• (cs) in reply to Patrick

    Regardless as to weather or not the object is by reference, or by value

    worst spell of weather I've seen for ages...

  • (cs) in reply to reptar

    reptar:
    By the way, I once inherited a C# system where the people who originally coded it "didn't like this new ADO.NET thing" and wrote their own "data layer" which wrapped up ADO.NET and put a record cursor on it so it worked exactly like Recordset.

    So they reinvented ADODB.dll?

  • elKodos (unregistered) in reply to ammoQ
    ammoQ:

    Anonymous:
    The contractor got what he deserved, it seems to me.  The problem appeared to be caused by a last-minute untested change, but he thinks his own ad-hoc change is infallible.  Fixing code in emergency mode is risky, fixing someone else's code even more so.  He should have got the warehouse going in as conservative a way as possible.

    IMO, minimum risk would be to (1) do an inquiry (using SQL admin tools if necessary) to find the part, (2) advise the warehouse to pick it and ship it without system involvement, if necessary -- there's always a way, (3) advise the warehouse to do whatever inventory and billing adjustments were necessary the following day once authorized coders knew of the work-around, and (4) write up a quick summary of this work-around to submit to the boss the next day.

    Some adjustment to this 4-step program might be needed if it seemed that the system would be hanging repeatedly through the night on other parts, but in this particular emergency situation, the principle of minimizing risk seems to trump the principle of minimizing work.

    If he plays it that way, likely he doesn't even get reamed for unauthorized hours.

    Since I have made a dozen or so warehouse management system projects during the last decade, I can assure you that ad-hoc hacks to solve some problems are normal in such projects. Because warehouse management invariably involves the movement of physical goods; in most cases, the capacity of the workforce is just enough for the daily job. In other words, if they lose e.g. 6 hours because of a system failure, it may take a week or longer to recover the lost time; till then, many customers will receive their ordered goods too late.

    For that reason, every problem is fixed as soon as possible; if the fix doesn't work, it's fixed again; if it becomes much worse than before, the old version is re-installed. Obviously, it pays very soon to write (mostly) bug-free, maintainable, robust software with a lot of sanity checks and logging.

    You're bang-on about delivery pressures.  I've done lots of warehouse-related work myself, and also made many ad-hoc changes in code that I was responsible for.

    I think contractor Ivan was the wrong guy.

    I interpreted "unauthorized software change" at an "unauthorized time" to mean Ivan wasn't responsible for - and likely not familiar with - the code, and shouldn't even have been in the building at the time.

    And the new communication module - the implied proximate cause of the problem - was installed before the nephew left for the day.  Unless the nephew left at 1:30 am, the warehouse had been running ok for hours before manifesting the problem, and would likely run ok for hours again once the anomalous product had been cleared.

    Now mix in my theory that every organization which has survived its birth pangs is run as if its primary goal is to preserve the incumbent hierarchy, and that profitability and quality of product/service are secondary goals whose fulfillment supports the primary one.  I wouldn't claim that theory is exactly correct, but I can't remember a case where it's led me astray.

    In light of the three points above, I'm saying Ivan could have realized that he was treading on thin ice, and that he had an opportunity to take very light steps.

    It looks like Ivan's a quick study at identifying and correcting problems, and in the non-existent "ideal" world, he would get the credit he deserves.  In the at-hand real world, I suspect Ivan is using this experience as a data-point towards his own theory of organizational motivation.

    Perhaps Alex could PS his original post: after Ivan's dressing-down, did he ask his boss, "How would you have preferred me to handle it?"  If so, what was his boss's response?

  • ricardo (unregistered) in reply to GrandmasterB

    Amateur?

    You mean: saboteur .

  • (cs)

    The real missing screw is the one from the system developer's head.

    (Why didn't anyone make this joke? You guys are slipping.)
     

Leave a comment on “The Mystery of the Missing Screw ”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article