Spurious crap
Nov. 2nd, 2004 09:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueYou know it's going to be a bad day, when your arrival to work is greeted by an 'RFP'. A Request for Proposal(or something similar).
Basically, it's document that is the 'start point', for getting quotations from suppliers.
These are thing that I greet with horror. You see, they're typically stunningly boring, power-point-esque affairs. But to gloss over them, means that you'll end up shafted down the line, because you didn't spot the blatantly erroneous assumptions that they were basing the project on.
Or worse, the corporate political bullshit tied into it.
And so I greet this one with dismay, but with the faint optimism that this will be a project that I will enjoy, and won't make my life a living hell. (They do exist, I've had a couple go that way ;p)
Nope. It's a great big steaming pile of shite. The conslutancy group brought in by the particular IT 'Director' (I use the term loosely, because in much the same way as some companies have lots of Vice Presidents, we have a real steaming load of 'Directors') have produced 20 pages of waffle and bollocks, along with one page of frankly spurious numbers.
They are 'helping' us redesign our storage infrastructure, to fit in with their latest buzzword of ILM - Information Lifecycle Management. Which essentially means a load of proprietary kit, and a 'management heavy' system. (Why yes, this _is_ in the 'open' specification to all suppliers, and yes, it is supplier specific. Why do you ask?).
The problem is, they've only gathered the bare minimum of information about our site, and so their specification is just not good. 10% data growth over 3 years is really Just Not going to happen. Our backups alone increase by 10% each year, because of tape retention.
The problem is this: It's backed by a 'Director'. That means there's office politics in play. If he looks like a retard, then this is a Bad Thing, and the mess will be strewn around.
And me, being lowly IT geek, cannot possibly know better than the combined idiocy of conslutants and directors.
And so, in order to avoid having my life made hell for the next year, with this amazingly ill-concieved project, I have to refute it. But because I'm just lowly geek, and Not an Important Person, I will have to present them with the kind of counter case that'll stand up in a court of law.
For all 300 servers within the scope.
By the end of this week.
Arse
Basically, it's document that is the 'start point', for getting quotations from suppliers.
These are thing that I greet with horror. You see, they're typically stunningly boring, power-point-esque affairs. But to gloss over them, means that you'll end up shafted down the line, because you didn't spot the blatantly erroneous assumptions that they were basing the project on.
Or worse, the corporate political bullshit tied into it.
And so I greet this one with dismay, but with the faint optimism that this will be a project that I will enjoy, and won't make my life a living hell. (They do exist, I've had a couple go that way ;p)
Nope. It's a great big steaming pile of shite. The conslutancy group brought in by the particular IT 'Director' (I use the term loosely, because in much the same way as some companies have lots of Vice Presidents, we have a real steaming load of 'Directors') have produced 20 pages of waffle and bollocks, along with one page of frankly spurious numbers.
They are 'helping' us redesign our storage infrastructure, to fit in with their latest buzzword of ILM - Information Lifecycle Management. Which essentially means a load of proprietary kit, and a 'management heavy' system. (Why yes, this _is_ in the 'open' specification to all suppliers, and yes, it is supplier specific. Why do you ask?).
The problem is, they've only gathered the bare minimum of information about our site, and so their specification is just not good. 10% data growth over 3 years is really Just Not going to happen. Our backups alone increase by 10% each year, because of tape retention.
The problem is this: It's backed by a 'Director'. That means there's office politics in play. If he looks like a retard, then this is a Bad Thing, and the mess will be strewn around.
And me, being lowly IT geek, cannot possibly know better than the combined idiocy of conslutants and directors.
And so, in order to avoid having my life made hell for the next year, with this amazingly ill-concieved project, I have to refute it. But because I'm just lowly geek, and Not an Important Person, I will have to present them with the kind of counter case that'll stand up in a court of law.
For all 300 servers within the scope.
By the end of this week.
Arse
