At a previous job at a large old computer company we had a CRT process. I wouldn't say it was a completely awful over the top idea since the software product involved high-availability computing and was thus very risk averse. But it was annoying at times and certainly slowed down development.
Basically, the system was, after having your code peer reviewed by 3 people, you filled out a CRT form (which at some point I converted to a web application).
The CRT (Change Request Team) would review all the requests a few times a week and discuss with management, team leads and the coder in question to ensure all the hoops had been jumped through: All the tests written... appropriate people had reviewed it... QA informed of new tests... etc.
Thankfully the web application version was well accepted and the old manual form, which was really detailed and over the top, was dropped. At least from our organization...
As a contractor, I've often had to file three separate time and expense reports.
Our official report used for invoicing.
Our project-specific fine-grained report. It has to match the aggregate invoicing report. And, it's available to project managers two weeks before the numbers from the invoices.
Out customer's activity reports. These have to match the aggregate invoicing also. THe customer's accounting folks need this to confirm our invoices. Wait, didn't I create the invoices, also?
Let's not forget the need for two status reports (ours and the customers.)
No, but a few years ago I wrote the bulk of the MLI (Mandatory Liability Insurance) system for the State of Alabama...
Every report that the system generated was a TPS report :)
E.g. The Monthly Transaction TPS Report, The Daily Volume TPS report etc.
It was most amusing when someone from the State would call us up asking about the TPS reports :) I don't think they ever figured out why they were called TPS reports.
For the last several years we had to fill out a leave slip, signed by our first line supervisor, in order to take sick time or vacation.
Recently we were given access to a fancy web-application. It allows workers to request leave and allows supervisors to approve leave. It rolls up into our time sheet and it's the basis of our payroll system.
Despite tremendous success in rolling out the new leave request system, our office manager still required us to submit the paper leave slip, in addition to doing it on-line.
It took months before the office manager realized the new system provided just as much oversight as the manual system.
I currently have to outline my time in three separate utilities:
I enter my time at a high level (consulting time vs. holiday vs. vacation vs. sick, etc) for a period one week, showing hours worked per day on each. This one is for billing the client.
The client has a time tracking system that they just rolled out in which we have to enter our time at the request level. Admin time for client-related things (meetings, training, etc) has it's own general purpose bucket. Non-billable items have another. This one is for a period of one month, showing hours per week.
My company also has a time tracking tool, detailing everything we did in a given week. Time is tracked on the quarter hour, and is extremely fine grained. i.e. "For request 12345, I spent 0.25 hours writing an estimate, 0.50 hours writing a requirements document, 0.50 hours coding file x." Estimates also have to be entered into the system, and effectively locked down (Waterfall FTL!), before we send anything to the client for approval (long before anything is coded).
We also have a very strict peer review process. Anything official that we send to the client (requirements documents, change requests, code, etc) have to be peer reviewed first. The client also has a Change Control Board which meets once a week to approve anything that will be installed into production.
I once explained to some friends from college exactly how much process and paranoia surrounded my work. By the end of it, I'd figured out that the hypothetical situation where (in a non-emergency, non-production support situation), the estimate for adding a single field to an existing report, after all the process was taken into account, was three hours at the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM for what would essentially be adding a single field to an existing select statement (or something similar as we use a tool which doesn't use SQL for DB queries). Additionally, since the estimate for this would be so small (since that three hours represents ONLY the required 0.25 hour minimum for each required item, plus half an hour for the production change control meeting), I'd need to get my team lead to sign off on it first, since I'd be going so far against what our estimating tool says it should take me to change the code (this tool is largely based on LOC).
发布评论
评论（6）
之前在一家大型老计算机公司工作时，我们有一个 CRT 流程。 我不会说这是一个完全糟糕的想法，因为该软件产品涉及高可用性计算，因此非常规避风险。 但有时这很烦人，并且肯定会减慢开发速度。
基本上，该系统是在让 3 个人对您的代码进行同行评审后，您填写一份 CRT 表单（在某个时候我将其转换为 Web 应用程序）。
CRT（变更请求团队）将每周几次审查所有请求，并与管理层、团队领导和相关编码人员讨论，以确保所有障碍都已完成：所有编写的测试......适当的人都已审查它... QA 通知了新的测试... 等等。
值得庆幸的是，网络应用程序版本得到了很好的接受，并且非常详细且过分的旧手册表格被放弃了。 至少从我们的组织来看...
At a previous job at a large old computer company we had a CRT process. I wouldn't say it was a completely awful over the top idea since the software product involved high-availability computing and was thus very risk averse. But it was annoying at times and certainly slowed down development.
Basically, the system was, after having your code peer reviewed by 3 people, you filled out a CRT form (which at some point I converted to a web application).
The CRT (Change Request Team) would review all the requests a few times a week and discuss with management, team leads and the coder in question to ensure all the hoops had been jumped through: All the tests written... appropriate people had reviewed it... QA informed of new tests... etc.
Thankfully the web application version was well accepted and the old manual form, which was really detailed and over the top, was dropped. At least from our organization...
作为承包商，我经常不得不提交三份单独的时间和费用报告。
我们的官方报告用于开具发票。
我们针对特定项目的细粒度报告。 它必须与汇总发票报告相匹配。 而且，项目经理可以在收到发票数据前两周获得该报告。
输出客户的活动报告。 这些也必须与汇总发票相匹配。 客户的会计人员需要此信息来确认我们的发票。 等等，我不是也开具了发票吗？
我们不要忘记需要两个状态报告（我们的和客户的）。
As a contractor, I've often had to file three separate time and expense reports.
Our official report used for invoicing.
Our project-specific fine-grained report. It has to match the aggregate invoicing report. And, it's available to project managers two weeks before the numbers from the invoices.
Out customer's activity reports. These have to match the aggregate invoicing also. THe customer's accounting folks need this to confirm our invoices. Wait, didn't I create the invoices, also?
Let's not forget the need for two status reports (ours and the customers.)
我确实为我工作的系统之一提交了 TPS 报告：http://tps.tmccom.com/
是的，我非常清楚这个网站是多么过时和不标准化。
I quite literally file TPS reports for one of the systems where I work: http://tps.tmccom.com/
And yes, I am very much aware of how outdated and non-standardized the site is.
不，但几年前，我为阿拉巴马州编写了大部分 MLI（强制责任保险）系统...
系统生成的每份报告都是 TPS 报告:)
例如，每月交易 TPS 报告、每日交易量TPS 报告等。
当州政府的人打电话给我们询问 TPS 报告时，这是最有趣的:)我认为他们从来没有弄清楚为什么他们被称为 TPS 报告。
No, but a few years ago I wrote the bulk of the MLI (Mandatory Liability Insurance) system for the State of Alabama...
Every report that the system generated was a TPS report :)
E.g. The Monthly Transaction TPS Report, The Daily Volume TPS report etc.
It was most amusing when someone from the State would call us up asking about the TPS reports :) I don't think they ever figured out why they were called TPS reports.
在过去的几年里，我们必须填写一份由一线主管签署的请假单，才能请病假或休假。
最近，我们获得了访问一个精美的网络应用程序的权限。 它允许工人请求休假并允许主管批准休假。 它会汇总到我们的时间表中，并且是我们薪资系统的基础。
尽管新的请假申请系统的推出取得了巨大成功，但我们的办公室经理仍然要求我们除了在线提交之外还必须提交纸质请假单。
办公室经理花了几个月的时间才意识到新系统提供的监督与手动系统一样多。
For the last several years we had to fill out a leave slip, signed by our first line supervisor, in order to take sick time or vacation.
Recently we were given access to a fancy web-application. It allows workers to request leave and allows supervisors to approve leave. It rolls up into our time sheet and it's the basis of our payroll system.
Despite tremendous success in rolling out the new leave request system, our office manager still required us to submit the paper leave slip, in addition to doing it on-line.
It took months before the office manager realized the new system provided just as much oversight as the manual system.
我目前必须在三个单独的实用程序中概述我的时间：
我输入一个星期的高级别时间（咨询时间、假期、假期、病假等），显示每天的工作时间每个。 这个用于向客户开具账单。
客户有一个他们刚刚推出的时间跟踪系统，我们必须在请求级别输入时间。 与客户相关的事情（会议、培训等）的管理时间有其自己的通用目的。 不可计费项目还有另一个。 这是一个月的时间段，显示每周的小时数。
我的公司还有一个时间跟踪工具，详细记录了我们在一周内所做的所有事情。 时间以刻钟为单位进行记录，并且粒度非常细。 即“对于请求 12345，我花了 0.25 小时编写估算，0.50 小时编写需求文档，0.50 小时编码文件 x。” 在我们将任何内容发送给客户以供批准之前（早在任何内容编码之前），还必须将估算输入系统并有效锁定（瀑布式 FTL！）。
我们还有非常严格的同行评审流程。 我们发送给客户的任何正式内容（需求文档、变更请求、代码等）都必须首先经过同行评审。 客户还有一个变更控制委员会，每周开会一次，以批准将安装到生产中的任何内容。
我曾经向大学里的一些朋友解释过我的工作到底有多少过程和偏执。 最后，我发现了假设的情况（在非紧急、非生产支持的情况下），在考虑了所有流程之后，向现有报告添加单个字段的估计，绝对最少需要三个小时，本质上是将单个字段添加到现有的 select 语句（或者类似于我们使用不使用 SQL 进行数据库查询的工具）。 此外，由于对此的估计非常小（因为三个小时仅代表每个所需项目所需的最少 0.25 小时，加上生产变更控制会议的半小时），我需要让我的团队领导首先签署它，因为到目前为止我一直反对我们的估计工具所说的，它应该让我更改代码（该工具主要基于 LOC）。
*叹气*
我认为今天的咆哮已经足够了。
I currently have to outline my time in three separate utilities:
I enter my time at a high level (consulting time vs. holiday vs. vacation vs. sick, etc) for a period one week, showing hours worked per day on each. This one is for billing the client.
The client has a time tracking system that they just rolled out in which we have to enter our time at the request level. Admin time for client-related things (meetings, training, etc) has it's own general purpose bucket. Non-billable items have another. This one is for a period of one month, showing hours per week.
My company also has a time tracking tool, detailing everything we did in a given week. Time is tracked on the quarter hour, and is extremely fine grained. i.e. "For request 12345, I spent 0.25 hours writing an estimate, 0.50 hours writing a requirements document, 0.50 hours coding file x." Estimates also have to be entered into the system, and effectively locked down (Waterfall FTL!), before we send anything to the client for approval (long before anything is coded).
We also have a very strict peer review process. Anything official that we send to the client (requirements documents, change requests, code, etc) have to be peer reviewed first. The client also has a Change Control Board which meets once a week to approve anything that will be installed into production.
I once explained to some friends from college exactly how much process and paranoia surrounded my work. By the end of it, I'd figured out that the hypothetical situation where (in a non-emergency, non-production support situation), the estimate for adding a single field to an existing report, after all the process was taken into account, was three hours at the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM for what would essentially be adding a single field to an existing select statement (or something similar as we use a tool which doesn't use SQL for DB queries). Additionally, since the estimate for this would be so small (since that three hours represents ONLY the required 0.25 hour minimum for each required item, plus half an hour for the production change control meeting), I'd need to get my team lead to sign off on it first, since I'd be going so far against what our estimating tool says it should take me to change the code (this tool is largely based on LOC).
*sigh*
I think that's enough ranting for today.