Even though I don't do what you do, I know what you should be using better than you.
-
TLDR: "I'll just ignore the rather specific list I asked for, and you gave me, and give some of you what I think you need, even if it turns out to be more expensive/useless/I have no idea LULWUT"
Me, this morning: Hey, $LINE_MANAGER, that shopping list of stuff that the 5 of us in $DEPARTMENT sent you back in November; the one you asked us for...
$LINE_MANAGER: Yes...
Me: When are we getting the stuff on it? I mean we gave you specific links to the hardware we wanted? And it wasn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things.
$LINE_MANGER: Oh - we decided to order only two desktop computers to see what they were like.
Me; The ones we linked to?
$LINE_MANGER: No, ones that (someone? who?) thought were better than the ones you wanted. [And probably 2-4x more expensive]
I await to see
- How inferior to our specifically linked to hardware the stuff that does arrive is
- Who, out of the 5 people in the dept who ordered stuff, actually gets something.
-
I see the uncategorized bug got you, too.
-
Oh fer fucks sake - wondered why I had so few replies...
-
This is called "management". I see nothing out of the ordinary here.
-
More like 'manglement' which is the colloquial term for it over on ASR, and probably Dilbert.
-
If it was the Balkans, I would have thought the upper management had "plugged themselves in" into the procurement. Not sure if that's likely in UK, though.
-
Not sure if that's likely in UK, though.
Never got a reason, and was too busy to press the issue.
I'll wait until #1 and #2 get resolved before I start
COMPLAINingposting on here about it.
-
Not sure if that's likely in UK, though.
What we lack in corruption we make up for in sheer incompetence.
-
I'll just ignore the rather specific list I asked for, and you gave me, and give some of you what I think you need
That's standard practice pretty much everywhere. I once asked for a 1U server for a small application that would never see any measurable load (this was before virtualization was popular). They told me the corporate standard was a specific model of 2U server and that corporate standards dictate that each component run on a different server. The reason given was to reduce the cost of management.
Of course, their hardware solution that reduced the cost of management costs $100K more than necessary, and there's no way it would have saved the $20K per year that would be necessary to break even.
-
-
More like 'manglement' which is the colloquial term for it over on ASR, and probably Dilbert.
I kept reading that as 'management' was confused how that was different from what @Boner said.
Fail.
