Log in

No account? Create an account

Josh-D. S. Davis

Xaminmo / Omnimax / Max Omni / Mad Scientist / Midnight Shadow / Radiation Master

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Gloomy Angry
When you have a company that relies on a helpdesk, please ensure that you do not inadvertantly, nor purposefully, use the helpdesk to shield your enterprise from accountability, especially when the problems are avoidable and multifaceted.

I've gotten alot of "well, our response time is blah blah."


Also, if you're going to implement a quota system, then you damned well better notify your users BEFOREHAND so they can take appropriate actions to prevent being locked out.

Finally, if you're going to block emails from specific internal hosts, regardless of whether it's manual or automatic, you REALLY need to contact the owner, the recipient, or SOMEONE in advance to make sure it's OK.

Mistakes happen, but keeping affected people notified is paramount.

Because everything is shielded from everything else, this becomes design issue of the entire support system, specifically management and architect positions.

So, you also need to make sure that user feedback can actually get from users to management and architecture of your solution. There should be a direct path from the users, with confirmed response from those in charge. It's ok to have filters and processors for handling bulk amounts of feedback, but the people in charge need to be involved, and every bit of feedback should be handled and RESPONDED TO.

But, aparently, people don't like accountability. They want to pick a solution, have it work, and then wash their hands of it without passing on or maintaining responsibility. It's only of an upper exec has troubles that any sizeable response occurs.


I like the contract I'm on, most of the time, but there's alot of CFs going on and the new owners have almost as much bureaucracy as my last job. The old owners streamlined things and kept things pretty personable and efficient. The new owners seem to think that by buying up lots of companies and making them all use the same system, that somehow magically makes the one system a good system.

Every day, for multiple people, I see poor organization of the new company impacting someone, somewhere. The people with the knowhow are disregarded, because it doesn't match the way the new company does it.

That's a sure-fire path to disaster. I think the company's size and momentum is the only thing it has going for it. Granted, there are some really good people in the mix, but they're made impotent by the structure.