On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote: > At 03:51 PM 19/12/2011, you wrote: > > >Long story short we had a major cluster F in production - > > > >But I'm sitting them all down > >and doing the "after action review" tomorrow and was looking for some > >sticks to beat them with. > > I know where you're coming from, and it can be pretty tempting > (indeed, even to use real sticks rather than the rhetorical type). > > But perhaps it might be good to meet with the people and review the > factual issues without finger-pointing, and invite suggestions as to > how this can be prevented from ever happening again. I'm not sure > that impugning their ethics is the most effective way to get > cooperation from the employees, even if you're pretty confident they were > acting like brain-dead slobs- there may actually be some valid reason(s) > for the f'ups- such as them feeling they were being pushed to ship, > or something else entirely. A good time to haul out the leadership > skill set-- best of luck with it! > > Best regards, > > Absolutely, all that and more. Pushed to ship, first run of this product, "lost" a couple of people in key positions in the last few months, definitely a stress factor 9.9 situation. And I have no intention of this being a "heads will roll!!!!" meeting. Might even be fair to say I shoulder some of the blame myself, I'm sure my documentation was a bit less than stellar. But I seem to recall from many years ago reading a really well put bit about it being everyone's responsibility to get as much as possible out of each test as part of an ethics code or a code of conduct or something such. It's a bit maddening, I remember holding the book and where I was sitting when I read it, but the details are eluding me. Was hoping the hive-mind might recall.... -Denny --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .