Tina Norris Fields
tinanfields at torchlake.com
Fri Dec 9 10:45:36 CST 2011
Yay, Arthur! T Tina Norris Fields tinanfields at torchlake.com 231-322-2787 On 12/8/2011 10:41 PM, Arthur Fuller wrote: > Referring back to my original whine about this problem, in the absence of a > definition of calendar-years, how was I supposed to know there might be a > difference between the real world and the world of pension-funds? A > pension-fund specialist or programmer of apps in this field might have > known to ask this question, but I didn't, nor did any of the > requirements-people deem it worth mentioning. > > Granted, now that I've been severely bitten and savaged by this, I know > enough to ask about the definition of a year. But even granting that, what > about the definition of a month? How to handle leap-years? How many > Requirements-meetings shall be consumed discovering these anomalies? Thank > God that I have subsequently learned that Gathering and Verifying > Requirements is a (and perhaps The Most) billable item on the ultimate > invoice; and that any subsequent changes to the Requirements document is > also billable vis-a-vis the Development spec. The beauty part of this > arrangement is that when some flunky wants this to work that way instead of > the previously-accepted spec, I get to say, "Ok, but it's going to cost you > another $10+K. Are you sure you want to make this change?" Which adroitly > punts the ball to her or him, and forces her or him to justify the change > in specs. Even more elegant, all such requests for change are directly > traceable to the person who requested them. LOL. Twice bitten, thrice shy, > as it were. "You want to fork with me? Go ahead, it's all billable, > directly to you! So there, MoFo." Go ahead, stretch your middle-management > muscles, but your bosses will know precisely whom to blame for the OverRuns. > > A. > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Asger Blond<ab-mi at post3.tele.dk> wrote: > >> Oh what a wonderful statement! >> Asger >> >>