Caught in the middle

Many of the problems at my job are government-related stuff, but some are just general office politics-related mess. Dilbert, Office Space - a lot of this is not peculiar to the government. (Some is, which I still plan to write about more specifically, but anyways.) For example, the deadline mandated by Congress for the doomed project. No matter what, such a short deadline for a project of this type would be a problem. But right now it's coming to a head, and I'm pretty sure this is the kind of problem that could happen anywhere. The team has something like eight different supervisors between us at the same level as each other, and one problem is, they disagree and don't handle it well.

There was a meeting on Wednesday to update them on our progress and ask them to make a decision on whether or not to include something that I'll call "cross-platform compatibility". That's not it, but (a) calling it that helps maintain anonymity, and (b) there have been so many additions that specifically what the latest one is doesn't matter. At least one of the bosses really wants to leave out cross-platform compatibility and stick to the deadline, while most of the rest are happy to ignore the deadline and keep on putting new requirements in this regulation and happily let the project take an additional year or more, even if that means that this agency gets sued.

Now, this is an impasse. These two positions are unreconcilable. There is no reasonable middle ground. Cross-platform compatibility would add, at a rough estimate by the team, between two and 18 months to the project. (This makes it bigger than most additions, maybe even the single biggest addition, but again, it's just the latest of many.) A partial version of it would satisfy neither side. And we are getting so close to the deadline, and so much of the time remaining is tied up by layers of review that are out of our hands, that we really can't add practically anything else and still plan on the deadline, no matter how small or straightforward it might look. So either the guy who's very interested in the deadline has to give or everyone else does.

There are many good ways to settle an impasse. Hypothetically, they could put it to a vote. Rationally, they could perform a cost-benefits analysis: exactly how likely is a lawsuit, how much would it cost, and is getting cross-platform compatibility implemented a couple years earlier than it would otherwise worth that risk? Or maybe they could appeal the decision up the ladder: they both have bosses of their own. I think the next level up from them is just one guy. If I'm wrong about that or if he can't decide, he could elevate it further.

However, what actually seems to be happening is that one boss who cares about the deadline is trying to enforce it and hope the others don't notice. Seriously, he seems to be just trying to sneak it in there, at a meeting they weren't invited to and putting it directly into the project plan which most people can't even see. To me, this does not look like a healthy decision-making process and I really wish our bosses would take it up with their mutual boss, but it's not my decision.