3 ms·

"but almost every project I've seen had kept on trucking to meet an arbitrary deadline regardless of how poorly any of the testing goes, then the system hits th

by gregd 13y ago

"but almost every project I've seen had kept on trucking to meet an arbitrary deadline regardless of how poorly any of the testing goes, then the system hits the floor" And the reason for this is simple..the one person who can pull the plug on a project of this magnitude, won't. Simply because s/he doesn't want to have to answer to having already dropped 88 million with nothing to show for it. There becomes a single person to blame at this point, whereas a failed system that gets implemented, suddenly allows for MANY people to be thrown under the bus.

hga 13y ago
Even worse, this is a small, at least in $$$ part of a $2 billion total upgrade of emergency services. And it's the "customer's" entry into the rest of those systems.
doorhammer 13y ago
Totally agree. Even in projects at work, the worst possible thing people think they could do is admit that something they're working on doesn't work the right the first time. I will say, though, that in the case of most projects I've worked on that are failing at some point, we do have something to show for it. We just have things that need to be fixed. Even a totally failed try is something you know doesn't work. It seems like people equate admitting any failure as admitting total failure. It's one of the only reasons I like my job. My boss is comfortable saying "this didn't work, that's fine, let's figure out why it didn't work and make something that does." I recently had a project to reduce a certain call-type to our call centers. We implemented a new system in one part of the company after doing some research into the call drivers, and did a follow up a few months later. My followup showed nothing had changed. I don't have any problem saying that. It just means we need to look into which part of the plan failed, why, and how we can fix it. Either way we'll have a better understanding of the problem. I'd rather do that than fudge the followup, keep the problem, and pretend everything was fixed.
- gregd 13y ago
  "My boss is comfortable saying "this didn't work, that's fine, let's figure out why it didn't work and make something that does."" The taxpayer is much less forgiving about "failures" and tend to trot out pitchforks and torches at the drop of a hat. They're much more guided by perception than actual facts. So for them, there's very little room for a distinction to be made between utter failure, failure, almost failure, not quite a failure, maybe a failure, no failure...
  - doorhammer 13y ago
    I don't actually know the answer to this question, as I'm not an overtly politically savvy person, but, are they really that much less forgiving? Maybe I shouldn't say my boss is 'comfortable' with failure. He's just got the fortitude to deal with the realities of most situations and the track record to back it up. Most of the managers and bosses I know of deal with projects in exactly the same way as this 911 project looks like it was handled. They push push push and don't accept any hint of failure because they think the perception others have of them would be unfavorable if they admitted some failure and tried to fix it. Of course, in this case it's the perception of the management and upper management members, and not a voting public. I have to say, though, their opinions don't seem much less fickle at times than the voting public. In an anecdotal way, it doesn't seem like public works/government projects are immune to delays and push-backs. Seems like it might depend on the type of project as to whether there was public backlash? I'm really just spitballing about something I'm not well-informed of at this point. The main idea being that there's not a whole lot of forgiveness in the corporate environment I work in, but I stick with the boss I have because he's got the reputation and fortitude to own problems, when necessary, instead of trying to underbus everyone.

by gregd 13y ago

hga 13y ago

Even worse, this is a small, at least in $$$ part of a $2 billion total upgrade of emergency services. And it's the "customer's" entry into the rest of those systems.

doorhammer 13y ago

Totally agree. Even in projects at work, the worst possible thing people think they could do is admit that something they're working on doesn't work the right the first time. I will say, though, that in the case of most projects I've worked on that are failing at some point, we do have something to show for it. We just have things that need to be fixed. Even a totally failed try is something you know doesn't work. It seems like people equate admitting any failure as admitting total failure. It's one of the only reasons I like my job. My boss is comfortable saying "this didn't work, that's fine, let's figure out why it didn't work and make something that does." I recently had a project to reduce a certain call-type to our call centers. We implemented a new system in one part of the company after doing some research into the call drivers, and did a follow up a few months later. My followup showed nothing had changed. I don't have any problem saying that. It just means we need to look into which part of the plan failed, why, and how we can fix it. Either way we'll have a better understanding of the problem. I'd rather do that than fudge the followup, keep the problem, and pretend everything was fixed.

gregd 13y ago
"My boss is comfortable saying "this didn't work, that's fine, let's figure out why it didn't work and make something that does."" The taxpayer is much less forgiving about "failures" and tend to trot out pitchforks and torches at the drop of a hat. They're much more guided by perception than actual facts. So for them, there's very little room for a distinction to be made between utter failure, failure, almost failure, not quite a failure, maybe a failure, no failure...
- doorhammer 13y ago
  I don't actually know the answer to this question, as I'm not an overtly politically savvy person, but, are they really that much less forgiving? Maybe I shouldn't say my boss is 'comfortable' with failure. He's just got the fortitude to deal with the realities of most situations and the track record to back it up. Most of the managers and bosses I know of deal with projects in exactly the same way as this 911 project looks like it was handled. They push push push and don't accept any hint of failure because they think the perception others have of them would be unfavorable if they admitted some failure and tried to fix it. Of course, in this case it's the perception of the management and upper management members, and not a voting public. I have to say, though, their opinions don't seem much less fickle at times than the voting public. In an anecdotal way, it doesn't seem like public works/government projects are immune to delays and push-backs. Seems like it might depend on the type of project as to whether there was public backlash? I'm really just spitballing about something I'm not well-informed of at this point. The main idea being that there's not a whole lot of forgiveness in the corporate environment I work in, but I stick with the boss I have because he's got the reputation and fortitude to own problems, when necessary, instead of trying to underbus everyone.