15 replies to this topic

[stratagos]

So, CSB time.

There is a weekly 'work item prioritization' call for one of the myriad legacy systems at work. There are a lot of different groups that need to use this system, and it was decided that representatives from each of the primary business units would group and prioritize their internal items before the weekly call.

I'm one of them.

Each of the six team members presents their top items, and we have a... robust discussion about which items should be selected for the slots available in a given week. This week we had three, which was above average.

Everyone put forth their items, and we decided on the ones that appeared to have the biggest impact. Because my area has already solved most of our critical items, I haven't been able to get a slot in this year - but given the [problems] that some of the other teams are facing, I'm ok with that.

So, as we're wrapping up the call this guy who was invited by one of the team members to present his item demands to know when his item will be selected. We explain that he's going to have to try next week, as there are bigger fish to fry this week.

UNACCEPTABLE! This is HUGE issue for him! His Director needs this solved NOW, and he wasn't going to take no for an answer!

Except, well, he was going to *have* to, because his item *wasn't* as important as the others, and he didn't havw the authority to override the (higher ranked) member of the team from his business unit.

We got a note later from his team lead apologizing for Mr. Angry.

What's your point, Strat?

Just this: screaming about how PGI must - *must* - drop everything to get you the items you demand RIGHT NOW isn't likely to change their priorities.

You know the items that impact you the most. You should *absolutely* bring that to their attention, as player feedback is going to reveal issues that simply aren't going to be discovered otherwise.

You should lay out how the issue impacts your gameplay experience.

You should *not* throw a [redacted] hissy fit.

Because you're not only reducing their ability to assess the real impact of the issue, you're making yourself look like a [surat].

And while I don't expect Doctor Cranky to be on my call next week, his attitude grated on me to the point that if there were two issues that were equally impacting, I'd be choosing the other - *just* to spite him.

Don't be that guy. Raise your issues and concerns,but if you want to be taken seriously, don't be a [surat]

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 14 March 2015 - 02:57 AM.
Language

[Lexx]

How is this related to CW?

Telling others how not to complain to PGI, while making those same complaints about them is not going to be very successful.
By telling others "don't be that guy", you became that guy.

[jeirhart]

Lexx, on 11 March 2015 - 03:41 PM, said:

How is this related to CW?

Telling others how not to complain to PGI, while making those same complaints about them is not going to be very successful.
By telling others "don't be that guy", you became that guy.

I do not believe you read what he posted very closely. Calling for others to give their feedback and suggestions without demanding PGI give them preferential treatment does not make the OP "that guy"

[Davers]

Is this an anti-NGNG rant, or should I get an aluminum foil hat?

[Mycrus]

stratagos, on 11 March 2015 - 03:20 PM, said:

So, CSB time.

There is a weekly 'work item prioritization' call for one of the myriad legacy systems at work. There are a lot of different groups that need to use this system, and it was decided that representatives from each of the primary business units would group and prioritize their internal items before the weekly call.

I'm one of them.

Each of the six team members presents their top items, and we have a... robust discussion about which items should be selected for the slots available in a given week. This week we had three, which was above average.

Everyone put forth their items, and we decided on the ones that appeared to have the biggest impact. Because my area has already solved most of our critical items, I haven't been able to get a slot in this year - but given the [problems] that some of the other teams are facing, I'm ok with that.

So, as we're wrapping up the call this guy who was invited by one of the team members to present his item demands to know when his item will be selected. We explain that he's going to have to try next week, as there are bigger fish to fry this week.

UNACCEPTABLE! This is HUGE issue for him! His Director needs this solved NOW, and he wasn't going to take no for an answer!

Except, well, he was going to *have* to, because his item *wasn't* as important as the others, and he didn't havw the authority to override the (higher ranked) member of the team from his business unit.

We got a note later from his team lead apologizing for Mr. Angry.

What's your point, Strat?

Just this: screaming about how PGI must - *must* - drop everything to get you the items you demand RIGHT NOW isn't likely to change their priorities.

You know the items that impact you the most. You should *absolutely* bring that to their attention, as player feedback is going to reveal issues that simply aren't going to be discovered otherwise.

You should lay out how the issue impacts your gameplay experience.

You should *not* throw a [redacted] hissy fit.

Because you're not only reducing their ability to assess the real impact of the issue, you're making yourself look like a [surat].

And while I don't expect Doctor Cranky to be on my call next week, his attitude grated on me to the point that if there were two issues that were equally impacting, I'd be choosing the other - *just* to spite him.

Don't be that guy. Raise your issues and concerns,but if you want to be taken seriously, don't be a [surat]

I think your example just proves the dangers of groupthink...

The group thinks the "slot" system is working... what it really does is legitimize poor resource planning.

If an item is that important then additional resources should be brought to bear to fix it. You are not talking of capex, just additional contractors

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 14 March 2015 - 02:58 AM.
Language in quote

[stratagos]

Mycrus, on 11 March 2015 - 04:04 PM, said:

I think your example just proves the dangers of groupthink...

The group thinks the "slot" system is working... what it really does is legitimize poor resource planning.

If an item is that important then additional resources should be brought to bear to fix it. You are not talking of capex, just additional contractors

Screaming louder =/= "that important"

There are a finite amount of team members available to work on small enhancements. "Go hire more" ignores both the cash available to *hire* people, and the fact that if they were available we'd have more important stuff for them to work on. I can't imagine it's any different for PGI

[Richter Kerensky]

How about I post what I want, clanner.

[stratagos]

Lexx, on 11 March 2015 - 03:41 PM, said:

How is this related to CW?

It doesn't, I was in the general forum in a different tab and lost track of where I was. Or PGI's forum screwed me. PGI plz fi

Quote

Telling others how not to complain to PGI, while making those same complaints about them is not going to be very successful.
By telling others "don't be that guy", you became that guy.

I most assuredly did not say "don't complain" ; I specifically said that feedback from players was the only way PGI would know of some issues.

I said don't be [a surat] about it

Richter Kerensky, on 11 March 2015 - 04:17 PM, said:

How about I post what I want, clanner.

Go right ahead, no skin off my nose if you do. Simply pointing out that bleating like a shorn sheep about what bugs you doesn't mean your complaint is going to be *listened* to

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 14 March 2015 - 02:59 AM.
Language

[Mycrus]

stratagos, on 11 March 2015 - 04:16 PM, said:

Screaming louder =/= "that important"

There are a finite amount of team members available to work on small enhancements. "Go hire more" ignores both the cash available to *hire* people, and the fact that if they were available we'd have more important stuff for them to work on. I can't imagine it's any different for PGI

Companies that think like this are bound to lose money and fail.

If it is important then resources should be brought to bear to fix it. Again i'm talking about variable costs and not fixed asset planning.

Whoever suckered you and the rest depts to believe that the "slot" system is working is a genius manipulator and lazy.

[stratagos]

Mycrus, on 11 March 2015 - 04:26 PM, said:

Companies that think like this are bound to lose money and fail.

If it is important then resources should be brought to bear to fix it. Again i'm talking about variable costs and not fixed asset planning.

Whoever suckered you and the rest depts to believe that the "slot" system is working is a genius manipulator and lazy.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this without getting into a pissing match about how my company can beat up your company, but I think you completely missed my point about how screaming about how critical something to is does not, in and of itself, make something critical.

In other words, the criticality of a defect is based on the actual customer or regulatory impact of the problem, not the whining skills of the person raising the defect

[Lexx]

jeirhart, on 11 March 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

I do not believe you read what he posted very closely. Calling for others to give their feedback and suggestions without demanding PGI give them preferential treatment does not make the OP "that guy"

I read it and all I really saw is someone whining about how he doesn't like the way other players whine to PGI.

Pointless thread anyways, since the people he is talking about would never bother to read anything like this and instead go straight to posting their rant thread.

[Mycrus]

stratagos, on 11 March 2015 - 04:41 PM, said:

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this without getting into a pissing match about how my company can beat up your company, but I think you completely missed my point about how screaming about how critical something to is does not, in and of itself, make something critical.

In other words, the criticality of a defect is based on the actual customer or regulatory impact of the problem, not the whining skills of the person raising the defect

And who decides criticality, the group?

[stratagos]

Mycrus, on 11 March 2015 - 05:57 PM, said:

And who decides criticality, the group?

Are... are you an idiot?

The group leads are the ones with the expertise in the system, that's why they were selected to represent their business units.

The people who raise issues only know the impact of their issue on them, and have no baseline to compare it to the other items that have been raised.

Who do you *think* should be making the decisions on which items to pick up during a given cycle, and which should be deferred?

If you're looking for the Terrible Advice thread, that's over in General

[Mycrus]

stratagos, on 12 March 2015 - 02:54 AM, said:

Are... are you an idiot?

The group leads are the ones with the expertise in the system, that's why they were selected to represent their business units.

The people who raise issues only know the impact of their issue on them, and have no baseline to compare it to the other items that have been raised.

Who do you *think* should be making the decisions on which items to pick up during a given cycle, and which should be deferred?

If you're looking for the Terrible Advice thread, that's over in General

you are exhibiting classic symptoms of...

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Groupthink

[stratagos]

Thank you for your advice, random person on the Internet with zero provable track record of success and an overly simplistic view of how to solve problems. Your advice will be given all the consideration it deserves.

[Alexander Steel]

Don't be that "Don't be that Guy" Guy.