On 5/3/13 9:32 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Not to put too fine a point on in, but ADs need to manage their time,
and they need to balance between the immediate and the long term. They
have to do *both*, and especially NOT neglect longer-term stuff that
will have real and signficant, but not immediate benefits.
Interesting. For the most part, I agree with the above. And I think we
have been neglecting some of the longer-term stuff. But earlier:
On 5/3/13 7:59 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Like everyone, I wish things moved more quickly, but every attempt
I've ever seen that tries to speed things up ends up reducing the
quality or having some other undesirable side effect.
Can you talk a bit more about this, including some examples?
I'm trying to reconcile the concern that we "end up reducing the
quality" and that we "NOT neglect longer-term stuff that will have real
and significant, but not immediate benefits." ADs have finite resources
and can't accomplish both immediate and longer-term stuff maximally all
of the time. My inclination would be to say, "If they are in conflict,
weight the longer-term over the immediate, even if that might result in
some reducing of quality on any single document." Am I over-reading your
earlier message to say that you think the weighting should go toward the
immediate? I think we agree that doing the longer-term stuff will end up
with increased quality over the long term, but doing more of the
longer-term stuff is sure to reduce the amount of time spent on
immediate, which means document reviews and therefore some short term
lowering of quality. Is that OK, or is that an example of the kind of
thing we've attempted that ends up with bad results?
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478