communication of resource needs?

[HgTX]

How do you deal with superiors who just don't understand what's required to perform a particular task?

There have been several threads here where someone writes in to say that they're being asked to do too much with too little time and manpower, and answers come back to tell the Powers That Be something like, "Here are the resources I have, here are the needs I have, here is what I can accomplish with those resources, how shall I prioritize, or can I have more resources?"

Which makes great sense if the PtB are sensible, or trust their people's estimation of needed resource. But is there anything to be done about PtB that have made up their own minds about the time or amount of effort required to accomplish something, and won't listen to the trenches?

Data from past projects would be a really good tool, but usually this is not available, or not readily quantifiable, or sufficiently different that it doesn't quite apply, etc.

Any advice, or are we resigned to shaking our heads over the stubbornness and ignorance of the PtB?

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[ash9144]

The situation I often see is the upper level folks remember the good old days when they were in a similar position and therefore have romanticized views of how well they did their jobs. "....and we walked to work up hill in the snow both ways".
Usually you just have to let the systems fail rather than try to make everything work out and meet deadlines. Do one thing correctly and diligently then move to next. If the progress is too slow point out exactly where the delay is or where some specific resource could help.

 

[SNORGY]

There is a soon-to-become-famous empirical correlation that describes, succinctly, why this is an impossible issue to resolve.

PtB = MBA

Enough said.

Not that I am in any way bitter...

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[KENAT]

HgTX

Some of the the approaches you mention are more about a$$ covering than actually helping to meet the requirement/convince PtB that the requirement is unachievable.

Sometimes, they just can't be persuaded of reality.

I've heard phrases like 'managing expectation' banded around but not sure that in itself helps you.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[sam74]

That would happen a lot in the consulting industry because of budget constraints and the managements need to turn a profit by achieving whatever was in the scope of work by utilizing their resources (you) in a timely manner. Then of course the management charges some time to the job to remain somewhat billable but don't actually do anything which takes away from your budgeted time. The management knows what profit they want to achieve and based on your rate know how many hours they can afford you to work to get the job done so they know the schedule you need to achieve. Whether it is unrealistic or not.

I would ask to see if I could be included in defining the scope of work on RFPs for upcoming projects so you could have some input on what you think has been in the past unrealistic expectations. Maybe send it in an email to several of the PtB.

I got to do that a little bit at my last job before being laid-off. I learned a lot.

 

[moltenmetal]

When tasked with failure, your job is to fail as gracefully as possible. It took me years to learn that one.

This permission to fail when it is inevitable does not excuse you from your responsibility to communicate what is needed to succeed up-front, to track and communicate the failure as it is occurring so there is plenty of warning, to ask for priorities as to what portions of the work can be salvaged successfully. It also does not excuse you from the need to work hard and creatively to find ways to achieve at least measured, partial success with what you've been given.

What concerns me is that it appears that you have estimates of what the task will take to accomplish, but no data to support those estimates. Your "superiors" have their own estimates which differ from yours. Could they be right?

Killing yourself and your team with uncompensated overtime to get the thing done with fewer resources than needed simply teaches your "superiors" that they were right all along! You can then expect even LESS resources on the next one!

Implied permission to fail is only true if the failure will only result in economic harm or harm to reputation etc.: if the failure will put people's lives at risk, you've got yourself into a real pickle. The only way to win that game is to avoid playing, and your fiduciary responsibility will probably not end with merely quitting.

 

[HgTX]

Very small example:

PtB: "I could knock that out in 30 minutes."
Reality: It took me four hours, and I'm one of the fastest workers here. I'd bring that up as a point of data correction, but I don't know how to do so without looking petty. (Don't get me wrong, I feel pretty damn petty at the moment, but it does me no good to LOOK petty. I already got a dirty look when, after they suggested I join a particular national committee, I pointed out that they're already not funding me to attend the meetings of the committee I'm already on. Reality doesn't go over very well, or else I just don't have the skills to deliver it properly.)


Larger example: They want in-house training developed/updated. Some of the existing training was developed by someone who at the time had nothing to do all day but develop training. Some training was developed by someone else who did have other things to do, but used to be one of a staff of 20 and now is one of 6, without a corresponding drop on workload for that group. In both cases, they developed training for themselves to give, which was a much easier job than than the current task, which is to develop training that can be handed off to someone else to give rather than depending on one particular person to stay with the organization. Those of us who have been involved in outside task groups to develop commercially available training know that there are dozens of development hours (at least) for every hour of class time. PtB just flat don't buy that estimate, because when this training was developed 20 years ago (not by the PtB) it just didn't seem to the PtB (who had not themselves done the development) like that big a deal--and there is enough difference between developing something for internal vs. external consumption to give them the excuse to dismiss our more recent experience.


The real problem is not, however, missing some arbitrary deadline. The real problem is the calculation that goes into outsourcing this training vs. doing it in-house. If they don't believe our estimate of the in-house costs not just for development but for maintenance of the in-house training, we can't convince them that outsourcing is the way to go.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376