16 ms·

Has anyone here worked in a big bureaucratic organization where you have to approve stuff? I get this every day, sometimes I have to "check" a list of 15,000 us

by zz865 5y ago

Has anyone here worked in a big bureaucratic organization where you have to approve stuff? I get this every day, sometimes I have to "check" a list of 15,000 users to make sure they are correct then sign off. How many times have you given a big document to sign without reading most of it. We wont even talk about online "accept conditions" on sites.

tokai 5y ago
Sounds like you should do your job properly CeeCee. But it isn't really comparable to sign off on the material that will incase hundreds of men under the sea.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Nah, because in the circumstances zz865 describes, taking the time to do the work right would get people mad at you. They don't actually want the work done. They want someone to say that the work was done so that blame won't fall on the higher-ups.
  - toss1 5y ago
    No, as someone who actually produces parts under DOD contracts, they really DO want the work done. Corrolary to Gen. Patton's statement, they are not in the business of getting our sailors to give their lives for our country, they are in the business of getting the enemy sailors to give their lives for their country. I can also say that there are a range of engineering specs, and some are absolutely critical and some are just specified out of habit. It IS our job to communicate with the customer (whether DOD or prime contractor) and determine which is which, and charge appropriately. I.e., if there is some spec that will cost a lot to build into the component and there is a more efficient or cost-effective way to get sufficiently similar results, then we should (and do) propose that change, and if they say "OK", get it in writing, and if they say "nope, we really need that feature as spec'd", then charge properly for it and make damn sure it is done and documented. Plus, get all the exchanges in writing, it doesn't always have to be formal proposals & change orders, often just email is fine. I'd say that the vast majority of the time when something creates a production problem, or some subcomponent, coating, etc. is unavailable (like one time a handful of component X was now out of production and the new minimum order quantity was like 20K parts, so a line item that should have been maybe $50 would now be $25K+), a quick discussion will usually resolve issue, such as "yes, it's ok to increase the radius there", "yes that other component/coating is an acceptable substitute" or "what do you recommend as a substitute?". But there are those times where the answer is "we really need it with those crazy tolerances to mate to this other component". So, yes, unless you have some direct evidence of the CYA behavior you describe, I'd strongly recommend against treating it as you suggest.
    - lazide 5y ago
      The DOD cares but that doesn’t mean the specific bureaucracy being mentioned (which may be at the company) really cares, besides not getting in trouble. Once you start crossing these different organizational boundaries, incentives get complicated.
      - toss1 5y ago
        Just to be clear, that "not getting into trouble" part rolls downhill. That's why they want to get your sig on documents, get "Certificates of Compliance", etc. And yes, that part is largely BS, until the sht hits the fan. What counts here is indeed ensuring that the subset of specs that the one-level-up contractor really cares about are truly met, and sorting out (in writing) what you can relax about because it was just cut/paste or generic/SOP specs on that particular feature.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      Just to be clear, I was talking specifically about "the circumstances zz865 describes", meaning generic large bureaucratic organizations. I meant that as distinguishing it from the circumstances of the original article, but I should have been more clear. I entirely believe there are situations like you describe where the checks are both necessary and properly funded.
      - toss1 5y ago
        Yes, tho for the metal they really needed the test, IDK about the bureaucracy "check these 15K users". On that indefinite user list, but without knowing for sure the purpose of the checks, I'd strongly avoid putting my name on that document. Are we just checking that the approximate totals seem to match the org size, or are we after specific checks for hostile fake or obsolete accounts? I sure don't want my sig on the document stating that I made checks X, Y, & Z for fake/obsolete accts when I hadn't, and we get hacked next week. I.e., if it is 'just bureaucracy' and they don't actually care about the result, then likely someone is trying to get your neck in the noose when the sht hits the proverbial fan.
ABraidotti 5y ago
I am working a big financial sector consulting job right now where disaster recovery tools managers have to check if primary servers really do have recovery servers ready to spring up and mount network storage and firewall rules. It is an absolute cf because the current system is a bowl of manually verified spreadsheet spaghetti that exists mostly in two guys' heads. We are currently discovering that no one knows how many servers don't actually have recovery backups ready because the buck has been passed so often and so many people have come and gone. So I totally believe some employee as the single point of buck-passing would absolutely rubber stamp metallurgical tests just to avoid jamming up the system.

by zz865 5y ago

tokai 5y ago

Sounds like you should do your job properly CeeCee. But it isn't really comparable to sign off on the material that will incase hundreds of men under the sea.

wpietri 5y ago
Nah, because in the circumstances zz865 describes, taking the time to do the work right would get people mad at you. They don't actually want the work done. They want someone to say that the work was done so that blame won't fall on the higher-ups.
- toss1 5y ago
  No, as someone who actually produces parts under DOD contracts, they really DO want the work done. Corrolary to Gen. Patton's statement, they are not in the business of getting our sailors to give their lives for our country, they are in the business of getting the enemy sailors to give their lives for their country. I can also say that there are a range of engineering specs, and some are absolutely critical and some are just specified out of habit. It IS our job to communicate with the customer (whether DOD or prime contractor) and determine which is which, and charge appropriately. I.e., if there is some spec that will cost a lot to build into the component and there is a more efficient or cost-effective way to get sufficiently similar results, then we should (and do) propose that change, and if they say "OK", get it in writing, and if they say "nope, we really need that feature as spec'd", then charge properly for it and make damn sure it is done and documented. Plus, get all the exchanges in writing, it doesn't always have to be formal proposals & change orders, often just email is fine. I'd say that the vast majority of the time when something creates a production problem, or some subcomponent, coating, etc. is unavailable (like one time a handful of component X was now out of production and the new minimum order quantity was like 20K parts, so a line item that should have been maybe $50 would now be $25K+), a quick discussion will usually resolve issue, such as "yes, it's ok to increase the radius there", "yes that other component/coating is an acceptable substitute" or "what do you recommend as a substitute?". But there are those times where the answer is "we really need it with those crazy tolerances to mate to this other component". So, yes, unless you have some direct evidence of the CYA behavior you describe, I'd strongly recommend against treating it as you suggest.
  - lazide 5y ago
    The DOD cares but that doesn’t mean the specific bureaucracy being mentioned (which may be at the company) really cares, besides not getting in trouble. Once you start crossing these different organizational boundaries, incentives get complicated.
    - toss1 5y ago
      Just to be clear, that "not getting into trouble" part rolls downhill. That's why they want to get your sig on documents, get "Certificates of Compliance", etc. And yes, that part is largely BS, until the sht hits the fan. What counts here is indeed ensuring that the subset of specs that the one-level-up contractor really cares about are truly met, and sorting out (in writing) what you can relax about because it was just cut/paste or generic/SOP specs on that particular feature.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Just to be clear, I was talking specifically about "the circumstances zz865 describes", meaning generic large bureaucratic organizations. I meant that as distinguishing it from the circumstances of the original article, but I should have been more clear. I entirely believe there are situations like you describe where the checks are both necessary and properly funded.
    - toss1 5y ago
      Yes, tho for the metal they really needed the test, IDK about the bureaucracy "check these 15K users". On that indefinite user list, but without knowing for sure the purpose of the checks, I'd strongly avoid putting my name on that document. Are we just checking that the approximate totals seem to match the org size, or are we after specific checks for hostile fake or obsolete accounts? I sure don't want my sig on the document stating that I made checks X, Y, & Z for fake/obsolete accts when I hadn't, and we get hacked next week. I.e., if it is 'just bureaucracy' and they don't actually care about the result, then likely someone is trying to get your neck in the noose when the sht hits the proverbial fan.

ABraidotti 5y ago

I am working a big financial sector consulting job right now where disaster recovery tools managers have to check if primary servers really do have recovery servers ready to spring up and mount network storage and firewall rules. It is an absolute cf because the current system is a bowl of manually verified spreadsheet spaghetti that exists mostly in two guys' heads. We are currently discovering that no one knows how many servers don't actually have recovery backups ready because the buck has been passed so often and so many people have come and gone. So I totally believe some employee as the single point of buck-passing would absolutely rubber stamp metallurgical tests just to avoid jamming up the system.