[AccessD] Requirements (was: I should be able to do this-resolved)

Arthur Fuller fuller.artful at gmail.com
Thu Dec 8 21:41:04 CST 2011


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
>
>



More information about the AccessD mailing list