From 6bfae1f3ca9ccc71eec70d478bf6173b9197b1b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zane Meyers Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 08:57:59 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] vault backup: 2026-02-04 08:57:59 --- 2026-02-04.md | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 91 insertions(+) create mode 100644 2026-02-04.md diff --git a/2026-02-04.md b/2026-02-04.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6d57620 --- /dev/null +++ b/2026-02-04.md @@ -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?