The timeline on the doomed project is becoming surreal.
There's always a little flexibility in project timelines to account for extra steps needed for specific projects like the "blackmail project", or people missing deadlines. That's just how things work, probably at any office. But on the doomed project, things are deviating from the usual schedule so much that probably only six people out of dozens involved know what's going on at the moment.
It's mostly due to the deadline, which as I've said is the biggest problem. Somehow, someone got the reasonable-sounding idea that we should rearrange things to save time in the long term. Normally, our bosses first see a document that's supposed to be finished. Hopefully the team members keep their bosses in the loop about what we're planning, of course, but they don't see any product until it's as ready as possible. If they like it, and if everyone higher up the chain of reviewers does too of course, it could be published the way they see it. Of course, reviewers often have changes to make. Changing any one part of the substance of a regulation also requires rephrasing it to get it in legalese, and rewriting the summary and justification parts.
So, the thinking went, why not just ask for an "informal review" of the substance itself? That way we could write the legalese and summaries only once, without needing major edits afterwards, after we were confident the substance was solid, right? Wouldn't that save time in the long run?
Well, maybe. You can always say "what if". But we were expecting and hoping for, I don't know, let's say 20 or 50 comments and/or edits, and we got back over 350. This is partly because some team members apparently didn't keep their bosses in the loop all that well, despite reminders, as H. has vented to me. Many questions have been about issues that the team thought were settled. This is also partly because they couldn't see each others' comments. The idea of working in one single document, stored in a folder on the network accessible to all, is apparently beyond some people. Admittedly, it's not a perfect system; multiple people can't work on it at the same time that way. But (with broad enough deadlines like we had here) that's a very minor problem compared to the huge benefit of having multiple people be able to see each others' changes right in the same document. So instead, people created copies and made their changes there and e-mailed them around and it was up to me to combine all the versions. In addition to making unnecessary work for me, this also means that one reviewer couldn't see what another had said. So probably more than a third of all issues were raised by multiple people in at least some way.
And finally, it's partly because many of the bosses didn't understand what we meant by "informal review". In their defense, this is indeed a rare-if-not-unique step. Fair enough, it's something they haven't been asked to do before. In their reproof, I don't know how we could have made it clearer. We said in the e-mail asking them to do this what we were asking them for. The document is quite clearly, obviously, not finished. The team left comments of our own in the margin for reviewers to read; I would think that implies that it is a work in progress and we know it. And yet we still got over 10 comments saying, in effect, "I don't understand why this isn't in the finalized format." To which the only possible answer is, "we told you why in the e-mail. Remember it?"
But anyways, the idea that the normal way would probably have been even more work is cold comfort when an extra step we created turned out to be so huge.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Hidden meanings
In a meeting yesterday, someone said that a document crucial to the project will be released soon. So soon, in fact, that we might miss it: it would come out "hopefully while we are in this meeting". The speaker meant it as reassurance: this is organized. Sure, you may have thought you were waiting for this, but don't worry about it. The office in question will definitely have a product, and not only that, but they will probably have it soon, and not only that, but it's possible to narrow the most likely timeframe to a couple hours. This problem is being taken care of by people other than us, and they are on top of it.
But the problem with being as cynical as I am, or maybe just the problem with going to too many of this kind of meetings, is that it's very easy to see the downside of it. The unspoken implications. For one thing, it means that we discuss in the meeting may be invalidated. It sure is fun to be told that the meeting you're in may be rendered pointless before it's over.
But the problem with being as cynical as I am, or maybe just the problem with going to too many of this kind of meetings, is that it's very easy to see the downside of it. The unspoken implications. For one thing, it means that we discuss in the meeting may be invalidated. It sure is fun to be told that the meeting you're in may be rendered pointless before it's over.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
How convenient
This seems relevant to yesterday's post:
Sure, got me pegged. For the record I don't work from home at all and I'm not expected to. I understand that's because as a contractor I'm required to be supervised by a government employee. "Supervised" is a vague term in this context, but never mind that; working from home isn't an option for me, so there's no expectation of being reachable on days off, let alone producing anything. But obviously I do read blogs and do other things while at work.
That being said, Yglesias is missing a few things himself.
First of all, I heard somewhere or other (no source for something as vague as this, sorry) that going digital didn't actually affect white-collar productivity much, because downtime has been replaced by time-wasting. People used to spend lots of time walking to the mailroom or pawing through long-term file cabinets or waiting for something to arrive in the mail. Now all that stuff is instantaneous, but people waste just as much time reading blogs or watching YouTube whenever their minds wander. People need downtime. Blue-collar workers often get it naturally (construction workers spend time waiting for machinery to be moved, repairmen get it driving from one job to the next, etc.) and more importantly they often get explicit breaks in any place where sweat-shop conditions are not considered aspirational. In the pre-digital age, white-collar workers used to get it naturally by all those little kinds of downtime, but now that's greatly reduced. White-collar jobs obviously have lots of benefits, but one problem with them is the expectation that if you're at work, every minute is spent on something that your boss considers necessary. This is a pretty laid-back office, but it seems very rare to see or hear people acknowledge non-work stuff happening at their desks, even though it obviously does.
Also, being "on call" is an imposition of time and stress and scheduling around it, as an EMT or non-full-time fireman could tell you. Sometimes you'd have to change plans at the last minute, sometimes you'd have to drop everything and go, and very often you'd just choose not to schedule certain things at times that are convenient for other people. It's obviously not as big an imposition as actually being at work is, but it's built into the direct and indirect compensations for any such job. My previous job, for example, wasn't a life-or-death thing like those examples, but there was still the expectation that I would sometimes have to work long hours, late hours, weekends, and hypothetically even holidays, sometimes on short notice. In return, there was explicit flexibility in my schedule: I could take off early or show up late if I had some personal reason or had a late meeting I'd be going to that day or just had got enough done ahead of deadline for once.
So Yglesias seems to be saying "well, people have to work from home and don't get paid for it to keep their jobs, but they also goof off at work, so it seems like it all evens out." Except it doesn't. Reading blogs or newspapers at work doesn't even come close to being expected to regularly take work home with you, certainly not to the degree discussed in the MJ article.
Disclaimer: like I said above, the idea that anything unfair is going on doesn't apply to me, since I'm not expected to take work home with me. But it does to lots of people I know.
There’s a lot going on in Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery’s piece on “The Great Speedup” and the disjoint between productivity growth and wage increases. But I’m not sure I buy the implicit message of this factoid about people using information technology to keep themselves tethered to the office even when they’re not at their desk...
Obviously, this kind of digital overtime happens. At the same time, looking at our traffic stats here at ThinkProgress it’s evident that an awful lot of people are reading blogs when they’re supposed to be at their desk working. Not that I mind, you understand, it’s just a noticeable trend. And traffic really falls off during that week between Christmas and New Years when relatively few people are working. That’s not because nobody can access the Internet when they’re not at their office, it’s because the flipside of using digital technology to work even when you’re not “at work” is using digital technology to slack off when you are at work.
Sure, got me pegged. For the record I don't work from home at all and I'm not expected to. I understand that's because as a contractor I'm required to be supervised by a government employee. "Supervised" is a vague term in this context, but never mind that; working from home isn't an option for me, so there's no expectation of being reachable on days off, let alone producing anything. But obviously I do read blogs and do other things while at work.
That being said, Yglesias is missing a few things himself.
First of all, I heard somewhere or other (no source for something as vague as this, sorry) that going digital didn't actually affect white-collar productivity much, because downtime has been replaced by time-wasting. People used to spend lots of time walking to the mailroom or pawing through long-term file cabinets or waiting for something to arrive in the mail. Now all that stuff is instantaneous, but people waste just as much time reading blogs or watching YouTube whenever their minds wander. People need downtime. Blue-collar workers often get it naturally (construction workers spend time waiting for machinery to be moved, repairmen get it driving from one job to the next, etc.) and more importantly they often get explicit breaks in any place where sweat-shop conditions are not considered aspirational. In the pre-digital age, white-collar workers used to get it naturally by all those little kinds of downtime, but now that's greatly reduced. White-collar jobs obviously have lots of benefits, but one problem with them is the expectation that if you're at work, every minute is spent on something that your boss considers necessary. This is a pretty laid-back office, but it seems very rare to see or hear people acknowledge non-work stuff happening at their desks, even though it obviously does.
Also, being "on call" is an imposition of time and stress and scheduling around it, as an EMT or non-full-time fireman could tell you. Sometimes you'd have to change plans at the last minute, sometimes you'd have to drop everything and go, and very often you'd just choose not to schedule certain things at times that are convenient for other people. It's obviously not as big an imposition as actually being at work is, but it's built into the direct and indirect compensations for any such job. My previous job, for example, wasn't a life-or-death thing like those examples, but there was still the expectation that I would sometimes have to work long hours, late hours, weekends, and hypothetically even holidays, sometimes on short notice. In return, there was explicit flexibility in my schedule: I could take off early or show up late if I had some personal reason or had a late meeting I'd be going to that day or just had got enough done ahead of deadline for once.
So Yglesias seems to be saying "well, people have to work from home and don't get paid for it to keep their jobs, but they also goof off at work, so it seems like it all evens out." Except it doesn't. Reading blogs or newspapers at work doesn't even come close to being expected to regularly take work home with you, certainly not to the degree discussed in the MJ article.
Disclaimer: like I said above, the idea that anything unfair is going on doesn't apply to me, since I'm not expected to take work home with me. But it does to lots of people I know.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Uh Oh
My time-killing habits at work changed recently: 10 days ago (that is, the Friday before last), the Internet filter began blocking two game-related Web sites. No, I'm not playing Popcap games at work, but I do read a blog about World of Warcraft, and a another game I play regularly has regular articles and active forums on their Web site. I used to read them freely in lulls at work. Can't any more though.
At first I was a bit paranoid - they singled out sites I read, they'll be coming for me personally about wasting time and resources online any day now - but after more than a week, and without any further sites being blocked, I'm not too worried. And it made me a tiny bit curious about who else might use those sites. There are hundreds of people in this building, I can't be the only person who plays WoW.
At first I was a bit paranoid - they singled out sites I read, they'll be coming for me personally about wasting time and resources online any day now - but after more than a week, and without any further sites being blocked, I'm not too worried. And it made me a tiny bit curious about who else might use those sites. There are hundreds of people in this building, I can't be the only person who plays WoW.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
It doesn't actually matter
I said that how the blackmail project got started was just one problem with it. (No, that's not what I call it in general, but I can't think of anything better right now.) What else is wrong with it?
For one thing, our contacts on that other agency don't know the usual rulemaking process. It's just not their usual job. This leads to us talking past each other about the timeline. Nobody likes to go to their boss and say that they're going to miss a deadline, of course, but despite being told, they seem unable to grasp that the time to do so on this project is right around now. Relatedly, their idea of a quick turnaround time on reviewing a document is measured in weeks, not days. Any instance of that isn't a problem, but a few days of delay over and over again add up.
Another problem is that the economist doesn't know where to start, and at least from where we sit, it seems the people from the other agency aren't helping. Right now he could write an economic analysis which would show moderate costs - not huge, this is basically just a survey, although there's also an ongoing part of it, but significant enough that we have to justify them - paired with absolutely zero benefits. We can't cite the rulemaking that this was the price of because we can't mention the quid pro quo aspect of the rulemaking in public documents. Yes, of course it's all perfectly legal, it's just part of the sausage-making process. And for all I know we actually might mention it, but it can't be part of the legal or economic basis for this rule. The other agency's people are asking him to send them that and then they'll fill in the benefits. This seems nonsensical from our point of view.
For one thing, our contacts on that other agency don't know the usual rulemaking process. It's just not their usual job. This leads to us talking past each other about the timeline. Nobody likes to go to their boss and say that they're going to miss a deadline, of course, but despite being told, they seem unable to grasp that the time to do so on this project is right around now. Relatedly, their idea of a quick turnaround time on reviewing a document is measured in weeks, not days. Any instance of that isn't a problem, but a few days of delay over and over again add up.
Another problem is that the economist doesn't know where to start, and at least from where we sit, it seems the people from the other agency aren't helping. Right now he could write an economic analysis which would show moderate costs - not huge, this is basically just a survey, although there's also an ongoing part of it, but significant enough that we have to justify them - paired with absolutely zero benefits. We can't cite the rulemaking that this was the price of because we can't mention the quid pro quo aspect of the rulemaking in public documents. Yes, of course it's all perfectly legal, it's just part of the sausage-making process. And for all I know we actually might mention it, but it can't be part of the legal or economic basis for this rule. The other agency's people are asking him to send them that and then they'll fill in the benefits. This seems nonsensical from our point of view.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
I'm not that important
There was a meeting of the doomed project today. I wasn't invited. I first heard about it when the backup tech writer came to me and told me about a couple important details. As he was leaving I was wondering "OK, so when did this happen?", but didn't get around to asking about a real meeting or impromptu talk with another team member or what. When the RDM came along, though, I asked and she explained to me. Apparently the subject matter expert who's new to this kind of thing called the meeting and no one knows why he didn't invite me. The RDM and backup tech writer both said that they thought I had a conflict.
All things considered, it's harmless, since they did have the other guy there. Even if not, it wouldn't have been that big a problem in the grand scheme of things. Still, though, this is obviously not a good sign.
All things considered, it's harmless, since they did have the other guy there. Even if not, it wouldn't have been that big a problem in the grand scheme of things. Still, though, this is obviously not a good sign.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
A four-and-a-half-day weekend is too short
I am at my most unproductive on the first day back from a four-day or five-day weekend. Like this yesterday, for example. We had Memorial Day off, of course. Because of that impending holiday, our office was given roughly half the day off on the preceding Friday. And as for me, I also had Tuesday off. Most people in my office use what's called a regular day off (RDO) schedule. Basically, I work nine-hour days most of the time, and in a two-week pay period that adds up to one day off every two weeks. I try to schedule dentists' appointments and stuff for that day, and shopping and errands I can't easily do after work, stuff like that. My RDO happened to fall on Monday, so what with the holiday I just moved it to the following day and prepared for a nice long, lazy, weekend.
The problem was when I came back on Wednesday. I wasn't literally at my most unproductive, but I was pretty close. I was tired; I had started getting used to weekend mornings. I had stuff from my RDO to catch up on, unlike the usual weekend. By the time I had got through e-mails, meeting invites, reading the notes of a meeting, etc., I was just about mentally prepared for lunch. In the end, I did get a little stuff done yesterday, but... waaaah.
I have a personal theory that time off from work is necessary to both relax (lose stress, eat well, catch up on sleep) and recharge (forget about the details of work, break up routines, think of new approaches to problems). A normal weekend, or even a three-day weekend with an RDO, offers just a little relaxation, just enough to keep me going like usual. A full week's vacation both relaxes me and recharges me. I come back from it ready to turn a fresh eye to projects that were stale and stuff.
The problem is, a four-day weekend relaxes me a lot... but doesn't recharge me. So I go back to work half asleep and without the vigor of actually having had a serious amount of time off.
The problem was when I came back on Wednesday. I wasn't literally at my most unproductive, but I was pretty close. I was tired; I had started getting used to weekend mornings. I had stuff from my RDO to catch up on, unlike the usual weekend. By the time I had got through e-mails, meeting invites, reading the notes of a meeting, etc., I was just about mentally prepared for lunch. In the end, I did get a little stuff done yesterday, but... waaaah.
I have a personal theory that time off from work is necessary to both relax (lose stress, eat well, catch up on sleep) and recharge (forget about the details of work, break up routines, think of new approaches to problems). A normal weekend, or even a three-day weekend with an RDO, offers just a little relaxation, just enough to keep me going like usual. A full week's vacation both relaxes me and recharges me. I come back from it ready to turn a fresh eye to projects that were stale and stuff.
The problem is, a four-day weekend relaxes me a lot... but doesn't recharge me. So I go back to work half asleep and without the vigor of actually having had a serious amount of time off.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Such an ugly word
In addition to the doomed project, another project of mine is kind of dysfunctional as well. It's an odd problem: no one here cares about it. And no, I don't mean "this project is low on the agency's agenda" or even "everyone on the project team is as disaffected as me", I mean that this project literally has no benefits to this agency or the general public.
So why are we doing it? Because somebody agreed to it. As I've mentioned, every regulation we come up with goes through several other agencies for review. There's a standard set that every rulemaking by this agency goes through, and as far as I know every rulemaking by any agency in DC goes through for that matter. In addition, lots of rulemakings might need to be reviewed by or need approval from another depending on the details of it. Well, in one recent rulemaking, one reviewing body apparently asked for a quid pro quo. They'd sign off on our thing only if we'd do something for them. Basically, a survey. This rulemaking is an attempt at that.
There are several problems with this, which I'll go over in more detail later, but this post is late enough already. The most basic problem is the simple fact that no one here cares about this. Someone in this agency agreed to do it, and that agreement included a deadline, but no one actually cares about it. The survey is intended to give that other agency very general information about the state of a potential hazardous situation, nothing more specific than that, and any benefit to that agency or the general public is nebulous and indirect. Our agency got what we wanted out of this rulemaking project by promising to start it. Mission accomplished!
The word "blackmail" was used in a meeting a couple weeks ago to describe how the project got started, so you can tell just how much we care about it. We're trying, as duly ordered, but from our point of view it's almost objectively dumb.
So why are we doing it? Because somebody agreed to it. As I've mentioned, every regulation we come up with goes through several other agencies for review. There's a standard set that every rulemaking by this agency goes through, and as far as I know every rulemaking by any agency in DC goes through for that matter. In addition, lots of rulemakings might need to be reviewed by or need approval from another depending on the details of it. Well, in one recent rulemaking, one reviewing body apparently asked for a quid pro quo. They'd sign off on our thing only if we'd do something for them. Basically, a survey. This rulemaking is an attempt at that.
There are several problems with this, which I'll go over in more detail later, but this post is late enough already. The most basic problem is the simple fact that no one here cares about this. Someone in this agency agreed to do it, and that agreement included a deadline, but no one actually cares about it. The survey is intended to give that other agency very general information about the state of a potential hazardous situation, nothing more specific than that, and any benefit to that agency or the general public is nebulous and indirect. Our agency got what we wanted out of this rulemaking project by promising to start it. Mission accomplished!
The word "blackmail" was used in a meeting a couple weeks ago to describe how the project got started, so you can tell just how much we care about it. We're trying, as duly ordered, but from our point of view it's almost objectively dumb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)