vault backup: 2026-02-04 08:57:59
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id:
|
||||
aliases: []
|
||||
title: 2026-02-04
|
||||
tags:
|
||||
- authorship/original
|
||||
- destiny/permanent
|
||||
- status/draft
|
||||
- type/daily
|
||||
dg-publish: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
# 2026-02-04
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-02-04 08:07
|
||||
|
||||
### Questions for ConEst
|
||||
|
||||
#### Purpose of ConEst
|
||||
|
||||
What is the purpose of ConEst?
|
||||
To comb for requirements Bid missed?
|
||||
To create the CBOM for Ops?
|
||||
Anything else?
|
||||
How do they rank in importance?
|
||||
|
||||
Why are other departments so confused about ConEst's purpose?
|
||||
(Ops stakeholder auditing CBOM to Joel: "missing screws")
|
||||
If we don't know, and Ops doesn't know, who does?
|
||||
That is, who defines our purpose?
|
||||
|
||||
#### ConEst Organization
|
||||
|
||||
What freedom does ConEst have to change its process and deliverables?
|
||||
suppose a plan to have Bid, with their request for ConEst,
|
||||
articulate certain requirements which they must have possessed to produce the bid estimate.
|
||||
Who would be involved in the change?
|
||||
Who would be the one to deny the request?
|
||||
|
||||
If Bid's proposals are audited,
|
||||
why do they still cause ConEst constant headache?
|
||||
("local lighting control")
|
||||
|
||||
Estimators and seniors are biased towards imprecision
|
||||
because its tolerance reduces monotonous work,
|
||||
but the logical conclusion of such bias is a Bid estimate.
|
||||
Obviously there is an ideal compromise
|
||||
between 1:1 takeoff to install and a square foot budget
|
||||
that ConEst is intended to produce.
|
||||
Who is ultimately responsible
|
||||
for defining the position of that point on the spectrum?
|
||||
How is it defined?
|
||||
How is it expected to be communicated to seniors and estimators?
|
||||
|
||||
##### Process Variation
|
||||
|
||||
What is an acceptable level of process variance senior to senior?
|
||||
To my mind the answer ought to be "none"
|
||||
or at least "as little as possible",
|
||||
since our process benefits greatly
|
||||
from every bit of consistency we can maintain,
|
||||
saying nothing of the fact that there usually _is_
|
||||
a better option between two.
|
||||
What's being done to address the variance which exists?
|
||||
What's being done to prevent it from re-emerging?
|
||||
|
||||
It's my belief that the most practical solution
|
||||
is the frequent rotation of estimators in senior teams.
|
||||
It's in the interest of estimators
|
||||
that their personal heuristics not depend on who they're working for,
|
||||
so they can be expected to call attention to inconsistency
|
||||
allowing it to be addressed permanently.
|
||||
|
||||
The only other option I can imagine
|
||||
is to document exact procedures for every scenario,
|
||||
which is obviously foolhardy.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Less Important
|
||||
|
||||
##### Proposal Transparency
|
||||
|
||||
Am I alone in feeling that our proposals are deceptive
|
||||
beyond reasonable explanation?
|
||||
Would I be better of keeping my mouth shut about it?
|
||||
|
||||
##### Incentives
|
||||
|
||||
Bonuses based on awarded profit
|
||||
incentivize problematic (hare-hunting) behavior.
|
||||
Has such behavior been observed,
|
||||
or has chief strategy been organization-aligned
|
||||
in spite of the incentive?
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user