🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <a9390719.04112...@posting.google.com>, 
inferno2000 <infer...@my-deja.com> writes
>Joe62 <NOSPAM...@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
>news:<krl5q0prljb2d5onn...@4ax.com>...
>> "Augustus" <Imperia...@Rome.com> wrote:
>>
>> >First: Is this problem, the big crunch time, the result of EA and its
>> >management?  Or is it the result of the people working before the crunch
>> >time?  Case in point: My own company.  I've had a few times in the past 2
>> >years where we've had a big crunch time at the end to meet a deadline (where
>> >everybody is working 15-18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a month) and in
>> >every case it was because someone down the line was slacking off and wound
>> >up delaying the project for a couple of weeks where everybody had no choice
>> >but to sit around for 3 or 4 weeks waiting for him to catch up with the rest
>> >of us... and then we had to put in all the overtime to get back on schedule.
>>
>> What a load of HORSESHIT. Schedule slippages are always management's
>> fault. In every case. By definition. It is management's JOB to manage
>> schedules, people, and sort out dependencies before they cause
>> problems. If it's not happening, you are not doing YOUR job. Don't
>> blame some worker because your project managers are lazy or
>> incompetent.
>>
>Just curious as to the reasoning behind this. The project manager
>assigned a chap 1 week to finish certain work, which he failed to
>complete. The project manager then has no choice but to reassign some
>of the work to others on the team, so now everyone has to work for
>some extra hours to catch up. And it becomes the project manager's
>fault? Or should the person who fails to finish the assigned tasks on
>schedule should be fired?
>
>I would really like to know about everyone's opinions on this.   :-)
Very clear, it is the PM's fault. It is his job to identify a piece of 
work which will take a week (or whatever), assign it to someone who is 
capable of completing the work in the time, and then monitor progress to 
ensure it happens. If the employee had been with the company some time, 
the PM should have known their capabilities, or found out. If the 
employee was a new hire, then the PM should not have assigned them to a 
critical task, and/or should have monitored progress closely enough to 
take corrective action in time. If it turns out that the employee is 
incompetent then they may eventually be sacked because they are not up 
to the job, of course, but the blame for the late delivery of the 
project lies squarely with the PM. It is a constant refrain from weak 
PMs whose jobs are late - "It's all Jim's fault, he did a bad job". It 
is the PM's responsibility to ensure that Jim does the job right, or 
give it to someone who can.
-- 
John Secker