Psychotomy

So, during a meeting today, there was a huge long discussion that went on. About how this or that would be easier for group A if group B did X differently.

Now, in and of itself, it’s not that bad. Except that Group A keeps harping on it. And spent half an hour hammering at it today again. And it really boils down to the fact that Group B doesn’t have the resources to implement the scale of changes needed.

And so A kept going on and on and on about how this would allow such and such to happen that someone else wants. How this would solve a problem with catastrophic failover. Etc etc.

And what they didn’t seem to be understanding was that it doesn’t matter how good the RoI is if you can’t do it. I will gladly give you 10$ tomorrow for 5$ today. But if I don’t HAVE 5$, this 200% RoI doesn’t matter.

If B can’t put forth the investment, then the improvements and enhancements it allows simply don’t matter.

A then went on to suggest “well, do this workaround Y, if you don’t want to do X.” And Y is, really, since I understood everything involved, a poor-man’s version of X. It’s what people did when X wasn’t available. Or when X won’t work, now, for whatever reason. And it takes more effort to set it up, more space to house it, and more manpower to maintain. And it’s more complicated for less return.

Why A thought B had the opportunity to do Y when they couldn’t do the lesser X … But damn did they keep harping on it.

Why do groups always do this, making their own lives difficult by antagonizing the groups they work with???

*sigh*

Posted in: work by attriel /