• Fedaykin (unregistered) in reply to asfafwfeaaw
    Psst... It's only scope creep if the system hasn't been implemented yet.

    There was no need to get pissed off at the user. She can call her functionality it whatever the hell she wants. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that it didn't work the way should thought it would. Here are the available choices:

    1. Bitch and snivel that her "bug" isn't a "bug" and that it's something else.

    2. Do your job as an IT person and find out what she really wants, find out how long it would take, try to slot it in somewhere, and charge whoever has the money a boatload.

    Which one do you think gets you further?

    Option 2 appears to be what he was doing.

    It's pretty clear a lot of folk here have never worked in a contracting environment where there is a big difference between a defect fix and an enhancement or change.

    It's quite possible that the system in question was under a performance based contract, where the client would not be required pay for bug fixes, but would be required to pay for new features or changes to existing functionality. It sounds like the client was trying to get free enhancements done by calling them bugs.

  • (cs) in reply to SomeCoder
    SomeCoder:
    Allowing users to change their minds is one thing. Allowing them to file mind changes as bugs is quite another.

    If the user signed off on the spec, that is what they agreed to get. Obviously users don't know what they want but it's your job (or the architect/software engineer's job) to translate what they want/need based on what they say and what they do.

    In this particular case it sounds to me like a communication problem, and the architect/software engineer failed to translate properly. The user didn't change her mind, she even agreed with what she signed off on. But it didn't perform the way she expected it to perform.

  • vaitrafra (unregistered)

    Oh man, i love to see Italy once in a while on the TDWTF.

    It feels like we're on the market too.

    that was Itlay, was it?

  • (cs)

    Reading these last few featured articles has really started making me appreciate my job/boss. See David, it could be worse.

  • Jay (unregistered)

    It's a bizarre day when I am the voice of moderation, but surely we need to find a middle ground.

    I've seen plenty of times when the IT people demanded that the user write a precise and detailed requirements document before they would begin work, and no changes were allowed. And inevitably, no one was happy. Because when you're trying to describe something new and complex that has never existed before, it's difficult to visualize ahead of time how all the pieces will fit together and how it will all really work.

    But the other extreme is the users who say that they'll know what they want when they see it.

    I have fond memories of a project where a month after we deployed one of the high-ranking users said at a meeting that he wanted a certain report. I replied that we couldn't do that because no such report had ever been included in the requirements. He replied -- actual words -- "Well, I didn't think we needed to spell out every report. I just took it for granted that the system would be able to produce any report I needed."

    Another fond memory is the boss who signed a contract with a customer promising that we would make any changes requested by the customer at any time for no additional charge. I no longer work at that company because they went bankrupt. Can't imagine why.

  • Bowie (unregistered) in reply to Mark

    ....But it's got 'lectrolytes!!!

  • Nathan (unregistered) in reply to Mark

    Must... resist... urge... to kill... stupid... tester..

  • Harisenbon (unregistered)

    nono. They're just VERY happy about WoW and gold, and want to share.

  • Mat (unregistered)

    WTF - why would you want to build a web app for only one user? And why, many months later, would you want to convert a winforms app to a web app for just a handful of data entry users?

  • PhysicsPhil (unregistered) in reply to Harisenbon

    Alex said ealier that he thought that it was actually a human crapflooding the site.

  • (cs) in reply to Mat
    Mat:
    WTF - why would you want to build a web app for only one user? And why, many months later, would you want to convert a winforms app to a web app for just a handful of data entry users?

    Because the user want it to be done that way. But the user has to pay for it. And this is were you have be smart when getting calls like the one from Sheila.

    Your first response is about the original contract being finished. Your second response is give tell her that you will forward her request to the sales team. Then you try to terminate the call.

    Sounds kinda rude, doesn't it ? It sorta is. But it doesn't matter because it is a government customer. At a government customer, somebody like Sheila who doing data entry work is insignificant, very much so. Sheila was in all likelihood trying to get free changes off an inexperienced contractor in order to be able to show in front off her boss(es) and then intending to be put in charge of the new data entry group. It is very much possible that she has no backing from her boss about a move like that at this time; her boss may not even know about it.

    Because if the customer wants it changed, there would be a tender.

    Duh.

  • Dave (unregistered)

    Who's the twat in the picture then?

  • ArbitrarilyComplicated (unregistered) in reply to Mat
    Mat:
    WTF - why would you want to build a web app for only one user? And why, many months later, would you want to convert a winforms app to a web app for just a handful of data entry users?
    Dude, because then it's freaking WEB ENABLED!!!!111! If Sheila manages to make something in her department web-enabled then she'll have another bullet to add to her "awesome things I did for the department" list, which will put her higher up on the heap when promotions are handed out.

    Whether making it a web app helps or makes any sense matters not: it's all about the buzzwords in the bullet list.

  • Carra (unregistered)

    Aha, reminds me of how a university in Belgium digitalized their papers.

    Send them to a third world country and let them type it all in.

    Done!

  • Dave (unregistered) in reply to cklam
    cklam:

    Your first response is about the original contract being finished. Your second response is give tell her that you will forward her request to the sales team. Then you try to terminate the call.

    Sounds kinda rude, doesn't it ? It sorta is. But it doesn't matter because it is a government customer.

    Perhaps it's just me, but that doesn't sound rude at all. Someone wants some work done, they have to pay for it.

    I worked for a shitty small games company once and when nearly everyone had left because it was a shitty company run by a wanker I sometimes answered the phone, and I couldn't believe some of the twats out there. One of them wanted free advice about how to use some app which I'd never heard of (certainly it didn't have any connection with the company I worked for). Unbelievable.

  • (cs) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    I've seen plenty of times when the IT people demanded that the user write a precise and detailed requirements document before they would begin work,
    You absolutely must have a well defined set of requirements otherwise how do you know what you are building? How do you know when you have finished? How do you know what is a bug and what is an enhancement?
    and no changes were allowed.
    Having a precise and detailed requirement specification is no bar to making changes. In fact it is an essential prerequisite to being able to figure out cost and impact of them.
    And inevitably, no one was happy. Because when you're trying to describe something new and complex that has never existed before, it's difficult to visualize ahead of time how all the pieces will fit together and how it will all really work.
    Prototyping should be part of the requirements process.
    But the other extreme is the users who say that they'll know what they want when they see it.
    The trouble is that "the users" are not a single entity with completely harmonious views. If you have a team of five users, you'll have five different visions of what the system should be.
    I have fond memories of a project where a month after we deployed one of the high-ranking users said at a meeting that he wanted a certain report. I replied that we couldn't do that because no such report had ever been included in the requirements. He replied -- actual words -- "Well, I didn't think we needed to spell out every report. I just took it for granted that the system would be able to produce any report I needed."
    The real WTF here is building a system without some flexibility of reporting so that you could build the report he wanted. I'm not saying you should have done it for free, but the correct answer is "yes we can give you that report, it's a change request and we'll get back to you on pricing".
  • TInkerghost (unregistered) in reply to More
    More:
    CoderHero:
    I have to say, I'm rather unimpressed with your story, as your response indicates that you're more interested in completing a spec than fulfilling usability by the customer. Even if the spec did say "X", customers rarely know what they really want!

    Couldn't agree more. If you are one of those IT people who says "this is what you asked for, this is what you get" you will never get very far. If there is something strange in the specs (and something that you know the customer would think is a bug) it would be better to sort it out before development.

    Sadly, it's been my experience that the 'strange' things in the specs are the ones that the end user is most adamant about. 'They must be this way or nothing else will work!', until they try and use it & everything grinds to a halt. The worst is when everything works exactly to spec, but doesn't duplicate the bugs in old software so new reports don't match old reports. Nothing sucks worse than spending weeks ironing out all the possible edge cases, only to have to rip it all out because the old software didn't catch them - and the old software's results are canonical. I had a build that the end user agreed was much more accurate and complete, but management regarded it as defective because the reports on the archived data didn't match the old reports - even though they knew there were defects in the old reports.

    while (conscious){head.desk();}

  • (cs) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    I've seen plenty of times when the IT people demanded that the user write a precise and detailed requirements document before they would begin work
    [image]
  • Paul Warren (unregistered)

    This is why you should be vetting your clients.

  • Eddie (unregistered)

    When I was reading this I thought it would end otherwise. Graig got boxes full of paper to enter into the system. It would have been great if those were printed by his secretary who received the documents in electronic form... sigh

  • John Thomas (unregistered)

    Cool! Sunshine & warmth, great day to ride the Harley! Yey!

    JT http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com

  • val (unregistered) in reply to Eddie
    Eddie:
    When I was reading this I thought it would end otherwise. Graig got boxes full of paper to enter into the system. It would have been great if those were printed by his secretary who received the documents in electronic form... sigh
    that's it:) 5 or some more years ago... we had no laws dealing with digital information... so one sunny morning i came to my lovely basement (local authority) to see my boss runnnig in circles trying to get as many free computers and IT students for as much free as possible... the thing was one department issued loads of paper for the other department to put it in a new DB installed there to save time and money... and IT department was told to help in digitalizing the papers... it was sunny morning and my head was full of early autumn love... i was like ppl see they are forms, they are printed, there should be files behind them... they actually were... there actually was a DB behind those papers... the thing was according to law only paper info counts (?!?) so 2 departments situated in buildings 50 meters apart from each other transfer info from one DB to the other in large boxes full of still warm paper and it was right (!?!) i took 2 weeks off just to preserve sanity. when i came back we had full basement of young ppl getting paid by the hour for using 4 new bought scanners, and cool OCR software (to have plain text info for others to copy paste into the DB) and the 1st department had bought 2 new speedy network laser printers. that's how one should save money with IT. actually we still don't have sane laws to deal with digital information. more precisely any logic escapes governmental implementations of law words. let it be some imaginary country on this lovely globe;) but our OCR software is the bestiest trust me)))
  • DW (unregistered)

    Craig by the sounds of it was only good at one thing (if that)... data input.

    I think its a bit strange tho "Sergio was so happy because he was, to a large degree, in charge. He'd determine the architecture, the database design, and he was in charge of gathering requirements "

    Surley Sergio being in charge he would of made the choice of application of web application and not left it to a single data inputter?

    Did Sergio ever get that web app ugrade done that day?? lol

  • Dalen (unregistered)

    Finally, a relatively happy ending. I wonder if the guy hooked up with that Sheila chick in the end.

  • plesch (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark

    As a person possessed of 50% Hungarian DNA, with said DNA being used by the usual replicators and interpreters to result in causing me to be, I can say that statistically speaking, your proper noun is redundant.

    I can't offer a racially charged opinion on whether it'd be better to drop "maniac" or "Hungarian" though.

Leave a comment on “Completing the Circle”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article