views:

196

answers:

5

At a place I used to work they typical response to any problem was to blame the hardware or the users for not using the system perfectly. I had adopted the philosophy that it's my fault until I can prove otherwise prior to that job (and so far, at least 99 times out of 100 it's correct).

One of the last "unsolvable" problems when I was there was an abundance of database timeouts. After months of research, I still only had theories but couldn't prove any of them. One of my developers adamantly suggested replacing the network (every router, switch, access point) but couldn't provide any evidence that the network was the cause; it was, however, "obviously the cause" according to my manager (no development/IT experience) so he took over the problem. One caveat and Fog Creek plug: He couldn't account for the fact that the error reporting via FogBugz worked perfectly and to the same SQL Server as the rest of the data.

A couple, timeout-free months later, my manager boasted that he had fixed the timeouts ("Look, no timeouts!"). I had to hold back from grabbing a rock and saying "Look, no tigers!" but I did ask how he knew they would have occurred to which I got no response. The timeouts did return (and in greater numbers) a couple months later.

I'm pretty content with how I handled the situation but I'm curious how the SO crowd would have responded to letting a superior/colleague implement a solution you know (or are very sure) is wrong and will likely waste thousands of dollars?

+3  A: 

Well, if the problem is upper management, then I would do as you have done - lodge your complaint, then follow instructions. If it turns out they were right (it happens every now and then) then you look like a good employee despite your misgivings. If it turns out you were right, then they might be more willing to listen to you given that you allowed them their turn.

This is, of course, optimistic.

In the case of a colleague, take the problem up a level and consult your superiors for advice on how to approach the subject. Be fair to both your perspective and that of your colleague's, then follow the advice you're given.

Erik Forbes
+1  A: 

Is this a big problem? Its not your job to save your company dollars other than that you would like your company to remain solvent so you get paid.

If its just one manager, he will be weeded out sooner or later, if your entire company culture is like this, maybe it would be time to move on.

In the mean time, see if you can see this from your manager's perspective.

yx
There is a level of responsibility to prevent waste if you can. I have already moved on...
Austin Salonen
+4  A: 

Let them, but at the same time continue searching for the real cause.

A couple thousand dollars is money well spent if it keeps me from going against that kind of thinking (which is futile).

Allain Lalonde
Pretty much exactly what I did... Would your answer be any different if "a couple thousand" was in the 60-70K range? The four switches they bought were 10K a piece (60 users max).
Austin Salonen
60 users for the entire network
Austin Salonen
At a certain point, if it's not your decision to make 60-70k is somebody else's problem.
Allain Lalonde
+1  A: 

I'd consider you're manager's intent to be a good thing. It's the people that don't want to bother that I find more difficult. It's just best to find a way to use that energy to be helpful.

One common problem for lots of people (occasionally myself), is that they flail around when trying to diagnose a problem. If you're wildly guessing at it, then particularity with modern computers, you have only the slimmest possibility of being right. Approaching this type of problem with that type of attitude, generally means that you'll never fix it.

The best way of handing complex debugging, is by divide and conquer. In this case, first think up a test, them implement it. Did that test act as expected? Depending on where you are with your tests, you are getting closer or farther away from the problem. The key, is that ALL of the tests must result in some concrete (objective) behavior. If the results are ambiguous, then the test is useless.

If you're getting a disconnect in part of the system, but some other part is not, then you have a huge amount of valuable information (it also shows it's not the network). What's the difference between the parts? Just start descending until you get somewhere ...

Getting back to your manager. Whenever I encounter that type of personality problem, I try to redirect the energy into something more useful. The desire is there, it just needs some help in getting shaped. If you can convince your manager to make sure the tests are concrete, then if they do enough of them, they'll produce enough information to correctly guess the bug. Sure, a more consistent approach might be faster, but why turn down some free assistance. I generally feel that there is some useful role for anyone on any project, it's all about making it possible to harness their efforts ....

Paul.

Paul W Homer
Tests? He didn't need no stinking tests! ;-)
Austin Salonen
+2  A: 

Sometimes it's best to leave a manager be. If you think about his pressures and responsibilities he had to be seen to be doing something, rather than "nothing". After enough time "investigating" resolves into nothing to outside parties that need the timeouts to stop.

By taking an action he creates an opportunity to keep researching. The trick is to find a way to put your solutions in his context. Here is something we can do now, and here's what we can continue to do. For example, "We can replace the networking gear as a precautionary step, and then look at the version control logs to rule out that possibility."

This gives him something proactive so he can look productive up his chain while achieving the solution you want which will ultimately be successful.

In the long term you should look to work for someone who trusts your technical decisions implicitly, you can talk candidly with and who well help you help him navigate the politics in a way you both know what's going on. If you manager isn't that person, move.

sh1mmer