A suggestion for DSP consultants
in [DSP]
|
Prev: Does Anyone read Mr.Harris's book "Multirate signal processingfor communication systems"
Next: sinusoids and aliasing...
From: Steve Pope on 19 May 2010 16:19 Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen(a)ieee.org> wrote: >And accounting for all of the is "the task at hand". As I said, I'd >hope anybody presented with the problem would actually estimate the task >at hand rather than what could have been or should have been. There's that, then there's the related aspect that the consultant needs to determine what scope (or scopes) of work they are willing to bid on. Of it is possible to come up with a good estimate for a subset of the "task at hand" even if you're unwilling to bid on the perceived entire "task at hand". Steve
From: Eric Jacobsen on 19 May 2010 16:21 On 5/19/2010 12:33 PM, Jerry Avins wrote: > On 5/19/2010 3:23 PM, Gordon Sande wrote: >> On 2010-05-19 16:01:50 -0300, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen(a)ieee.org> >> said: >> >>> On 5/19/2010 11:46 AM, Rune Allnor wrote: >>>> On 19 Mai, 16:48, Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacob...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> One of the more disappointing things I see, unfortunately >>>>> regularly, is >>>>> when we get turned down for being "too expensive" and then get called >>>>> back in later (or not) to fix some money-and-time-sucking disaster >>>>> that >>>>> was attempted to be done with less cost. >>>> >>>> Do you accept those kinds of jobs? If so, on what terms? >>>> If you get only half the initially estimated time to *both* >>>> unscrew a screwed-up project *and* achieve the originally >>>> stated goal, you implicitly acknowledge that your original >>>> offer was off. Right? >>> >>> No. If more resources are put to bear to meet an accelerated schedule >>> the cost goes up. Nine women can't make a baby in a month, but in many >>> cases cost and time can be traded off. >> >> See "The Mythical Man-Month" by Brooks. Adding staff to a late project >> will >> only further delay it. Etc. Etc. Nominally about software engineering but >> applies to all knowledge workers. > > There's a difference between adding staff to hurry a project along, (fat > chance!) and starting over with a new team. Fred Brooks doesn't really > address the second alternative. > >> By the way, he has a new books "The Design of Design". >> >>>> If I were to even consider taking that kind of project, I would >>>> multiply the initial hour rates by at least 10, ask for 50% >>>> of the initially estimated hours as a sign-on fee, and only then >>>> start to count hours. At the 10x rate. >>>> >>>> Rune >>> >>> I would hope that most people would be smart enough to estimate the >>> actual job at hand. > > Jerry Exactly. If you have the right people, or know how to modularize tasks or manage a program better than the previous team, adding more people or other resources can definitely shrink a schedule under the right circumstances. I *like* the fact that a lot of people don't know how to do that and others write books saying it doesn't work. You only need to demonstrate the capability a few times (and know when you can apply it and when you can't) to give yourself (and your clients/customers) a nice advantage when it comes into play. -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
From: Rune Allnor on 19 May 2010 17:00 On 19 Mai, 22:21, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > If you have the right people, or know how to modularize tasks > or manage a program better than the previous team, adding more people or > other resources can definitely shrink a schedule under the right > circumstances. I *like* the fact that a lot of people don't know how > to do that and others write books saying it doesn't work. You only need > to demonstrate the capability a few times (and know when you can apply > it and when you can't) to give yourself (and your clients/customers) a > nice advantage when it comes into play. You are playing with fire! You only need one idiot above you in your chain of command, who have seen you do that king of thing but who does *not* understand what you did or how, to make your life a misery. Similarly, if you are the head chief you'd better be certain you know and understand the skills and capabilities of your subordinates. Once you have this single idiot *somewhere* in the chain, making appointments on somebody else's behalf, to repeat their star performance but in a situation where no improvements to the present state can be made, you are well and truly screwed. The specialist's reputation as an engineer is gone since he will be percieved as 'difficult' for not complying to the project. In the process one basically will be indicating that the idiot who made the appointment is, well, an idiot, and you will more than likely be ending up searching for a new carreer. No matter if you are the idiot or the specialist. Rune
From: Jerry Avins on 19 May 2010 17:38 On 5/19/2010 4:11 PM, Rick Lyons wrote: > On Wed, 19 May 2010 11:55:31 -0400, Jerry Avins<jya(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> On 5/19/2010 11:38 AM, dvsarwate wrote: >>> On May 19, 9:45 am, Clay<c...(a)claysturner.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Unfortunately many link the term "amateur" to also mean lower quality >>>> or lessor ability. And certainly some amateurs are just starting out, >>>> so their skills and knowledge would not compare with a pro's. But some >>>> amateurs have very advanced skills and experienced pros recognize >>>> this. >>>> >>> >>> Consider the difference between a minister (as in a church) >>> and an ordinary person with high moral standards. One is >>> paid to be good (a professional) while the other is good >>> for nothing.... >> >> Dilip, >> >> I take it that you're familiar with the half-sandwich fallacy. >> >> Jerry > > Hi Jer, > What's the half-sandwich fallacy? When you're famished, nothing is better than a good four-course meal. Still, half a sandwich is better than nothing. Using the symbol > to mean "better than", we have the relation (half sandwich) > (nothing) > (full meal), ergo (half sandwich) > (full meal). QED Jerry -- "I view the progress of science as ... the slow erosion of the tendency to dichotomize." --Barbara Smuts, U. Mich. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
From: Greg Berchin on 19 May 2010 19:04
On Wed, 19 May 2010 12:31:04 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: >If you just have >to have four discernible seasons then New England. Winter, mud, Summer, and mud. If you're lucky, Summer falls on a weekend. >And you'll be (mostly) valued for what you can do, not (much) for who >your daddy was or where you went to school. Unless you move to Boston. Greg (currently in Vermont) |