Thursday, February 7, 2013
Saying Goodbye
I went to the memorial service for a 49 year old colleague this afternoon. The first of what I'm sure will be many during my career - not that it's ever going to get easier. Having known her for about a year, our time together was much shorter than many others there. But, I'll miss her just the same.
A year ago, when we met, she picked my teammate and I up from the Metro to head off to a meeting we were a few minutes late for. I'm not convinced the car came to a complete stop before we were driving off while introducing ourselves. After that meeting we kept in touch since we were working on similar projects (but in different departments). We kept each other in the loop as far as what we'd found to work and not work and in the current BuCorps political climate.
When I spent 8 weeks in training near her office we met up for lunch and caught up. A month ago she visited my office and spent her lunch break (two days in a row) talking with me about my (new) job and keeping me updated with what she was working on. Each time we saw each other she was more excited than the last often exclaiming "Can you believe they pay us to do this? How cool is that!". That phrase embodies her spirit and her work ethic. It was nothing for her to crank out work e-mails at 10:30 on a Friday night.
Today I learned that in addition to a very full work life she volunteered with the Civil Air Patrol, was a volunteer fire fighter, and a potter. I'm sad I won't be able to continue to work with her but I hope to use this experience to double my efforts to keep up on the human side of employment and to live each day as though it is my last.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Government Contracting
With over 2 million civilian employees globally, the US Federal Government is the largest employer in the United States. Despite this, there are a lot of things the government doesn't do. When the government doesn't want to do something, it is able to outsource the work to private companies. Usually, this comes by way of requesting bids for the good or service. Once the bids are received and evaluated one company will be awarded a contract for that task.
Initially, this sounds pretty good. Contracting some duties to outsiders saves the government money. If a special skill is needed for a limited amount of time, contracting allows the government to get someone with the required skills into position quickly. Money gets saved when a person with those skills isn't need for long periods. Once the job is complete, the government releases the contract and life goes on. After the life of the contract, no additional funds are required. This is in contrast to a government employee who gets a pension and other benefits all the way into retirement. Contractors can also be brought on board to transfer their knowledge to government employees. In addition to people, contracts can also be awarded for tasks or services. For example, if a federal building in Oklahoma floods, the government can hire firms to clean up the mess and restore the building.
Contracting has been around for a long time. One of the easiest examples to think of is NASA. NASA didn't build the space shuttle. The Army doesn't build the helicopters it uses. The Navy doesn't build it's ships. These are all great examples of the benefits of contracting. The government doesn't have to maintain the construction facilities for these different tools. Instead, they get to take advantage of existing private infrastructure and corporate efficiency. This makes sense. If it wasn't done, the government would have to build and maintain construction facilities and engineers capable of designing everything it required. Through contracting, the government is able to say "I need a ship capable of x, y, and z." and then sit back and wait until it arrives.
Contracting comes with several downsides. One is the reliance it creates on outside companies and the lack of control over those companies. Depending on the way a contract is written, the government can have very little control over the implementation. One common contracting method is called "cost plus". In a "cost plus" contract, all expenses incurred by the contractor are reimbursed by the government plus some set profit margin. These types of contracts don't encourage cost savings because the government agrees to pick up the bill. That can result in tremendous waste. That lack of control can manifest itself in other ways, too. Often, contracts for professional services (like information technology) don't come with supervisory rights. That is, people working on those contracts aren't supervised by the government employees needing the service. Instead, they work for their company. If problems with the work develop, the government has to go to the company to fix the problem rather than the individual. In a fast paced environment, this can take entirely too long.
Other risks of contracting include the associated costs. When the government pays for a contractor, they are paying for a finite period of time. Then that finite period of time is extended over multiple years, the cost savings associated with contracting dissolve. For example, if an IT contract costs $250,000 a year it might be a good deal. The government has a critical need for that (specialized) skill for only a short period of time. However, if that contract is extended for 5 years, that contract has now cost $1,250,000. Had the government hired or trained someone for that job during the first year and canceled or reduced the contract for the subsequent years, a cost savings would have been realized. Government employees cost money too, but their costs can be spread over their entire period of employment. Retirement may seem expensive, but if calculated across all years of service it becomes cheaper. When a workforce which is flexible and trainable is developed, employees can be retrained as different requirements develop. In the long term, those "floating" employees can be used to reduce the number of long term contractors and costs associated with them.
Initially, this sounds pretty good. Contracting some duties to outsiders saves the government money. If a special skill is needed for a limited amount of time, contracting allows the government to get someone with the required skills into position quickly. Money gets saved when a person with those skills isn't need for long periods. Once the job is complete, the government releases the contract and life goes on. After the life of the contract, no additional funds are required. This is in contrast to a government employee who gets a pension and other benefits all the way into retirement. Contractors can also be brought on board to transfer their knowledge to government employees. In addition to people, contracts can also be awarded for tasks or services. For example, if a federal building in Oklahoma floods, the government can hire firms to clean up the mess and restore the building.
Contracting has been around for a long time. One of the easiest examples to think of is NASA. NASA didn't build the space shuttle. The Army doesn't build the helicopters it uses. The Navy doesn't build it's ships. These are all great examples of the benefits of contracting. The government doesn't have to maintain the construction facilities for these different tools. Instead, they get to take advantage of existing private infrastructure and corporate efficiency. This makes sense. If it wasn't done, the government would have to build and maintain construction facilities and engineers capable of designing everything it required. Through contracting, the government is able to say "I need a ship capable of x, y, and z." and then sit back and wait until it arrives.
Contracting comes with several downsides. One is the reliance it creates on outside companies and the lack of control over those companies. Depending on the way a contract is written, the government can have very little control over the implementation. One common contracting method is called "cost plus". In a "cost plus" contract, all expenses incurred by the contractor are reimbursed by the government plus some set profit margin. These types of contracts don't encourage cost savings because the government agrees to pick up the bill. That can result in tremendous waste. That lack of control can manifest itself in other ways, too. Often, contracts for professional services (like information technology) don't come with supervisory rights. That is, people working on those contracts aren't supervised by the government employees needing the service. Instead, they work for their company. If problems with the work develop, the government has to go to the company to fix the problem rather than the individual. In a fast paced environment, this can take entirely too long.
Other risks of contracting include the associated costs. When the government pays for a contractor, they are paying for a finite period of time. Then that finite period of time is extended over multiple years, the cost savings associated with contracting dissolve. For example, if an IT contract costs $250,000 a year it might be a good deal. The government has a critical need for that (specialized) skill for only a short period of time. However, if that contract is extended for 5 years, that contract has now cost $1,250,000. Had the government hired or trained someone for that job during the first year and canceled or reduced the contract for the subsequent years, a cost savings would have been realized. Government employees cost money too, but their costs can be spread over their entire period of employment. Retirement may seem expensive, but if calculated across all years of service it becomes cheaper. When a workforce which is flexible and trainable is developed, employees can be retrained as different requirements develop. In the long term, those "floating" employees can be used to reduce the number of long term contractors and costs associated with them.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Planning for retirement as a 25 year old
Without a doubt, I'm the oldest 25 year old I know.
I'm really excited about retirement! Not just because I want to sit around on my ass all day and do nothing. I'm excited because I get to plan for it. I'm excited because when I turn 57, if I'm still with my current employer, I can retire. At that point, I'd have more than 30 years of service under my belt. As creepy and intimidating as that sounds, 30 years isn't all that uncommon at BuCorps.
What does retirement mean though? When I turn 57, I can check out of work and still get paid. At 57, I will qualify to get 30% of my "high 3" salary. That means that if, assuming my average income works out to $120,000 a year (my "high 3"), I would bring in $36,000 a year for doing nothing. In addition to my annuity, when I turn 59 and a half, I can withdraw from BuCorps' IRA. BuCorps' IRA has a 5% dollar-for-dollar match for IRA contributions. If I were to make $80,000 a year for the rest of my 30 years of service and contribute the full 5% I'm on the hook for, that account would have $240,000 in it, without investment gain. Historically, the funds the IRA invests in earn about 10% interest a year. If those formulas hold, the IRA would have over $2,400,000 in it when I was ready to retire. At that point, if I were to cash out of the account I would earn $48,000 a year for the next 50 years before I depleted the balance.
In addition to those benefits, I'd also qualify for social security at some point. Based on a salary of $80,000 a year until I'm ready to retire at 57, I would pull in $1,100 a month.
So, where does all that put me? From those three programs alone, my retirement income from ages 57-62 would come out to about $36,000 a year. After age 62, when I can withdraw from my IRA without a tax hit, I would pull in $84,000 a year. That's all independent of whatever else I might have setup.
This is AMAZING! How are people not pumped about that? And, really, how much would you miss that 5%?
I'm really excited about retirement! Not just because I want to sit around on my ass all day and do nothing. I'm excited because I get to plan for it. I'm excited because when I turn 57, if I'm still with my current employer, I can retire. At that point, I'd have more than 30 years of service under my belt. As creepy and intimidating as that sounds, 30 years isn't all that uncommon at BuCorps.
What does retirement mean though? When I turn 57, I can check out of work and still get paid. At 57, I will qualify to get 30% of my "high 3" salary. That means that if, assuming my average income works out to $120,000 a year (my "high 3"), I would bring in $36,000 a year for doing nothing. In addition to my annuity, when I turn 59 and a half, I can withdraw from BuCorps' IRA. BuCorps' IRA has a 5% dollar-for-dollar match for IRA contributions. If I were to make $80,000 a year for the rest of my 30 years of service and contribute the full 5% I'm on the hook for, that account would have $240,000 in it, without investment gain. Historically, the funds the IRA invests in earn about 10% interest a year. If those formulas hold, the IRA would have over $2,400,000 in it when I was ready to retire. At that point, if I were to cash out of the account I would earn $48,000 a year for the next 50 years before I depleted the balance.
In addition to those benefits, I'd also qualify for social security at some point. Based on a salary of $80,000 a year until I'm ready to retire at 57, I would pull in $1,100 a month.
So, where does all that put me? From those three programs alone, my retirement income from ages 57-62 would come out to about $36,000 a year. After age 62, when I can withdraw from my IRA without a tax hit, I would pull in $84,000 a year. That's all independent of whatever else I might have setup.
This is AMAZING! How are people not pumped about that? And, really, how much would you miss that 5%?
Thursday, December 2, 2010
All it Takes is One
I'm amazed at how true the saying "One bad apple spoils the whole bunch" is when applied to a work environment. I love my job. I find it challenging, interesting, and can see the impact it has on others. Everyday I learn something new or have a new experience. I also love working for BuCorps. My work group is pretty amazing, too. We've got a great mix of energetic young go-getters and more experienced experts. Our customers are great and consistently push us towards excellence.
Nearly a year and a half into my job, I'm getting to the point where I am useful in a technical sense. No longer do I constantly wander around trying to understand things. Now, I get what it is that we do. The basics no longer befuddle me and I've had the opportunity to get my hands deep into some technical problems and help find solutions independently. Understanding how everything works and being able to think about it intelligently is a great feeling and comfort. I am thankful to have had great mentors help me get up to speed so quickly.
This technical knowledge has come with a price. My technical knowledge is great enough that I understand what my teammates are doing and can talk with them about it. I'm also at the point where I can tell when someone is bullshitting their way through a day. Everyone, I think, has those days where they want to go through the motions of the day without thinking. Lack of sleep or an inability to focus on work hits everyone at some point. It is part of being human. But, I work with one guy who is like that every day. This guy has been with BuCorps for 6 years and came in with technical experience. But, I can count the accomplishments this guy has had for the past 6 months on one hand. And, the accomplishments aren't big. They're things I did 6 months into the job. The guys work output isn't due to a lack of technical work to be done. He's even been assigned to lead two efforts. Three months after the assignment, no gains have been made on either project.
The lack of progress, or willingness to work towards progress, is incredibly frustrating to me as a junior employee. I work for less than half of what this individual makes and achieve more results and work harder than I have ever seen him. Several occasions have cropped up where he has asked me to fix a problem he created.
It blows my mind that this guy has been allowed to operate like he does. The rest of the team is busting their ass to get work done while this individual sits at his desk, checks Yahoo mail, and sometimes types on the keys. All without getting anything done. I'm not sure if my boss realizes what the game is. We submit monthly status reports. I don't know what his could possibly contain. That, for me, is the most frustrating part. Everyone else on the team has to work harder because this guy does nothing and I'm not sure if our boss is technical enough to understand. How do I manage this? Should I ignore it and let this guy keep sliding through life? Do I call the boss out on the lack of results the guy generates? One would think that eventually he'd get busted but despite several screw ups all still seems well. His lack of performance and desire to work are killing my morale.
Nearly a year and a half into my job, I'm getting to the point where I am useful in a technical sense. No longer do I constantly wander around trying to understand things. Now, I get what it is that we do. The basics no longer befuddle me and I've had the opportunity to get my hands deep into some technical problems and help find solutions independently. Understanding how everything works and being able to think about it intelligently is a great feeling and comfort. I am thankful to have had great mentors help me get up to speed so quickly.
This technical knowledge has come with a price. My technical knowledge is great enough that I understand what my teammates are doing and can talk with them about it. I'm also at the point where I can tell when someone is bullshitting their way through a day. Everyone, I think, has those days where they want to go through the motions of the day without thinking. Lack of sleep or an inability to focus on work hits everyone at some point. It is part of being human. But, I work with one guy who is like that every day. This guy has been with BuCorps for 6 years and came in with technical experience. But, I can count the accomplishments this guy has had for the past 6 months on one hand. And, the accomplishments aren't big. They're things I did 6 months into the job. The guys work output isn't due to a lack of technical work to be done. He's even been assigned to lead two efforts. Three months after the assignment, no gains have been made on either project.
The lack of progress, or willingness to work towards progress, is incredibly frustrating to me as a junior employee. I work for less than half of what this individual makes and achieve more results and work harder than I have ever seen him. Several occasions have cropped up where he has asked me to fix a problem he created.
It blows my mind that this guy has been allowed to operate like he does. The rest of the team is busting their ass to get work done while this individual sits at his desk, checks Yahoo mail, and sometimes types on the keys. All without getting anything done. I'm not sure if my boss realizes what the game is. We submit monthly status reports. I don't know what his could possibly contain. That, for me, is the most frustrating part. Everyone else on the team has to work harder because this guy does nothing and I'm not sure if our boss is technical enough to understand. How do I manage this? Should I ignore it and let this guy keep sliding through life? Do I call the boss out on the lack of results the guy generates? One would think that eventually he'd get busted but despite several screw ups all still seems well. His lack of performance and desire to work are killing my morale.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Times are a changing...
This week I had several conversations with various co-workers about the cultural differences between our generations. In my immediate work area there are two of us under 30 and the rest are all over 40. Sometimes it is clear that we grew up in different times and under different social norms.
Last weekend, BuCorps employees had a day out at the ballpark. My boss was sitting a row or two in front of me with his wife while I was text messaging co-workers who were tardy trying to see where they were at. The bosses wife, Susan, (who had met my tardy co-worker John and is in her early 30s) wanted to call him and yank his chain about being late. Since I had my phone out, I dialed John's number and handed it over. They had a brief conversation and it was the end of things. Back at work, I got into a conversation with my supervisor about the call. She thought it was weird that her boss' wife called one of her employees. It just left a bad taste in her mouth. I questioned that and mentioned that I didn't think it was that weird. They knew each other and had previously interacted in a non-work setting. After some discussion, we settled on cultural differences. Part of the reason I don't think it is a huge deal is because John and Susan are close to the same age. She's a few years older than he is, but not enough to make any real difference. The conversation was interesting though. And, I guess there's some merit to it.
This is my first job where I'm interacting primarily with people who are of a different generation. I need to keep in mind that they were brought up under different norms. Sometimes, I need to step back and better inventory my audience. That might mean that in some settings I'll change the way I act or what I say. One such occasion is in meetings. People get taken back when I speak up in meetings with high level executives. People seem to get really shy and reserved around the older managers. I have no shame in talking to them and asking them questions. I want to learn. I want to gain knowledge and understanding. I want to interact with the decision makers. This is what I'm a fan of. We all put our pants on the same way and are here to do a job. I want them to help me do my job better, by teaching me. That, I assume, is why they're in management. They must know something I don't. If I want to move through the ranks, I need to figure out what that is.
Last weekend, BuCorps employees had a day out at the ballpark. My boss was sitting a row or two in front of me with his wife while I was text messaging co-workers who were tardy trying to see where they were at. The bosses wife, Susan, (who had met my tardy co-worker John and is in her early 30s) wanted to call him and yank his chain about being late. Since I had my phone out, I dialed John's number and handed it over. They had a brief conversation and it was the end of things. Back at work, I got into a conversation with my supervisor about the call. She thought it was weird that her boss' wife called one of her employees. It just left a bad taste in her mouth. I questioned that and mentioned that I didn't think it was that weird. They knew each other and had previously interacted in a non-work setting. After some discussion, we settled on cultural differences. Part of the reason I don't think it is a huge deal is because John and Susan are close to the same age. She's a few years older than he is, but not enough to make any real difference. The conversation was interesting though. And, I guess there's some merit to it.
This is my first job where I'm interacting primarily with people who are of a different generation. I need to keep in mind that they were brought up under different norms. Sometimes, I need to step back and better inventory my audience. That might mean that in some settings I'll change the way I act or what I say. One such occasion is in meetings. People get taken back when I speak up in meetings with high level executives. People seem to get really shy and reserved around the older managers. I have no shame in talking to them and asking them questions. I want to learn. I want to gain knowledge and understanding. I want to interact with the decision makers. This is what I'm a fan of. We all put our pants on the same way and are here to do a job. I want them to help me do my job better, by teaching me. That, I assume, is why they're in management. They must know something I don't. If I want to move through the ranks, I need to figure out what that is.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Bored? Lonely? Too much work?
Hold a meeting! It's a quick way to get nothing done and make new friends!
That's the joke anyway. Today, I participated in a great meeting. Here's what made it great:
The facilitator/leader knew what was up. She effectively managed the participants ensuring that no one ran away with the meeting. She started on time and made no apologies for those who came late nor made any effort to re-hash for them.
The participants were ready for war. Everyone knew what they brought to the table and shared that. Topics needing discussion and debate got them. Opinions were supported with logic and reason and presented in constructive ways. New ideas bubbled to the surface and were hashed out. Action items were created and defined at the end of the meeting for those in attendance.
It's a great feeling to walk out a good meeting. While not getting anything done, it is empowering to come out of something full of ideas and with a fire to make it happen. Sadly, these good meetings are few and far between. Maybe one day people will change it? What traits do you see in effective meetings?
That's the joke anyway. Today, I participated in a great meeting. Here's what made it great:
The facilitator/leader knew what was up. She effectively managed the participants ensuring that no one ran away with the meeting. She started on time and made no apologies for those who came late nor made any effort to re-hash for them.
The participants were ready for war. Everyone knew what they brought to the table and shared that. Topics needing discussion and debate got them. Opinions were supported with logic and reason and presented in constructive ways. New ideas bubbled to the surface and were hashed out. Action items were created and defined at the end of the meeting for those in attendance.
It's a great feeling to walk out a good meeting. While not getting anything done, it is empowering to come out of something full of ideas and with a fire to make it happen. Sadly, these good meetings are few and far between. Maybe one day people will change it? What traits do you see in effective meetings?
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Proofreading
I always found the most difficult part of the writing process to be going back to proofread a paper once it was done. Admittedly, I rarely did it while I was in school. Now that I'm a big boy in the working world, I'm much more cautious before I submit something for someone else to read. I'll read an e-mail two or three times to make sure it is grammatically correct and conveys the ideas I intend before I click send.
Not everyone checks what they do as cautiously as I do. I'm getting a new boss at BuCorps next week. The things I know about him I can count on one hand, but I've already got a bad taste in my mouth. My front line supervisor sent him an e-mail welcoming him to the job. He replied that he was excited for the position and yadda yadda. His response also included a grammatical error. I don't purport myself as having excellent grammar, I'm a computer scientist. It's not what I do. So, when I notice a grammatical problem, it's there. For me, the problem is bigger than a grammatical error. This guy either didn't proofread the e-mail he wrote or proofread it and didn't recognize the error (his subject/verb agreement was off). Either way, I'm nervous:
1) It was a simple e-mail; a middle school student could have written it. If he didn't recognize the problem, there are several universities which need their degrees back.
2) If he didn't proof read it, I'm going to be working for a man who doesn't care enough about the first impression his employees will have about him to proofread a 3 sentence e-mail.
Yes, it's shallow for me to think like this. But, is it to much to ask of someone making over $120,000 to proofread something? I hope not.
Not everyone checks what they do as cautiously as I do. I'm getting a new boss at BuCorps next week. The things I know about him I can count on one hand, but I've already got a bad taste in my mouth. My front line supervisor sent him an e-mail welcoming him to the job. He replied that he was excited for the position and yadda yadda. His response also included a grammatical error. I don't purport myself as having excellent grammar, I'm a computer scientist. It's not what I do. So, when I notice a grammatical problem, it's there. For me, the problem is bigger than a grammatical error. This guy either didn't proofread the e-mail he wrote or proofread it and didn't recognize the error (his subject/verb agreement was off). Either way, I'm nervous:
1) It was a simple e-mail; a middle school student could have written it. If he didn't recognize the problem, there are several universities which need their degrees back.
2) If he didn't proof read it, I'm going to be working for a man who doesn't care enough about the first impression his employees will have about him to proofread a 3 sentence e-mail.
Yes, it's shallow for me to think like this. But, is it to much to ask of someone making over $120,000 to proofread something? I hope not.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Asking the right questions
My dad is an attorney. Maybe that helps me more than I thought as far as figuring things out.
A great example is from today at work. BuCorps is being audited. From my standpoint, that means applications and servers I host are getting scanned for security vulnerabilities. I fully support this effort and want to ensure that our servers are as robust as they need to be to thwart attacks. Today were several meetings with the group doing the audit. I've never been involved in an audit of this nature before, so I was pretty interested in how it would progress. I prepared for all the questions I envisioned would be asked so I didn't come across as unqualified.
The first meeting was about backup and recovery. Notebook in hand full of information about our backup, disaster recovery, and continuity of operations plans I was prepared. Imagine my disappointment when all I was asked was for a screen shot that demonstrated that the databases were scheduled to be backed up nightly. I was in shock. I wasn't asked about the percentage of the time the backups were successful. I wasn't asked if the backups were moved to another location. I wasn't asked about restoring from backup. I wasn't asked about what happens if the building is blown up and we lose servers. All the auditors wanted to see was that the backups were scheduled. Had they asked the right questions, they possibly could have gotten some pretty juicy information for their audit. But, alas, all they wanted to know about were the scheduled jobs.
My second meeting was about security patches. The auditors wanted to see what operating system security patches had been installed in the last 6 months. I asked them what I needed to show them to satisfy their requirements. They didn't know. I asked them what servers they were interested in. Again, they had no specifics. They ended up getting screen shots of the add/remove program wizard. I hope it works.
My third meeting was about security scanning. The first thing that irked me was when the auditors showed up late. Everyone else made it on time, they were late. But, I'll forgive that. It gave everyone else an opportunity to prepare for their arrival. Having heard stories of past audits crippling hardware because an improper button was selected, I had several topics to discuss. The most hilarious was trying to get the idea across that running security scans on a production server in the middle of the day was not a good idea. They just didn't understand the repercussions. In fact, the importance of the servers seemed to slip their mind. The servers they wanted to scan are used by more than 40,000 employees every day. The servers interact with terabytes of data each day. It just didn't click.
The audits will continue next week so I'm sure the hilarity will continue. I guess today just reinforced the importance of understanding what you're working on. A finance major will have difficulty doing a GOOD audit of a computer infrastructure because they don't know what everything is, the same way a computer expert couldn't do a home inspection. When eliciting information, leading questions certainly have their place, but so do open ended questions. Good open ended questions allow much more knowledge to be gained than a simple leading question. Most importantly, to quote the movie Finding Forrester, "You gotta know the rules if you wanna play the game."
A great example is from today at work. BuCorps is being audited. From my standpoint, that means applications and servers I host are getting scanned for security vulnerabilities. I fully support this effort and want to ensure that our servers are as robust as they need to be to thwart attacks. Today were several meetings with the group doing the audit. I've never been involved in an audit of this nature before, so I was pretty interested in how it would progress. I prepared for all the questions I envisioned would be asked so I didn't come across as unqualified.
The first meeting was about backup and recovery. Notebook in hand full of information about our backup, disaster recovery, and continuity of operations plans I was prepared. Imagine my disappointment when all I was asked was for a screen shot that demonstrated that the databases were scheduled to be backed up nightly. I was in shock. I wasn't asked about the percentage of the time the backups were successful. I wasn't asked if the backups were moved to another location. I wasn't asked about restoring from backup. I wasn't asked about what happens if the building is blown up and we lose servers. All the auditors wanted to see was that the backups were scheduled. Had they asked the right questions, they possibly could have gotten some pretty juicy information for their audit. But, alas, all they wanted to know about were the scheduled jobs.
My second meeting was about security patches. The auditors wanted to see what operating system security patches had been installed in the last 6 months. I asked them what I needed to show them to satisfy their requirements. They didn't know. I asked them what servers they were interested in. Again, they had no specifics. They ended up getting screen shots of the add/remove program wizard. I hope it works.
My third meeting was about security scanning. The first thing that irked me was when the auditors showed up late. Everyone else made it on time, they were late. But, I'll forgive that. It gave everyone else an opportunity to prepare for their arrival. Having heard stories of past audits crippling hardware because an improper button was selected, I had several topics to discuss. The most hilarious was trying to get the idea across that running security scans on a production server in the middle of the day was not a good idea. They just didn't understand the repercussions. In fact, the importance of the servers seemed to slip their mind. The servers they wanted to scan are used by more than 40,000 employees every day. The servers interact with terabytes of data each day. It just didn't click.
The audits will continue next week so I'm sure the hilarity will continue. I guess today just reinforced the importance of understanding what you're working on. A finance major will have difficulty doing a GOOD audit of a computer infrastructure because they don't know what everything is, the same way a computer expert couldn't do a home inspection. When eliciting information, leading questions certainly have their place, but so do open ended questions. Good open ended questions allow much more knowledge to be gained than a simple leading question. Most importantly, to quote the movie Finding Forrester, "You gotta know the rules if you wanna play the game."
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Let's all hate IT
The IT department of BuCorps has a bad wrap. I am discovering this the hard way. This week I had the opportunity to travel and visit one of our off site locations. The point of the trip was to meet with some people who were having performance issues with their system. Management decided that it would be good for us to work with this customer even though we don't directly support their system. It was a day out of the office so, whatever, I was happy to along.
When I got involved with the meeting I was pretty amazed at how quickly things turned into "It's the IT department, screwing us again." It was only the second time I'd interacted with a customer not from within IT and this idea was a shock. I never really considered that people didn't like the IT department. I know the stigma associated with them, I just thought that BuCorps was different.
Once I got back in the office I talked to my boss about the perception of the department from the outside and why people don't like us. He said that most peoples' perceptions of the department are from the help desk. This is an interesting problem for BuCorps especially. Most people that work in the Help Desk aren't employees coming in for life. They use the job to get their foot in the door then move on. Turn over at the help desk is high which means that it's difficult to get people with real knowledge in there. Since they are the face of IT to the field, having less than knowledgeable people answering the phones isn't helpful. It's also not good if they answer the phone and you can just hear that they hate their jobs. But, this is the case a BuCorps.
I don't know how to rectify this except through a vigorous marketing campaign. The IT department should focus more on interacting with the customers we serve and ensuring that we are meeting their needs. That involves a huge change from the past methods of doing things. The separation of the IT department from the field has been crippling. It results in inefficiency through usage of manpower and wasted money by purchasing equipment and software that isn't fully utilized. Making the changes will be an incredibly hard process. It needs to start with communication and end with creating tools which meet the needs of the people who use them.
When I got involved with the meeting I was pretty amazed at how quickly things turned into "It's the IT department, screwing us again." It was only the second time I'd interacted with a customer not from within IT and this idea was a shock. I never really considered that people didn't like the IT department. I know the stigma associated with them, I just thought that BuCorps was different.
Once I got back in the office I talked to my boss about the perception of the department from the outside and why people don't like us. He said that most peoples' perceptions of the department are from the help desk. This is an interesting problem for BuCorps especially. Most people that work in the Help Desk aren't employees coming in for life. They use the job to get their foot in the door then move on. Turn over at the help desk is high which means that it's difficult to get people with real knowledge in there. Since they are the face of IT to the field, having less than knowledgeable people answering the phones isn't helpful. It's also not good if they answer the phone and you can just hear that they hate their jobs. But, this is the case a BuCorps.
I don't know how to rectify this except through a vigorous marketing campaign. The IT department should focus more on interacting with the customers we serve and ensuring that we are meeting their needs. That involves a huge change from the past methods of doing things. The separation of the IT department from the field has been crippling. It results in inefficiency through usage of manpower and wasted money by purchasing equipment and software that isn't fully utilized. Making the changes will be an incredibly hard process. It needs to start with communication and end with creating tools which meet the needs of the people who use them.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Corporate E-Mail
E-Mail has revolutionized the work environment. From scheduling meetings, sharing files, and regular communication E-Mail facilitates every aspect of work. And, while E-Mail can help streamline business decisions it also comes with the worst design idea ever: the reply all button.
I've never been a huge fan of that little button that looks so inviting. It seems like a great idea: allow e-mail to facilitate a discussion among multiple people by keeping everyone on the same page. This is a great and powerful tool. Like anything powerful, it's just waiting to be misused. And I'd call it the most frequently abused aspect of e-mail communication.
My first exposure to this abuse came from being on several listserves in college. It wasn't uncommon for people to hold private discussions via an entire listserve thanks to that dreadful little button. They, of course, wouldn't figure out the error of their ways until I knew far too much about their weekend plans or relationships.
However, the abuse isn't limited to college students. This week at work I was bombarded with my first corporate cluster-fudge E-Mail storm. I arrived at work and opened Outlook expecting nothing new. While BuCorp is an international company, I'm not typically subjected to the whims of the international facet of the operation. So, imagine my surprise when I had over 100 new messages... all with the same subject line. Not able to resist the urge, I had to read through them. Starting off innocently enough with an e-mail to the corporate policy office things quickly spun out of control. Interspersed with the typical "STOP HITTING REPLY ALL" and "OMG, why am I getting this e-mail?!?!" were a few winners. Personally, I really liked a reply from a sales rep that invited users to e-mail another sales rep to be removed from the e-mail chain. (Technical note: most people should have realized that there was no way this person could remove someone from the list.) About 45 minutes after that e-mail the sender sent out another informing everyone that his prior e-mail was joke. My hypothesis is that the subject of the joke suddenly became inundated with E-Mails asking to be removed from a list he had no knowledge of. I got a real kick out of this and thought the exchange was hilarious. Since the E-Mail administrators work in my area, I took a walk over to get their fix on the situation. They were irate. There were 8,000 employees on the distribution list accidentally included in the list. Most of the 8,000 employees work in BuCorp headquarters, and included in the list was the company CEO. After a rather strong e-mail about "reply all" E-Mails from the E-Mail administration group, the fun for the day ended and it was back to work for everyone. It was a great start to the day.
I've never been a huge fan of that little button that looks so inviting. It seems like a great idea: allow e-mail to facilitate a discussion among multiple people by keeping everyone on the same page. This is a great and powerful tool. Like anything powerful, it's just waiting to be misused. And I'd call it the most frequently abused aspect of e-mail communication.
My first exposure to this abuse came from being on several listserves in college. It wasn't uncommon for people to hold private discussions via an entire listserve thanks to that dreadful little button. They, of course, wouldn't figure out the error of their ways until I knew far too much about their weekend plans or relationships.
However, the abuse isn't limited to college students. This week at work I was bombarded with my first corporate cluster-fudge E-Mail storm. I arrived at work and opened Outlook expecting nothing new. While BuCorp is an international company, I'm not typically subjected to the whims of the international facet of the operation. So, imagine my surprise when I had over 100 new messages... all with the same subject line. Not able to resist the urge, I had to read through them. Starting off innocently enough with an e-mail to the corporate policy office things quickly spun out of control. Interspersed with the typical "STOP HITTING REPLY ALL" and "OMG, why am I getting this e-mail?!?!" were a few winners. Personally, I really liked a reply from a sales rep that invited users to e-mail another sales rep to be removed from the e-mail chain. (Technical note: most people should have realized that there was no way this person could remove someone from the list.) About 45 minutes after that e-mail the sender sent out another informing everyone that his prior e-mail was joke. My hypothesis is that the subject of the joke suddenly became inundated with E-Mails asking to be removed from a list he had no knowledge of. I got a real kick out of this and thought the exchange was hilarious. Since the E-Mail administrators work in my area, I took a walk over to get their fix on the situation. They were irate. There were 8,000 employees on the distribution list accidentally included in the list. Most of the 8,000 employees work in BuCorp headquarters, and included in the list was the company CEO. After a rather strong e-mail about "reply all" E-Mails from the E-Mail administration group, the fun for the day ended and it was back to work for everyone. It was a great start to the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)