 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Continuing on from Andy's experience of interviewing graduates for
programming jobs, exactly the same thing happens with engineering
graduates - they can't actually do any engineering (or maybe I'm
expecting too much of them).
Here's an example problem we ask:
You are given a bucket of water (fixed to the ground) and an open-ended
flexible pipe leading off into a "black box". All you know about the
black box is that it may allow some flow into it, at a variable,
unpredictable rate.
Design a system to take the water from the bucket, and supply it into
the pipe at a constant pressure (not a ridiculous pressure, just
something like the pressure you would have in your water pipes at home,
maybe 3 bar?).
Maybe I just hang about too many engineers, but to me even a
non-engineer would be able to have at least a stab at some ideas for
solving it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 16.08.2016 um 09:58 schrieb scott:
> You are given a bucket of water (fixed to the ground) and an open-ended
> flexible pipe leading off into a "black box". All you know about the
> black box is that it may allow some flow into it, at a variable,
> unpredictable rate.
I presume the "black box" is at the same level as the bucket?
> Design a system to take the water from the bucket, and supply it into
> the pipe at a constant pressure (not a ridiculous pressure, just
> something like the pressure you would have in your water pipes at home,
> maybe 3 bar?).
>
> Maybe I just hang about too many engineers, but to me even a
> non-engineer would be able to have at least a stab at some ideas for
> solving it.
My first stab would be to re-invent the water tower - though I guess
you're after a more compact device. (Which is a pity, because it's the
solution that places the lowest demands on the pumps.)
My next stab would be to use a gear pump, and offload the tricky part to
some other engineer whom I'd contract to build a constant-torque motor -
though I guess you'd consider that cheating.
Yet another stab: Use a pump that can provide the projected peak flow at
a pressure of 3 bar, and connect a safety valve that opens at 3 bar.
Obviously this wastes a lot of water, but we can fix that by feeding the
spilled water back into the bucket.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/16/2016 8:58 AM, scott wrote:
>
> Design a system to take the water from the bucket, and supply it into
> the pipe at a constant pressure (not a ridiculous pressure, just
> something like the pressure you would have in your water pipes at home,
> maybe 3 bar?).
>
I will need a level transmitter or differential pressure transmitter, a
scissor jack, an actuator and a 45 foot deep hole. Plus a few bits to
join things together. And someone to get their hands dirty. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/16/2016 11:15 AM, Stephen wrote:
> and a 45 foot deep hole.
Oh no! I got my units wrong. Make that hole another 55' 6" deeper.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You are given a bucket of water (fixed to the ground) and an open-ended
>> flexible pipe leading off into a "black box". All you know about the
>> black box is that it may allow some flow into it, at a variable,
>> unpredictable rate.
>
> I presume the "black box" is at the same level as the bucket?
More or less, compared to the pressures involved yes.
>> Design a system to take the water from the bucket, and supply it into
>> the pipe at a constant pressure (not a ridiculous pressure, just
>> something like the pressure you would have in your water pipes at home,
>> maybe 3 bar?).
>>
>> Maybe I just hang about too many engineers, but to me even a
>> non-engineer would be able to have at least a stab at some ideas for
>> solving it.
>
> My first stab would be to re-invent the water tower - though I guess
> you're after a more compact device. (Which is a pity, because it's the
> solution that places the lowest demands on the pumps.)
To be honest I'm pleased with any device! After one person couldn't
think of anything, I asked how they thought the mains water pressure was
created, then they came up with the water tower method.
It's also good if they probe to better clarify the requirements (ie does
it need to be compact or not, any cost limits, availability of
electricity/compressed air etc). So in one sentence you've done better
than all the mechanical engineering graduates so far :-)
> My next stab would be to use a gear pump, and offload the tricky part to
> some other engineer whom I'd contract to build a constant-torque motor -
> though I guess you'd consider that cheating.
No not at all. I think this is maybe some of the problem, the candidates
are thinking they need to get into the detail design or something novel
from scratch. Where actually, saying you can use a pump and a safety
valve (or measuring the pressure electronically and using that to
control the speed of the pump motor) is a much better answer.
> Yet another stab: Use a pump that can provide the projected peak flow at
> a pressure of 3 bar, and connect a safety valve that opens at 3 bar.
> Obviously this wastes a lot of water, but we can fix that by feeding the
> spilled water back into the bucket.
One person did actually come up with that answer after some suggestions.
It's how the fuel system works in a car (fuel is bled back to the fuel
tank to maintain the correct pressure at the injectors).
Lots of candidates though started off by talking about using a secondary
holding container, pistons, springs, then motors and safety valves etc.
Maybe exactly because they have been studying mechanical engineering in
detail for the last 4 years they can't look at the bigger picture?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> and a 45 foot deep hole.
>
>
> Oh no! I got my units wrong. Make that hole another 55' 6" deeper.
Yes indeed, you have use the wrong units. Try metres (or meters work ok
too).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/08/2016 à 12:58, scott a écrit :
>>> and a 45 foot deep hole.
>>
>>
>> Oh no! I got my units wrong. Make that hole another 55' 6" deeper.
>
> Yes indeed, you have use the wrong units. Try metres (or meters work ok
> too).
>
>
But nobody checked if it was to be installed on the moon, or on mars...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/16/2016 12:12 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 16/08/2016 à 12:58, scott a écrit :
>>>> and a 45 foot deep hole.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh no! I got my units wrong. Make that hole another 55' 6" deeper.
>>
>> Yes indeed, you have use the wrong units. Try metres (or meters work ok
>> too).
>>
I'm old school. If I can't do it on the back of a fag packet in psi.
Then it is not worth doing. ;)
What we really want is a Heath Robinson version that works.
>>
> But nobody checked if it was to be installed on the moon, or on mars...
>
If it is not in the spec then it will cost extra. Probably best to leave
it to phase 2.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> Design a system to take the water from the bucket, and supply it into
> the pipe at a constant pressure (not a ridiculous pressure, just
> something like the pressure you would have in your water pipes at home,
> maybe 3 bar?).
Seal the top of the bucket with a "lid" having an integral pipe reaching the
bottom of the bucket to draw water off from the bottom. Use direct air pressure,
or a bladder, such as is used in well pressure-tank setups. Increase the
pressure above that of the required input flow.
Use a water pressure regulator on the output of that to supply the pipe.
I could probably come up with at least half a dozen variations on the same
theme.
Alternatively, one could reroute power from the main plasma conduit, and modify
the main deflector shield to generate a static inverse-graviton field to "lift"
the dihydrogen monoxide from its frustrum, out the directrix, and into the
flexible hollow cylinder affixed to the rgb <0, 0, 0> box {}.
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2016-08-16 10:13, Bald Eagle a écrit :
> Alternatively, one could reroute power from the main plasma conduit, and modify
> the main deflector shield to generate a static inverse-graviton field
Be careful not to breach the manti-matter containment field...
Also, if you have access to all that, you might as well just teleport
the water from the bucket to the blackbox.
--
/*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 2016-08-16 03:58, scott a écrit :
> Continuing on from Andy's experience of interviewing graduates for
> programming jobs, exactly the same thing happens with engineering
> graduates - they can't actually do any engineering (or maybe I'm
> expecting too much of them).
>
> Here's an example problem we ask:
>
> You are given a bucket of water (fixed to the ground) and an open-ended
> flexible pipe leading off into a "black box". All you know about the
> black box is that it may allow some flow into it, at a variable,
> unpredictable rate.
>
> Design a system to take the water from the bucket, and supply it into
> the pipe at a constant pressure (not a ridiculous pressure, just
> something like the pressure you would have in your water pipes at home,
> maybe 3 bar?).
>
> Maybe I just hang about too many engineers, but to me even a
> non-engineer would be able to have at least a stab at some ideas for
> solving it.
>
1. drink water with hose.
2. wait about 1/2 hour.
3. stand next to black box.
4. [REDACTED]
--
/*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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 1. drink water with hose.
> 2. wait about 1/2 hour.
> 3. stand next to black box.
> 4. [REDACTED]
But would you be able to sustain 3 bar pressure?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/08/2016 à 17:15, scott a écrit :
>> 1. drink water with hose.
>> 2. wait about 1/2 hour.
>> 3. stand next to black box.
>> 4. [REDACTED]
>
> But would you be able to sustain 3 bar pressure?
>
>
>
Yes he could, diving at 20 meters under the water surface on earth. The pressure in
his blader would be a bit above 3 bar when urged to pee, thanks the surrounding
muscles.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/08/2016 à 14:26, Stephen a écrit :
>
>>>
>> But nobody checked if it was to be installed on the moon, or on mars...
>>
>
> If it is not in the spec then it will cost extra. Probably best to leave it to phase
2.
Customer: Of course it always was. You didn't ask, your fault. No extra.
Extra only works when the customer is the government, where it is automatic for big
critical projects.
(Answer to quote was X, but if the final cost is less than 4 X, then something was
wrong in the process)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 1. drink water with hose.
>>> 2. wait about 1/2 hour.
>>> 3. stand next to black box.
>>> 4. [REDACTED]
>>
>> But would you be able to sustain 3 bar pressure?
>>
>>
>>
> Yes he could, diving at 20 meters under the water surface on earth. The pressure in
his blader would be a bit above 3 bar when urged to pee, thanks the surrounding
muscles.
Now there's a good answer.
Forget about the bucket.
Just submerge the black box (and pipe) underwater.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/16/2016 4:15 PM, scott wrote:
>> 1. drink water with hose.
>> 2. wait about 1/2 hour.
>> 3. stand next to black box.
>> 4. [REDACTED]
>
> But would you be able to sustain 3 bar pressure?
>
>
>
That's where my 100 foot hole comes in. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/16/2016 4:31 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 16/08/2016 à 14:26, Stephen a écrit :
>>
>>>>
>>> But nobody checked if it was to be installed on the moon, or on mars...
>>>
>>
>> If it is not in the spec then it will cost extra. Probably best to leave it to
phase 2.
>
> Customer: Of course it always was. You didn't ask, your fault. No extra.
>
If it is not in the Blueprint, that you signed, it is extra.
> Extra only works when the customer is the government, where it is automatic for big
critical projects.
> (Answer to quote was X, but if the final cost is less than 4 X, then something was
wrong in the process)
>
But on the other hand the money is distributed elsewhere and it is your
budget that is frozen. To keep overall costs down.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16/08/2016 à 17:40, Stephen a écrit :
> On 8/16/2016 4:31 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 16/08/2016 à 14:26, Stephen a écrit :
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> But nobody checked if it was to be installed on the moon, or on mars...
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it is not in the spec then it will cost extra. Probably best to leave it to
phase 2.
>>
>> Customer: Of course it always was. You didn't ask, your fault. No extra.
>>
>
> If it is not in the Blueprint, that you signed, it is extra.
The delivery time-chart was signed by the committee on the second weekly meeting.
Promising the signature of the specification by T0+1 month... but they keep debating
on the content at every weekly meeting, rolling back some previous decisions, or
amending them just a bit. Whatever, it was stated that the full delivery of project
(phase 5) was due on
T0+12 months, so you must deliver or won't get paid for that part.
That the specifications for phase 5 are still unsigned is another issue. YOU MUST
DELIVER, and IT MUST SUCCEED THE TESTS which will be finalized AFTER your delivery.
And the day before you deliver, the committee agree that the new standard published
two days ago must be part of the next delivery.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/16/2016 6:08 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 16/08/2016 à 17:40, Stephen a écrit :
>> On 8/16/2016 4:31 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>> Le 16/08/2016 à 14:26, Stephen a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> But nobody checked if it was to be installed on the moon, or on mars...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it is not in the spec then it will cost extra. Probably best to leave it to
phase 2.
>>>
>>> Customer: Of course it always was. You didn't ask, your fault. No extra.
>>>
>>
>> If it is not in the Blueprint, that you signed, it is extra.
>
> The delivery time-chart was signed by the committee on the second weekly meeting.
> Promising the signature of the specification by T0+1 month... but they keep debating
on the content at every weekly meeting, rolling back some previous decisions, or
amending them just a bit. Whatever, it was stated that the full delivery of project
(phase 5) was due on
> T0+12 months, so you must deliver or won't get paid for that part.
> That the specifications for phase 5 are still unsigned is another issue. YOU MUST
DELIVER, and IT MUST SUCCEED THE TESTS which will be finalized AFTER your delivery.
>
Yawn! You forget. I am a contractor.
I am not doing it until a signature.
> And the day before you deliver, the committee agree that the new standard published
two days ago must be part of the next delivery.
>
Not my problem comrade. :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 16.08.2016 um 17:15 schrieb scott:
>> 1. drink water with hose.
>> 2. wait about 1/2 hour.
>> 3. stand next to black box.
>> 4. [REDACTED]
>
> But would you be able to sustain 3 bar pressure?
Pro Tip: Do not try this at home. Turns out kidneys don't like high
pressure in the urinary tract too much. A relative has just recently
lost one of his to this phenomenon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> ...but to me even a
> non-engineer would be able to have at least a stab at some ideas for
> solving it.
>
An odd train of thought involving anti-gravity pads, some slanted brick
wall, buckets, ropes, mouse boxes, and assorted other odds and ends
ultimately led here:
https://archive.org/details/the_incredible_machine_1992
And eventually here:
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos_games/v2&tab=collection
Woo-hoo!
TIM is a little clunky on my antique 'puter with slow connection (but so
is everything else); I haven't yet determined whether it's possible to
tweak the DOS Box settings from the browser (because I've been too busy
pla--that is, "testing the interface"). :)
--Sherry Shaw
--
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}// TenMoons
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Pro Tip: Do not try this at home. Turns out kidneys don't like high
> pressure in the urinary tract too much. A relative has just recently
> lost one of his to this phenomenon.
This is bad for pets - especially cats and clumping cat litter.
{Who knew? }
I lost a whole cat because it caused a blockage, inability to eliminate, and the
accumulation of K+ in the bloodstream, leading to cardiac arrest.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If it is not in the Blueprint, that you signed, it is extra.
And actually, while we're at it, we'll charge you for investigating how
much extra we need to charge you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> An odd train of thought involving anti-gravity pads, some slanted brick
> wall, buckets, ropes, mouse boxes, and assorted other odds and ends
> ultimately led here:
>
> https://archive.org/details/the_incredible_machine_1992
Now there's a blast from the past!
> https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos_games/v2&tab=collection
>
> Woo-hoo!
>
> TIM is a little clunky on my antique 'puter with slow connection (but so
> is everything else); I haven't yet determined whether it's possible to
> tweak the DOS Box settings from the browser (because I've been too busy
> pla--that is, "testing the interface"). :)
Might have to take a look when I get home :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/08/2016 04:40 PM, Stephen wrote:
> If it is not in the Blueprint, that you signed, it is extra.
This. 100x this.
If ONLY our boss would understand how CRITICALLY IMPORTANT it is to
agree on EXACTLY what we're supposed to be delivering BEFORE we promise
to deliver it in exactly X weeks...
Or, for that matter, if he would ASK somebody how long it will take
BEFORE he promises the customer how long it will take?
On a similar subject, why is it that when we tell him "it will take 6
months", he thinks we're just "exaggerating" or "being negative" or
whatever? Hey genuis, which one of us is a qualified software developer?
Which one of us develops software ALL FREAKING DAY, EVERY SINGLE
WEEKDAY, AND HAS DONE FOR YEARS? So which one of us is qualified to
prognosticate on how long it will take? Right, so WHY ARE YOU IGNORING US??
Oh yes, that's right. Because you go to the school of thought that if
you just WISH for something, REALLY REALLY HARD, that makes it happen.
Because, you know, the laws of physics don't apply to wishes...
No, I'm not bitter. Why do you ask that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/17/2016 7:10 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 16/08/2016 04:40 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> If it is not in the Blueprint, that you signed, it is extra.
>
> This. 100x this.
>
> If ONLY our boss would understand how CRITICALLY IMPORTANT it is to
> agree on EXACTLY what we're supposed to be delivering BEFORE we promise
> to deliver it in exactly X weeks...
>
Salesmen, software salesmen. There is a special place reserved in hell
for them.
[snip]
> No, I'm not bitter. Why do you ask that?
Because of your gentle prose. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Oh yes, that's right. Because you go to the school of thought that if
> you just WISH for something, REALLY REALLY HARD, that makes it happen.
> Because, you know, the laws of physics don't apply to wishes...
Your boss is a politician?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/08/2016 08:02 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> Oh yes, that's right. Because you go to the school of thought that if
>> you just WISH for something, REALLY REALLY HARD, that makes it happen.
>> Because, you know, the laws of physics don't apply to wishes...
>
> Your boss is a politician?
It would be more accurate to say my boss possesses boundless optimism
and is physically incapable of saying "no" to anybody who might give us
money. Even if it's a tiny sum of money. So long as there's money. Or
potential money. Or money some day. Theoretically. Perhaps...
Basically, he wants to please *everybody*. This is impossible, of course.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If it is not in the Blueprint, that you signed, it is extra.
>
> This. 100x this.
>
> If ONLY our boss would understand how CRITICALLY IMPORTANT it is to
> agree on EXACTLY what we're supposed to be delivering BEFORE we promise
> to deliver it in exactly X weeks...
>
> Or, for that matter, if he would ASK somebody how long it will take
> BEFORE he promises the customer how long it will take?
What happens here:
They (project manager/planner) will ask the people who know how long it
will take, get told it will take 18 months. They'll moan at you, tell
you to cut out stuff and squeeze the schedule to make it 12 months. So
reluctantly you agree to 12 months with cutting out all this stuff and
squeezing the schedule to a high-risk one (ie nothing unexepected will
happen... we all know how that goes).
Then they'll be in a meeting with the customer/senior management, get
pushed hard to deliver it sooner, and just agree that 8 months is fine.
Also they'll forget to mention all the stuff that was needed to cut out
to make it 12 months.
Then they mention "oh yeh by the way it's 8 months now". Yeh, that's not
going to happen. "well it's agreed with the MD now so we can't change
it". Well we can change it, in 8 months time it will have to change!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.08.2016 um 08:50 schrieb scott:
> What happens here:
>
> They (project manager/planner) will ask the people who know how long it
> will take, get told it will take 18 months. They'll moan at you, tell
> you to cut out stuff and squeeze the schedule to make it 12 months. So
> reluctantly you agree to 12 months with cutting out all this stuff and
> squeezing the schedule to a high-risk one (ie nothing unexepected will
> happen... we all know how that goes).
I think you've just mentioned the key problem with traditional software
project planning: Handling of the unexpected.
In my career as a software development, I have been involved in exactly
/one/ project with really sound planning. I guess it is no coincidence
that this was /not/ a native software company; it was an automotive
engineering company, and the software to be developed was firmware for
one of their products.
It was also the only project I've ever been involved in where people
didn't try to pretend they would have everything under control.
"From our experience, we /expect/ to lose X days to unexpected problems."
And the one particular product I was involved in did indeed run into
problems, due to the customer being way overdue in delivering a
prototype car for testing. Ultimately, a few weeks before the deadline
we had to communicate to the customer that if they wanted us to proceed
with the project, they would have to take the full risk from now on,
even for things /we/ might screw up -- because the buffer we had wisely
set aside for such blunders had been all eaten up by their delays.
(The customer agreed to proceed under these conditions, and the project
did indeed proceed without any hitches from our side, and finished just
in time.)
I think it is this mindset of acknowledging that one /will/ run into
problems, both self-made and external, and that time /must/ be reserved
for such events accordingly, that is crucial for good project management.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I think it is this mindset of acknowledging that one /will/ run into
> problems, both self-made and external, and that time /must/ be reserved
> for such events accordingly, that is crucial for good project management.
Indeed. We have quite a good project management tool, that essentially
takes out any "safety buffer" from individual tasks and makes it one big
lump at the end. That way individual tasks can over-run or under-run,
but the idea being on average it will be some pre-determined figure.
The problem is, once this is done in a realistic way and agreed by all
actually doing the work, project management types come along and say the
end date is too far away and make it sooner. So you end up spending the
whole project with the engineers assuming they will miss the end date
from the start and not really caring about it, and the project manager
frantically trying to fiddle things around and cut corners to meet the
date they agreed to. In the end everyone is shafted for "missing the
deadline", as senior management types seem unaware of the cries from the
engineers since the beginning of the project.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/08/2016 09:29 AM, scott wrote:
> The problem is, once this is done in a realistic way and agreed by all
> actually doing the work, project management types come along and say the
> end date is too far away and make it sooner.
And *this* is the root of all the problems. This idea that you can just
"make it sooner" by writing a different date on a piece of paper.
Because that isn't how the world works.
It takes time to do things. You can admit that it will take time, and
plan accordingly. Or you can pretend that it won't take time, and
pretend that it will be finished by date X. But it will *still* won't
actually be finished until date Y, no matter what you write on that bit
of paper.
The whole point of planning is to *predict* when the work will be done.
You do a series of calculations to estimate how long it will take, so
that everyone around you can plan for that. Artificially changing the
carefully estimated prediction won't make the work happen any faster. :-P
I used to assume that this kind of brokenness only happens at the
amateur company that *I* work for. Alarmingly, this appears to not be
the case. This raises the question HOW DOES ANYTHING EVER WORK?! >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> And *this* is the root of all the problems. This idea that you can just
> "make it sooner" by writing a different date on a piece of paper.
> Because that isn't how the world works.
>
> It takes time to do things. You can admit that it will take time, and
> plan accordingly. Or you can pretend that it won't take time, and
> pretend that it will be finished by date X. But it will *still* won't
> actually be finished until date Y, no matter what you write on that bit
> of paper.
>
> The whole point of planning is to *predict* when the work will be done.
> You do a series of calculations to estimate how long it will take, so
> that everyone around you can plan for that. Artificially changing the
> carefully estimated prediction won't make the work happen any faster. :-P
>
> I used to assume that this kind of brokenness only happens at the
> amateur company that *I* work for. Alarmingly, this appears to not be
> the case. This raises the question HOW DOES ANYTHING EVER WORK?! >_<
Because the real Atlases of the world never shrug.
And the Boxers on Orwell's animal farm never stop working.
<political post>
And now you just need to extend that logic to politics and the magic markings
that politicians make on their magic paper to alter reality inside of their
magic lines.
Abracadabra! We now have money out of thin air, can create prosperity by
astronomical taxing and spending, "create jobs", "raise the minimum wage",
declare that pi = 3.0, and stop people from stealing, killing, reading the wrong
things, thinking the wrong things, saying the wrong things, owning the wrong
items, associating with the wrong people, listening to the wrong music, eating
the wrong foods, looking at the wrong pictures, using the wrong medications,
worshiping the wrong cult leader, or do absolutely anything without their holy
permission.
Be thankful that not meeting the imaginary deadline doesn't land you in a little
concrete box.
</political post>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
