Prev: Does Anyone read Mr.Harris's book "Multirate signal processingfor communication systems"
Next: sinusoids and aliasing...
From: Walter Banks on 20 May 2010 01:15


Tim Wescott wrote:

> The "want something complex for a ridiculously low price" folks fall
> into two camps, too. The better kind (for me) are the ones where you
> can gently explain the complexity and why it's going to take a long time
> and they listen and understand. Sometimes they come back with enough
> resources to engage me. The worse kind are the ones who just want a
> free lunch, or who desperately need talent but can't trust it -- those
> are just cause for a shrug, and thankfulness at the escape.

There is an additional "want something complex for a ridiculously
low price" is the company who hired someone who quoted a low
price went way over budget and time and now the company does
not have the resources or think they paid too much the last time
and wants you to clean up the mess. "It is almost working we
need you for a day or two to finish it off"

Regards,


w..
--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com




From: Walter Banks on 20 May 2010 01:20


Clay wrote:

> I was discussing with a friend just last night about a contract where
> he estimated a year. The client said they don't have that long and
> went away. Now they come back to him after screwing around their own
> for 6 months and want him to fix it in the remaining 6 months of his
> original estimate. What Fun!

There is a variation on this where a client needs it in 6 months but
takes 3 1/2 months to produce a PO for the work. No we can't
do 6 months work in 2 and a half months.


Regards,


Walter..
--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com



From: Rune Allnor on 20 May 2010 05:56
On 20 Mai, 01:17, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...(a)ieee.org> wrote:
> On 5/19/2010 2:00 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:
> > On 19 Mai, 22:21, Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacob...(a)ieee.org>  wrote:
>
> >>   I *like* the fact that a lot of people don't know how
> >> to do that ...

> > You are playing with fire!
....
> If one cannot even figure out how to manage one's own strengths, one is
> certainly doomed.  

There is far more to it than that. You haven't even begun to
scratch the surface.

Suppose you are the head chief, responsible for the project bid.
Not only do you need to know, understand and respect the limtations
of your own skills and competence. You also need to understand *both*
that your subordinates have similar limitation *and* how to
relate to these limitations.

The simple case first: You, the chief, know you already have all the
skills and competence necessary to pull the gig off. In that case
the project reduces to a 'trivial' managment excercise, where it
is up to you to make the man-hour puzzle work out.

Don't get me wrong - that kind of thing can be a nightmare, but
there is little more to it than making sure to have sufficient numbers
of people with the required skills available at the right time.

Then the hard case: Suppose you personally *don't* possess all
the available skills required to pull the project off, but need
to rely on some subordinate's extensions of your own skill set.
Unless you understand exactly how this extension works in relation
to your own skills, you will effectively be making appointments
on your subordinate's behalf if you sign a contract.

Which means you need to be extremely cautious: Do you *really*
understand in what way the subordinate's skills work? Or do
you merely think, assume, or suppose you do?

Of course, the 'easy' way out is to involve the subordinate in
evaluating or writing the bid. But that requires you to both
listen to, contemplate, maybe even act on! any comments the
subordinate might have to the project proposal. Are you able
to do that? Willing to listen? Prepared to rework - ditch,
even - the bid on your subordinate's recommendation?

It's a tough call, that involves potentially hard personal
strains on a number of levels: Not everyone are willing to
recognize that they have limitations. Or that they don't
understand their colleagues' or subordinates' skills or
competence. Or are able to listen to other people during
contract negotiations.

By all means, play the game for as long as it works out.
Just be aware of the quagmire you are heading into once you
think that '*I* don't know how to pull this sub-task off,
but *John* does.'

Once you think that thought you are all screwed: You, John,
your company. Not necessarily in that order of events, but
still.

> I'm beginning to understand your grumpiness.

Believe me: You don't want anyone to get this grumpy because
of anything *you* did or did not do.

Rune
From: Greg Berchin on 20 May 2010 08:39
On Wed, 19 May 2010 19:34:23 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote:

>>> And you'll be (mostly) valued for what you can do, not (much) for who
>>> your daddy was or where you went to school.
>>
>> Unless you move to Boston.
>
>Only in the higher circles. In the engineering trenches, they value merit.

My experience differs. Boston is the only place where I've ever been told that
I was rejected for a position because I "went to school in (gasp) California."

It's also the only place where I've seen ads that say things like:

"BSEE/Computer Science (prefer MS from top engineering school)"

or:

"B.S. or M.S. in Computer Science or Electrical Engineering from a Top
10 program (MIT, CMU, UIUC, Berkeley, Stanford, Cornell, Texas, etc.)
or an international powerhouse (Oxford, Cambridge, Technion, IIT,
etc.)."

I don't mind them demanding high-quality people. It's their figure of merit
that bothers me. Furthermore, if one demands quality, one must be willing to
pay for quality. I recall an interview in which I was told, "We like to hire
top-10% performers." Then, during discussions of salary, I was told, "We like
to pay right at the industry mean." When I pointed out the double standard, and
said, "You get what you pay for -- if you pay average salaries then you get
average people," the interview was terminated.

Greg
From: Frnak McKenney on 20 May 2010 09:14
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:39:20 -0700 (PDT), dvsarwate <dvsarwate(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rick Lyons previously quoted:
>
>> "When I use a word, 'Humpty Dumpty said, in
> rather a scornful tone,` it means just what I
> choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
> --Humpty Dumpty in Chapter VI
> of 'Through the Looking Glass'
> by Lewis Carroll
>
> and then asked Jerry
>> �What's the half-sandwich fallacy?
>
> to which Jerry replied
>
>> When you're famished, nothing is better than a good four-course meal.
>> Still, half a sandwich is better than nothing. Using the symbol > to
>> mean "better than", we have the relation
>> � � � (half sandwich) > (nothing) > (full meal),
>> � � � ergo (half sandwich) > (full meal). QED
>
> which puts me in mind of the *next* chapter of
> "Through the Looking Glass" where we find
>
> "Who did you pass on the road?" the King went on,
> holding out his hand to the Messenger for some hay.
>
> "Nobody" said the Messenger.
>
> "Quite right" said the King: "this young lady saw him
> too. So of course Nobody walks slower than you."
>
> "I do my best" the Messenger said in a sullen tone:
> "I am sure nobody walks much faster than I do!"
>
> "He ca'n't do that" said the King: "or else he'd have
> been here first....."

Isn't it a little early for Christmas Carrolls?

(Looks like it's time to get out of Dodge, son...)


--
Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns; he should be
drawn and quoted. -- Fred Allen, comedian
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut mined spring dawt cahm (y'all)
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: Does Anyone read Mr.Harris's book "Multirate signal processingfor communication systems"
Next: sinusoids and aliasing...