB asked them
to design a 7000.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 01/02/2014 18:42, clipka nous fit lire :
> Am 01.02.2014 10:34, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>>>> Whoever asked you the question has got a bright future in Senior
>>>>> Management.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather guess they already have a bright /history/ in Senior
>>>> Management...
>>>
>>> Well, some sort of history. ;)
>>
>> Yes, this is a question direct from our MD, so...
>>
>> We quite often asks us what features we *don't* have. There's a logic
>> there - whatever feature we don't have, that's probably what we want to
>> go implement next. Except... this set is extremely poorly defined!
>
> Sounds more like the sales department is poorly "defined". Shouldn't
> they keep an eye open to what customers are asking for, and what the
> competitors are offering?
>
In every organisation, there is someone which is aware of all the
weakness of such organisation. That one should be fired.
Congratulations, you're fired!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:34:09 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> Whoever asked you the question has got a bright future in Senior
>>>> Management.
>>>
>>> I'd rather guess they already have a bright /history/ in Senior
>>> Management...
>>
>> Well, some sort of history. ;)
>
> Yes, this is a question direct from our MD, so...
>
> We quite often asks us what features we *don't* have. There's a logic
> there - whatever feature we don't have, that's probably what we want to
> go implement next. Except... this set is extremely poorly defined!
If he's got a good sense of humour, maybe try "well, it doesn't herd
goats" - or something equally as ridiculous, and see if he picks up on
how broad his question is.
If he doesn't have a good sense of humour, then maybe just ask some
clarifying questions that point this out in a similar manner, along the
lines of "well, that's a pretty broad question - did you have something
more specific in mind?"
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.02.2014 20:51, schrieb Francois Labreque:
> Le 2014-02-01 12:42, clipka a écrit :
>> Am 01.02.2014 10:34, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>>>>> Whoever asked you the question has got a bright future in Senior
>>>>>> Management.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather guess they already have a bright /history/ in Senior
>>>>> Management...
>>>>
>>>> Well, some sort of history. ;)
>>>
>>> Yes, this is a question direct from our MD, so...
>>>
>>> We quite often asks us what features we *don't* have. There's a logic
>>> there - whatever feature we don't have, that's probably what we want to
>>> go implement next. Except... this set is extremely poorly defined!
>>
>> Sounds more like the sales department is poorly "defined". Shouldn't
>> they keep an eye open to what customers are asking for, and what the
>> competitors are offering?
>>
> Yes, but they're not technical enough to understand that mumbo jumbo, so
> they're asking the techies, in this case, Andy and his team.
That's obviously a false assumption.
If it was just about not understanding mumbo jumbo, they'd ask the
developers to implement mumbo jumbo by next thursday with a budget of 42
man-hours, because that's what they've already sold.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If he's got a good sense of humour, maybe try "well, it doesn't herd
> goats" - or something equally as ridiculous, and see if he picks up on
> how broad his question is.
The usual joke is "well it doesn't have an espresso function yet".
> If he doesn't have a good sense of humour, then maybe just ask some
> clarifying questions that point this out in a similar manner, along the
> lines of "well, that's a pretty broad question - did you have something
> more specific in mind?"
The trouble is, the answer will be something of the form of
"Hey, we should get our product to do XYZ. I saw an Internet video of
another product that does XYZ, so it shouldn't take long for us to do it."
There are two problems here.
First, you frequently find that what he *thinks* the product in the
Internet video does isn't what that product *actually* does. Frequently
he asks us to do XYZ, when that's mathematically impossible.
Second, he has this strange delusion that if any other company, anywhere
on Earth has done something, it must be trivial for us to do it as well.
Never mind that some of these products have a team of hundreds of
developers behind them; the feature *sounds* simple, so it must be easy
for our team of 4 developers to duplicate that feature. By the end of
this month, please?
But the main problem, of course, is simply that, like many managers, he
wants our product to have *every* feature. But, unlike the *good*
managers out there, he is physiologically incapable of prioritising
stuff. To him, *everything* has maximum priority - which isn't helpful.
Also, he becomes obsessed with certain features because they sound cool
and exciting, rather than because actual customers are willing to pay
money for it.
Then again, often a customer has no interest in buying our product, so
they will start playing a game of "Does it do X? Does it do Y? Does it
do Z? Oh, it can't do Z? Then we won't be buying it." Which our MD takes
as meaning "if only it could do Z, we could sell MILLIONS!" Erm, no, if
it could do Z, the customer would simply find some other excuse to not
buy it. There is a difference between a customer who can't use the
product without Z, and a customer who just wants an excuse to fob you
off with.
Then again, I am the world's foremost expert in reading people's
intentions, so maybe I should just STFU...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:03:16 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> If he's got a good sense of humour, maybe try "well, it doesn't herd
>> goats" - or something equally as ridiculous, and see if he picks up on
>> how broad his question is.
>
> The usual joke is "well it doesn't have an espresso function yet".
I like it. :)
>> If he doesn't have a good sense of humour, then maybe just ask some
>> clarifying questions that point this out in a similar manner, along the
>> lines of "well, that's a pretty broad question - did you have something
>> more specific in mind?"
>
> The trouble is, the answer will be something of the form of
>
> "Hey, we should get our product to do XYZ. I saw an Internet video of
> another product that does XYZ, so it shouldn't take long for us to do
> it."
>
> There are two problems here.
>
> First, you frequently find that what he *thinks* the product in the
> Internet video does isn't what that product *actually* does. Frequently
> he asks us to do XYZ, when that's mathematically impossible.
Then what you do is drill into details.
> Second, he has this strange delusion that if any other company, anywhere
> on Earth has done something, it must be trivial for us to do it as well.
> Never mind that some of these products have a team of hundreds of
> developers behind them; the feature *sounds* simple, so it must be easy
> for our team of 4 developers to duplicate that feature. By the end of
> this month, please?
Work up an actual estimate of the time it would take to do it.
> But the main problem, of course, is simply that, like many managers, he
> wants our product to have *every* feature. But, unlike the *good*
> managers out there, he is physiologically incapable of prioritising
> stuff. To him, *everything* has maximum priority - which isn't helpful.
> Also, he becomes obsessed with certain features because they sound cool
> and exciting, rather than because actual customers are willing to pay
> money for it.
I've worked with managers like that - and it's important in situations
like that to learn how to manage your manager, and to manage the
expectations.
The first company I contracted with on writing gigs was (is) owned by
someone who is like that - every day, the feature set would change, which
would change the documentation I was working on. His CTO described his
job as being "Joe's handler," and I made sure the CTO (who had contracted
me) knew every change in product functionality made work that I'd done
irrelevant, and that because the spec was changing - something not in my
control - that meant the project would take more time for me to finish.
"Joe" didn't understand that, but as he was personally funding the
company, as long as he kept paying the bills, I was fine with him
changing the spec.
Of course, eventually he ran out of patience for the work I was doing
(because it was never finished), and he didn't renew the contract (but
that was OK as I had another gig lined up), and looking at the product
today, I see very little of what he actually paid me for, because the
product functionality has changed completely.
Oh, and 2 years later, they still don't really have a "version 1 release".
> Then again, often a customer has no interest in buying our product, so
> they will start playing a game of "Does it do X? Does it do Y? Does it
> do Z? Oh, it can't do Z? Then we won't be buying it." Which our MD takes
> as meaning "if only it could do Z, we could sell MILLIONS!" Erm, no, if
> it could do Z, the customer would simply find some other excuse to not
> buy it. There is a difference between a customer who can't use the
> product without Z, and a customer who just wants an excuse to fob you
> off with.
>
> Then again, I am the world's foremost expert in reading people's
> intentions, so maybe I should just STFU...
It might not be good for customer A to have feature Z, but if it's a
significant enough feature, it might entice a new customer.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
