Death of a thousand paper cuts!

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

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

- did I miss anything?

(And yes, I have used this one on genuine management mewlings. But it needs more evil.)

(x-posted to journal)

Comments

[lordstorm.livejournal.com]

...despite requiring implementation by fiat

Teehee, I like that one. :)

[samwize.livejournal.com]

OUTSTANDING. I'm definitely ganking this one.

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

Heh. My own favorite is the sequence ending in "...on my lunch break", which I added after yet another tweak to shift times was handed down. Ludicrously complicated and inefficient, so I produced one in a couple of lunch breaks which cleared up 90% of the scheduling problems we'd had in the past five years and reduced our peak incoming call load by fifteen percent into the bargain.

And I did it using a single guideline - "Don't hold the mandatory tech-level meetings in the morning, because that's when most of our calls are coming in."

Hilarously, a mid-manager who had been on the short end of my temper over mismicromanagement issues was reluctantly persuaded (not by me) to glance at my charts and derived schedules. She did a double-take, and later asked oh-so-casually where I might place the weekly mid-management meeting to best effect.

Damn, I miss the days when our management team had several people with half a clue in it. We have so many stats on our incoming workloads that we're drowning in them and have two people permanently employed doing datamining on them. It's not hard to call up average load factors in 30-minute blocks over the past couple of months and then overlay the shift times, meetings, lunches, breaks etc to match up. Instead, we're given monkey-scribble resulting in insane call-queue delays interspersed with dead zones.

I should wear a T-shirt saying "Why am I having to do your job for you?"

[jecook]

::applause::

Mind if I share this with my co-workers, who will unboutdully find it amusing as well? Hell, I think my boss might even like it, and he's under the crosshairs in a few of those.. ::snicker::

[shirenomad]

Because I'm totally anal like that, I must point out that "A much better version of the item already exists" is in both Quality and Awareness.

But oh, I had a job where the last few checks would be filled every time. Often followed by "let's sit on it for a while and come back to it later" (which translates to "I'll forget the entire project exists in a couple days").

[kayfox.livejournal.com]

This is the one Ive been using to email back fea/req people lately:

Bugzilla#:
Division:
Product:
Component:
Description:

In regards to Bugzilla bug #xxxx that has been marked as a feature request or request for improvement.

Unfortunately your request cannot be implemented for one or more of the following reasons:

* Your request violates internal Good Design Practices as established for the product in reference.
* Your request violates established company policy.
* Your request cannot be implemented in a reasonable amount of time.
* Your request cannot be implemented without an unreasonable expenditure.
* Your request cannot be implemented using currently available technology.
* Your request has already been implemented.
* Your request was vetoed by management, design or administration staff.

Please see the Bugzilla entry for further details.

We do thank you for taking the time to make the request, as always we welcome such requests and try to reasonably accommodate them.

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

Go for it!

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

Yup. It kind of fits both, so for the moment I'm putting it in twice.