Reply to: Attention seeking post

[2BIT]

if it was me I'd be explaining the situation to someone senior, not mentioning any names and stating that I was working to a Baselined document which subsequently got changed, I would say that had I been aware of this change there would have been a change request process where the new reqs were agreed and the project schedule changed to include the new work, then the design docs would have been updated to reflect that reissued and signed-off again.

put in purely professional terms the senior bod should see that you've only done what you could do and that shoe-horning extra work into a base-lined project schedule never works

so yeah kind of repeating what everyone else has said but this really shouldn't be an issue and to be fair the PM should have spotted this sooner

[d000hg]

Options please? Gun-toting killing spree is already on the list

Go back to coding where you don't have so much responsibility and don't have to talk to people?

[OwlHoot]

Doesn't that risk volunteering to be the scapegoat for future cock-ups?

Yes, and in the client's eyes it would be half way to admitting he should have checked for past cock-ups, in other words a bit _too_ accommodating.

[RichardCranium]

You can even tell them that next time you won't assume to be informed if documents are changed and you'll regularly check the archive in future.

Doesn't that risk volunteering to be the scapegoat for future cock-ups?

[BlasterBates]

Just go back to whoever pointed that out to you and explain why it happened.

No harm in doing that. Natural thing is to have a post-mortem on these things to make sure it doesn't happen again. You can even tell them that next time you won't assume to be informed if documents are changed and you'll regularly check the archive in future. Then it sounds like how you personally will make sure this doesn't happen again, without just laying blame. "Oh I was silly enough to assume that I would be informed about changes, so next time I'll double check".

[doodab]

Act like, yeah it's OK, I'm so laid back and uber professional I don't mind the constant and soul destroying incompetance that plagues my working life from you tosspots.

That pretty sums up the last two years of my working life.

[Moscow Mule]

*Always* check the document history first.

[suityou01]

Weeeeeeeeeeellllllllllll,

Given that I've met you and think that you're a really really top top bloke, and given that we now know we have the same client co, I would say this isn't unusual and there really is no hope for them. Find a way to get a rate rise out of it and you are good.

Yeah I know. No help for them really. While I sit here and simmer thinking about the hot coals I was dragged over.

[doodab]

I need a group hug guys.

I just got a huge kicking for a requirements gap in a spec that I wrote last October. The subsequent deliverable is deemed not fit for purpose and has been dropped from the release.

I was brought to book and shown the section in the related high level requirements document. Sure enough there it was and it was not in my f-spec.

So I wanted to know how I missed it. Berating myself I opened the DMS and located the document. Opened it. Read and re-read the section. Then I checked the document revision history. This section was added a month after sign off of the f-spec and the document owner did not warn me.

I'm not sure what approach to take with ClientCo. I am rightly pissed off.

Options please? Gun-toting killing spree is already on the list

Weeeeeeeeeeellllllllllll,

Given that I've met you, and given that we now know we have the same client co, I would say this isn't unusual and there really is no hope for them. Find a way to get a rate rise out of it and you are good.

[RichardCranium]

the best instruction I ever had were so long ago they were on the back of a penny black

"Lick it, stick it and shove it"?

[suityou01]

The same guys.

[MarillionFan]

[EternalOptimist]

I find the whole situation ubelievable. you mean you actually had a spec and doc control ????


luxury.

here, I get bargepoled and I dont even know if its my fault , the best instruction I ever had were so long ago they were on the back of a penny black

[Freamon]

Options please? Gun-toting killing spree is already on the list

It's a failure of communication. Whoever added the requirement should have passed on the change so that the func spec, tech spec etc could have been updated. Proper requirements management tools and processes will take care of this.

1. Calmly and discreetly show them the audit trail that demonstrates the requirement was added after the func spec was agreed. Don't gloat about it or get upset, or seek to harm whoever did it. This shows them you're not to blame.

2. Offer to implement the requirement, if at all possible, even if it means the module is added after go-live. This shows willing and a team working mentality. If this means they have to extend you, they only have themselves to blame.

3. Point out that the requirements management process is broken. Two parts to this:
a) There may have been other requirements added which haven't made it into the code. This needs checking.
b) A proper process needs to be put in place for the next project. Suggest they extend your contract a few weeks so you can get this in place.

[MarillionFan]

Which is what? Send them an unnecessarily large image file?

Upgrade to broadband Grandad.