92 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
92 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
id:
|
|
aliases: []
|
|
title: 2026-02-04 08:07:00
|
|
tags:
|
|
- authorship/original
|
|
- destiny/permanent
|
|
- status/draft
|
|
- type/timestamped
|
|
- occupational
|
|
dg-publish: true
|
|
daily: "[[2026-02-04]]"
|
|
---
|
|
# 2026-02-04 08:07:00
|
|
|
|
## 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?
|