Hypothetical situation
Suppose you work at a branch of a big chain that sells ... portrait photography. For whatever reason, it's very highly regulated -- all procedures used within all franchises are very well documented, and you are required by law to follow them. If you want to change a procedure, you have to get approval from the directors of the company. There is a very good reason for this -- any picture generated at any franchise should be of exactly the same high quality. The only variations between pictures across the country should be the style of background and the people in the picture.
There is a department in your company that handles photographs for other parts of the company. ID badges, employee of the month plaques, in-house documents, etc. Their documentation, while somewhat controlled, is less rigorous in its control than that of the documents used by franchises. After all, if you change the format of a badge, it will still be a badge. If you make a plaque landscaped, it will still be a plaque.
One of the types of photographs that this department generates requires a special printer. This printer is only capable of producing one type of photograph. This photograph, say a 4" x 6" matte-finish print, is used in several places throughout the company. The department often makes several copies of any print made on this machine; that way, it saves time later. After all, the printer is difficult to use, and very slow, especially when it needs to boot up. However, the documentation used by this group requires that this printer be used to generate these pictures.
As an employee of another department, you often pass by this printer. You see that it is only used occasionally, and that it is a very inefficient printer. You also notice that it is possible to generate the exact same pictures using several of the other printers available within the building. These other printers are faster, more reliable, and readily available. Also, because of the design of this one printer, it must have preventive maintenance performed on a monthly basis by an outside vendor. The ink cartridges for this printer are small, often expensive, and must be ordered 3 months in advance of the required delivery date.
You speak to your supervisor about this printer. It is a very large and very loud printer, and when it is in use, it shakes the table so hard that no other printers can be used while it runs. This can make it very difficult to do your job, especially with the monthly maintenance performed by the outside vendor, which can sometimes take all day, and can only be done during normal working hours (for whatever reason). You suggest another printer for this other group to use, and even draw up information demonstrating that the end product is equivalent.
You and your supervisor take this information to the supervisor of this other department. The other supervisor seems amenable to the idea; you ask for a timeline for transition of their documentation to reflect this change, and the supervisor gives you a timeline that you think may be agressive, so you agree to double it to allow for leeway. You offer to apply to the directors of the company for disconnection and disposal of the printer once this is completed, with the justification that there are no requirements for this printer. (This is a required step. Remember, highly regulated company.)
Two days later, this other supervisor comes to you and asks you for the documentation of the information you provided on the equivalence of the products. You provide it.
A day later, the other supervisor asks you for the same information. You provide it again, along with a detailed description of how each component of the product is similar or identical. The other supervisor replies by requesting a table with that information in it, which you provide. You complain about this repetition of information to your supervisor.
Two days later, your supervisor tells you that they've had a meeting with the other supervisor and the director who manages the other supervisor's department. The conclusion reached by the other supervisor and their director is that the way to solve this is for you to apply for the printer to be disconnected and disposed of, with the justification that there are no documents used by franchises that require this printer, and X other printers are available, which provide equivalent prints. In order to do this, I will be required to submit proof of equivalence in the form of multiple identical photos printed on this printer and another printer, along with full-scale analyses of all prints.
Obviously, I am ... disinclined to acquiesce to their request. It's not my responsibility to prove equivalence of a printer I am not required to use. Also, the pictures provided by the any other printers are identical, and all evidence of the printer used to generate them is removed before their use. Not to mention that I can't justify anything as saying that no one uses it when I know for a fact that someone does.
Now tell me, if you were in my shoes, how would your day have been?
--
The good news is that my supervisor told the director of the other group my position, especially regarding the identity of the pictures and their de-evidencing prior to use. The director agreed that the other supervisor is not understanding of the situation, and this situation needs to be reviewed with that person further.
(all identifying characteristics have been changed to protect the innocent. and guilty.)
There is a department in your company that handles photographs for other parts of the company. ID badges, employee of the month plaques, in-house documents, etc. Their documentation, while somewhat controlled, is less rigorous in its control than that of the documents used by franchises. After all, if you change the format of a badge, it will still be a badge. If you make a plaque landscaped, it will still be a plaque.
One of the types of photographs that this department generates requires a special printer. This printer is only capable of producing one type of photograph. This photograph, say a 4" x 6" matte-finish print, is used in several places throughout the company. The department often makes several copies of any print made on this machine; that way, it saves time later. After all, the printer is difficult to use, and very slow, especially when it needs to boot up. However, the documentation used by this group requires that this printer be used to generate these pictures.
As an employee of another department, you often pass by this printer. You see that it is only used occasionally, and that it is a very inefficient printer. You also notice that it is possible to generate the exact same pictures using several of the other printers available within the building. These other printers are faster, more reliable, and readily available. Also, because of the design of this one printer, it must have preventive maintenance performed on a monthly basis by an outside vendor. The ink cartridges for this printer are small, often expensive, and must be ordered 3 months in advance of the required delivery date.
You speak to your supervisor about this printer. It is a very large and very loud printer, and when it is in use, it shakes the table so hard that no other printers can be used while it runs. This can make it very difficult to do your job, especially with the monthly maintenance performed by the outside vendor, which can sometimes take all day, and can only be done during normal working hours (for whatever reason). You suggest another printer for this other group to use, and even draw up information demonstrating that the end product is equivalent.
You and your supervisor take this information to the supervisor of this other department. The other supervisor seems amenable to the idea; you ask for a timeline for transition of their documentation to reflect this change, and the supervisor gives you a timeline that you think may be agressive, so you agree to double it to allow for leeway. You offer to apply to the directors of the company for disconnection and disposal of the printer once this is completed, with the justification that there are no requirements for this printer. (This is a required step. Remember, highly regulated company.)
Two days later, this other supervisor comes to you and asks you for the documentation of the information you provided on the equivalence of the products. You provide it.
A day later, the other supervisor asks you for the same information. You provide it again, along with a detailed description of how each component of the product is similar or identical. The other supervisor replies by requesting a table with that information in it, which you provide. You complain about this repetition of information to your supervisor.
Two days later, your supervisor tells you that they've had a meeting with the other supervisor and the director who manages the other supervisor's department. The conclusion reached by the other supervisor and their director is that the way to solve this is for you to apply for the printer to be disconnected and disposed of, with the justification that there are no documents used by franchises that require this printer, and X other printers are available, which provide equivalent prints. In order to do this, I will be required to submit proof of equivalence in the form of multiple identical photos printed on this printer and another printer, along with full-scale analyses of all prints.
Obviously, I am ... disinclined to acquiesce to their request. It's not my responsibility to prove equivalence of a printer I am not required to use. Also, the pictures provided by the any other printers are identical, and all evidence of the printer used to generate them is removed before their use. Not to mention that I can't justify anything as saying that no one uses it when I know for a fact that someone does.
Now tell me, if you were in my shoes, how would your day have been?
--
The good news is that my supervisor told the director of the other group my position, especially regarding the identity of the pictures and their de-evidencing prior to use. The director agreed that the other supervisor is not understanding of the situation, and this situation needs to be reviewed with that person further.
(all identifying characteristics have been changed to protect the innocent. and guilty.)