[CLUE-Talk] Quality comments

[Grant Johnson]

> >
> > He is right.  99% of the time, the "quality" initiatives I have seen spend
> > so much on administration of the effort, that they are
> > counter-productive.  I was in a CMM level 3 organization.  In order to
> > achieve this level, a full 1/4 of the staff did nothing but administer the
> > program, and the other 3/4 were micro-managed into hating their lives and
>
>Yes, even I hate it when someone finds my mistakes, and depending on how
>they approach me, I'll either hit them with the nerf arrows for pointing

It isn't the pointing out of mistakes.  It is the paper trail and jumping 
through hoops that takes so much more time that doing the job that you no 
longer have time to do the job right.

>You can only go as fast as the weakest worker no matter how hard you
>try, that's the bottleneck of ANY organization.  Either that person is

This is untrue.  An organization can go faster than the slowest individual, 
if that individual is given a task they are capable of, and the task is 
broken up to the point that they can keep up.  True, some tasks cannot be 
broken up further, but these are few and far between.  This is usually the 
result of understanding the big picture, but failing to understand the 
parts that make it up.  This is often not understood by those in charge, 
which is OK, but they still will not trust their employees to help them 
with that, not OK.

> > has to do with the approach, and not every little detail.  Most
> > importantly, it allows for CHANGE.  Not following the "standard" can be
> > good.  Sometimes the "standard" becomes outdated.  At that point, it is
>
>But you've missed the point, EVERY methodology follows a process and
>you've just pointed out that the "standard" was improved, but why wasn't
>it put into the process?  Just because it's an "improvement," doesn't
>mean that it will work ALL the time, but if there isn't a chance to try
>the improvement, then I would guess that fear/ignorance/skepticism/etc
>is keeping the improvement from being adopted, much like Linux in
>corporate IT department.
You have answered your own question.  The fact that no ONE thin is best for 
everything means that there can be no standard.  In order to have the best 
practices at all times, it would have to be total anarchy.  This is 
obviously not reasonable, so a balance must be struck, usually involving 
taking what you are responsible for, and breaking it down, then passing it 
off to others if it is too much for one person, then trusting them to find 
the best way.


> > nearly impossible to change in a CMM environment, and cannot be deviated
> > from, even if it is a better solution.
>
>The reason for the "impossibility" for change is to ensure that ALL of
>the parties involved understand the change and how it may affect them.
>The key issue is when you change one aspect, how does it change the
>system.  You and I both know that we've made changes lots of times where
>it has caused more problems which causes fear to stop ANY changes. Most
>people don't want to find out WHY something happens.

See above....;)

Remember that our efforts cause a full 1/4 of the staff to do nothing but 
administer the effort, not to mention the fact that over half of every 
other staff member's time was taken up by conforming to their standards, 
rather than producing anything.

The only way I have seen that works is to trust those in the 
trenches.  They know what works.  Give them ownership of their part.  If 
they know it is theirs, they will do it better.  Partly out of pride, 
partly out of knowing if it breaks, they will have to deal with it.