A perception and opinion poll.
Be sure to read the article below the cut first.
Imagine this (not) hypothetical situation - it concerns technical people (well), and a technical situation, but this question is not actually technical in nature.
There is a piece of testing equipment, it is rather new. This new piece of testing equipment has many many features and options, but overall is not that difficult to use or setup if you have any actual knowledge of the technology you are testing. As the technician who just setup, installed, or even "built" what is being tested, it is assumed they should know at little about it, especially when the directions sitting right next to them.
The three technicians in question are not upper level of techs. They are above assembly line workers who only do a repetitive task in that they are required to read instructions and prints on where to install what types of cables and equipment. They are not exactly up to being a "true technician" as their main purpose is to deploy the equipment and plug it in per these direction with few decisions left up to the installing tech and most of it being in the paper work. Yes these techs are often used for trouble shooting purposes, but most of that comes down to "box swapping" instead of real troubleshooting skills.
The three techs in question have experience doing this sort of work that ranges from 15 to 35 years.
There is another technician who is a bit more adept than the rest, but on all official levels is on the same employment plane as the rest techs in question, with the exception of one, and we'll get to that later. The more adept tech figured out how to use the piece of testing equipment on his own, and explained to a couple of others how to use it. Due to his familiarity with the equipment the supervisors asked him to write a manual on how to use it. The manual was written, the supervisors approved, and it was tested on the least adept technicians in the shop, the least adept of the bunch being able to get through a rather complicated skills assessment test using the manual as a guide.
The three techs in question are at a remote location. Despite the fact they have been given not only the opportunity to read the training manual, but were actually asked to read it by supervisors none of the three had done so, nor did they take a copy of the training manual to the field with them. Upon learning they did not have the knowledge to test a particular type of cable, and realizing they also lacked the skills of the adept tech who wrote the manual for the rest, they had to call back to their main location for assistance. Two technicians at the main location helped them via the phone. These two technicians are not phone support technicians and have never been employed as such, one of them however is an "engineering field technician" and is employed on a "higher plane" than any of the rest so far mentioned (this guy has a little more power to make decisions). The three techs in the field admit to not reading the manual.
The two technicians at the main location have identical equipment to those in the field, and have a ready made cable of the same type as those in the field thanks to the training program made by the document writing tech. The two technicians at the main office are able to successfully test a cable identical to the one at the remote location. For reasons uncertain the technicians at the remote location were unable to perform the test. Mis-configured equipment, a mis-configured cable, or even a bad cable are all possible.
Now we get to the question, which of the following people or groups of people are "at fault" for a test not being run successfully. In this case, the technicians testing the cables are the same ones who ran in and terminated both ends of the cable.
I will address this poll more in a few days after it has run its course.
Poll Who is "at fault"?
Imagine this (not) hypothetical situation - it concerns technical people (well), and a technical situation, but this question is not actually technical in nature.
There is a piece of testing equipment, it is rather new. This new piece of testing equipment has many many features and options, but overall is not that difficult to use or setup if you have any actual knowledge of the technology you are testing. As the technician who just setup, installed, or even "built" what is being tested, it is assumed they should know at little about it, especially when the directions sitting right next to them.
The three technicians in question are not upper level of techs. They are above assembly line workers who only do a repetitive task in that they are required to read instructions and prints on where to install what types of cables and equipment. They are not exactly up to being a "true technician" as their main purpose is to deploy the equipment and plug it in per these direction with few decisions left up to the installing tech and most of it being in the paper work. Yes these techs are often used for trouble shooting purposes, but most of that comes down to "box swapping" instead of real troubleshooting skills.
The three techs in question have experience doing this sort of work that ranges from 15 to 35 years.
There is another technician who is a bit more adept than the rest, but on all official levels is on the same employment plane as the rest techs in question, with the exception of one, and we'll get to that later. The more adept tech figured out how to use the piece of testing equipment on his own, and explained to a couple of others how to use it. Due to his familiarity with the equipment the supervisors asked him to write a manual on how to use it. The manual was written, the supervisors approved, and it was tested on the least adept technicians in the shop, the least adept of the bunch being able to get through a rather complicated skills assessment test using the manual as a guide.
The three techs in question are at a remote location. Despite the fact they have been given not only the opportunity to read the training manual, but were actually asked to read it by supervisors none of the three had done so, nor did they take a copy of the training manual to the field with them. Upon learning they did not have the knowledge to test a particular type of cable, and realizing they also lacked the skills of the adept tech who wrote the manual for the rest, they had to call back to their main location for assistance. Two technicians at the main location helped them via the phone. These two technicians are not phone support technicians and have never been employed as such, one of them however is an "engineering field technician" and is employed on a "higher plane" than any of the rest so far mentioned (this guy has a little more power to make decisions). The three techs in the field admit to not reading the manual.
The two technicians at the main location have identical equipment to those in the field, and have a ready made cable of the same type as those in the field thanks to the training program made by the document writing tech. The two technicians at the main office are able to successfully test a cable identical to the one at the remote location. For reasons uncertain the technicians at the remote location were unable to perform the test. Mis-configured equipment, a mis-configured cable, or even a bad cable are all possible.
Now we get to the question, which of the following people or groups of people are "at fault" for a test not being run successfully. In this case, the technicians testing the cables are the same ones who ran in and terminated both ends of the cable.
I will address this poll more in a few days after it has run its course.
Poll Who is "at fault"?