RE: Work week

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
I'm glad to see that there are enlightened people like you out there,
jt. I sympathise with your problem of getting this, really quite
common-sense, message across to upper management.

There's another book in the same vein by deMarco  called "slack".

Alistair

-----Original Message-----
From: jt [mailto:jt@ee.net]
Sent: 09 October 2001 17:33
To: midrange-nontech@midrange.com
Subject: RE: Work week


Dave,

Thought this question important enough to clutter up the list with this
response...;=)

I call myself "Business Analyst" but basically I'm a contract programmer
("grunt for hire"...;=).
I work anywhere from zero to 80 - 100 hours per week, depending on the
circumstances.
I get compensated by the hour, so the issue doesn't really apply to me.


However, when I was manager of a small shop (varied from 1 1/2 to 4
P/As) I
was very strict in keeping the staff to 40 - 45 hours per week, and so I
took all calls and checked out the system, evenings and weekends.
Operators
worked 12-hours, except Saturday, but the computer worked 24/7.  (These
calls became fewer over the years, unless we had someone new working
weekends.  I, like Jeff, found it "definitely in my best interest to
make
sure stuff runs smoothly."  The systems ran, almost unattended for 6
years,
with only minimal maintenance, as the company grew from $200M to
$500M...)

My philosophy came mainly from reading a book called _Peopleware_ by Tom
DeMarco (and I think Timothy Lister) when I took over job as
manager-after
having only 6 months supervisory experience, back in the late 80's.
(REAL
fluke of nature, that one...;=)  Someone mentioned this same book in
another
post, in the last few weeks.  It's as pertinent today, as when it was
written.

They did scientific studies of productivity, and found that the
productivity
of the best in the business was (IIRC) up to TEN TIMES the productivity
of
the average programmer.  You don't see that kind of variance, in most
office
workers, but they documented it pretty well.

This book made real clear how "knowledge workers" are a lot different,
and
things that work with other types of work basically work AGAINST
productivity amongst "knowledge workers".  Long hours, for example.
(Important to keep in mind that "knowledge workers" are NOT BETTER THAN,
but
just different than other types of workers.  What I call "prima-donna
programmers" are their own worst enemy, in this regard.)


My philosophy, or "theory" if you prefer, has been re-confirmed by my
experience as a contractor.  My wife and I bill in 5-minute increments
and
have been doing this for over 6 years.  I have not done scientific
studies,
as far as logging and measuring the types of problems I've dealt with,
and
the time it took to solve them, and how many had to be re-visited.  But
the
discipline of marking out each and every break from work has led to the
following conclusion:

I can state that my experience is that there is an ***inverse
relationship
between how hard you work, and how much it costs to get the job done
right,
the first time***.


But my experience is also that people give a lot of lip service to the
idea
of "work smarter, not harder".  The fact is that the first solution is
rarely the best one, and it takes time and discipline to always look for
2
or 3 possible solutions, before selecting one to implement.  But I
believe
this is what sets apart the "men from the boys", and most anyone who's
been
in this business for a long time knows that there are certain people who
reach the level of "super-programmer":  Those who just recognize the
need to
take the time and who intuitively take the best of several possible
solutions.

The VERY BEST also recognize the given that the business imposes
constraints
of time and money.  (LUCKILY... or many of us would just pursue the
knowledge for it's own sake, and never put any of it into practice...
1/2
;=)  I also believe that the 400 community, coming from a base of small
shops, has a disproportionately (sp?) high percentage of these
"super-programmers".


My current boss is resistant to the idea that there is this inverse
relationship between "working hard" and getting results.  He is more
open
than most of the people that I've ever worked with, because it does not
make
logical sense that you can very possibly get more results working 2 or 3
hours a day (working at "110% efficiency") than 8, 10 or 12 hours per
day
(working at 50% efficiency or less).  I understand this resistance, as
it's
taken me 23 years to actually believe this myself.

But actually, it's just common sense.  You get far more results when you
get
"into a zone".  Michael Jordan scores like he does by keeping a balance
between working hard...  and relaxing~~~!  In a game of inches and
milliseconds, those who relax the best get the best results.  In my
view,
both analyzing system problems, and coding are no different, in this
respect.

Now, clearly, not every P/A can reach the level that Michael Jordan is
in
basketball.  But I can't help but wonder if more would be, if they
weren't
"worked into the ground".  BTW, that's one reason my wife and I exercise
(her far more than me).  Fatigue obviously works against thinking
clearly...
So I can't help but wonder if management provided some time off, to
offset
either long hours and/or high productivity, if that wouldn't pay
dividends
(with at least some people) of far, far better results.  Just an
unexpected
day off, every now and then, would work wonders IMHO.


I don't think the world is ready for P/As to work 2 or 3 hours per day
(but
then they could always spend the balance in trying to keep up with the
technology)...  But I'm just saying that this is what works best for me
and
my wife.  HTH.


James Jay Toran (jjt)

"Have a GREAT day...!  And a BETTER ONE TOMORROW~~~:=)" (sm)


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-nontech-admin@midrange.com
[mailto:midrange-nontech-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Dave Snyder
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 8:45 AM
To: midrange-nontech@midrange.com
Subject: Work week


Not to stir up a real long discussion, but I am interested in finding
out
some work schedules of others. My company has recently "sprung" on its
technology group extended work hour requirements, in addition to being
on
call 24 hours a day, with no additional compensation.

In light of that, I am wondering if that is "normal" for technology
workers
these days, and what is required of others. If you could respond to me
on
the following questions it would be a real help.

What is a "normal" number of hours that you work (for the company) per
week?
If you are salaried and you work more than the "normal", are you
compensated
in any way?
If you could include your responsibilities (i.e. title) that might help
me
as well.

Please respond to me off the list as to not clutter that up.
Thanks.
Dave


_______________________________________________
This is the Non-Technical Discussion about the AS400 / iSeries
(Midrange-NonTech) mailing list
To post a message email: Midrange-NonTech@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-nontech
or email: Midrange-NonTech-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-nontech.

_______________________________________________
This is the Non-Technical Discussion about the AS400 / iSeries
(Midrange-NonTech) mailing list
To post a message email: Midrange-NonTech@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-nontech
or email: Midrange-NonTech-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-nontech.



**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************