techrecovery | Death of a thousand paper cuts! (Reply)

I've compiled this template from the worst aspects of missives received in over a decade of government work. Most of it should still apply to the corporate sector. After years of pointing out the same stupidities over and over again, I can't be bothered wasting my voice any longer. Now all I have to do is tick the appropriate categories and hand back the result.

Thank you for your suggestion/policy/change/other.

We have analysed this item and found that it does not suit our requirements at this time. This is because:

APPLICABILITY
[ ] The item was designed for and/or by an external group without knowledge of our requirements, and it shows
[ ] The item was designed for a much smaller group than ours, and does not scale
[ ] The item was designed for a much larger group than ours, and does not scale
[ ] The item was designed for a group completely unlike our own, and is not effectively translatable
[ ] The item could be modified to suit our group, but has not been

QUALITY
[ ] The inefficiencies inherent in the item are embarrassingly obvious
[ ] A much better version of the item already exists
[ ] A much better version of the item could be created with a few minutes' thought
[ ] A much better version of the item could be created with a few hours' thought
[ ] A much better version of the item could be created with a few days' thought
[ ] ... and, in fact, already has been
[ ] ... by me
[ ] ... on my lunch break
[ ] This item does not appear to provide any real-world benefits whatsoever
[ ] While the principle of the item is valid, the execution is flawed
[ ] The item is possibly sound, but is not being applied in accordance with its own instructions
[ ] The underlying principle(s) of the item is/are flawed
[ ] This item will cause future inefficiencies in excess of any benefits
[ ] This item will cause future complications in excess of any benefits
[ ] This item has been designed by people who have little or no recent real-world experience doing the job(s) that will be affected, and it shows
[ ] The item relies on insufficient data
[ ] The item relies on incorrect data
[ ] The item relies on no data, just fuzzy feelings
[ ] The item contains logical contradictions
[ ] The item relies on buzzwords, acronyms or jargon known only to the author
[ ] The item is incomprehensible in parts
[ ] The item is incomprehensible in totality
[ ] The item appears to be written in a language other than plain English
[ ] No, seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about

AWARENESS
[ ] A much better version of the item already exists
[ ] A much better version of the item is already in use
[ ] Much better versions of the item have already been submitted
[ ] ...multiple times
[ ] ...by people who know what they're talking about
[ ] ...because they actually do the work

PURPOSE
[ ] This item seeks to increase the efficiency or abilities of one group while decreasing that of another, causing an overall decrease in efficiency and/or productivity
[ ] This item seeks to shuffle the onus for a task from those actually paid for it to us
[ ] This item seeks to increase the amount of administration associated with a previously simple task, without a corresponding increase in measurable benefit for the group performing the task
[ ] This item appears designed to promote interests and directions not aligned with our own
[ ] This item appears designed to promote interests and directions unrelated to our own
[ ] This item appears designed to promote interests and directions directly opposing our own
[ ] This item appears designed purely to appear to be 'doing something', not to provide any genuine benefits
[ ] This item appears designed as an exercise in buzzword compliance
[ ] This item runs counter to our principles - we Won't Do That Here

COMPLETENESS
[ ] Probable negative consequences of this item have not been addressed satisfactorily
[ ] This item has been submitted before, possibly under a different name. It failed then and the author has failed to indicate why he or she thinks it will be different this time around
[ ] The item is curiously vague about exactly how proposed benefits will be accomplished
[ ] The item is curiously vague about exactly how likely side effects will be addressed

ADMINISTRATIVE
[ ] This item is too expensive
[ ] This item is not expensive enough
[ ] This item has been submitted to the wrong area - we Don't Do That Here
[ ] The item is attempting to micromanage, and the details should be handled at a lower level
[ ] The item is outside scope, and the policies should be approved at a higher level
[ ] The item has not been endorsed or approved by the people who will be responsible for dealing with the results

SCOPE
[ ] Although some of the people affected by the item are in the correct group, the item will also negatively affect people outside the area of responsibility
[ ] Although some of the people affected by the item are in the correct group, the item does not affect all relevant people

IMPLEMENTATION
[ ] This item has been handed down by fiat
[ ] ...despite requiring careful pre-tuning and consultation to make it palatable
[ ] ...despite requiring careful pre-tuning and consultation to make it workable
[ ] ...despite being unworkable in its current form
[ ] ...despite being fundamentally unworkable at all
[ ] This item has been bogged down in local tweakfests
[ ] ...despite the tweakers not being those who will be affected
[ ] ...despite the tweakers not making any useful headway
[ ] ...despite the tweakers lacking the skills to modify it effectively
[ ] ...despite the item not requiring extensive tweaking
[ ] ...despite requiring implementation by fiat