http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=13&u=/nm/20050330/ts_nm/crime_boyscouts_dc
Douglas Smith's actions will stir more trouble for the BSA. Unfortunately, BSA is his employer. If he worked for WalMart, this would barely make the local news. Since he's with the scouts, it is nationwide. His actions give thousands of legitimate and dedicated and "respectable" volunteers a black eye. That's unfortunate.
Regarding the gay position, I've given this a LOT of thought over the last 8 years. That's when I re-joined scouting. The BSA has an incredibly effective youth protection program that, when followed, makes sure the boys and leaders are not put into a position that could be misconstrued as compromising. Youth and adult leaders are taught to always practice two-deep leadership and to never enter a one-on-one meeting in a closed room with an adult-child. Our troop leaders leave the door open when they are meeting one-on-one. No child is allowed in another parent's tent. The program is tremendously effective for protecting both the scout and the leader.
I don't believe all homosexuals are pedophiles. This guy, assuming he's guilty, shows us all pedophiles are not homosexual. It sort-of shows the two issues are unrelated. I think the "don't ask, don't tell" approach is best. If a BSA leader wants to use scouting as a platform to promote their agenda, it is wrong. I really don't care if it is homosexuality, women's clothing, or the baptist church is higher in heaven than the catholic church (example... don't take it personally). This kind of agenda doesn't belong in the scouts. If the leader keeps his personal life personal, and they are good scouters, they should be given the chance.
Having said that, the BSA can only kick out those "offenders" they know about. If they are doing something to make headlines, they are probably not setting a good example for today's youth. The BSA (and any other organization) deserves the right to ask them to represent our published values. If they refuse, the BSA has the right to kick them out. In short, good leaders set a good example. Bad leaders deserve to be reprimanded. I know for a fact some leaders in my troop have been reprimanded for being too negative. They admitted the example they were showing was inappropriate and have improved their approach.
The media is already started the lynching. This man has no chance and he'll drag scouting along. From what I've read, the BSA suspended this man immediately upon learning about his charges. Watch that get swept under the rug. I learned it costs about $150 per scout per year to provide the program to them. This includes paid executives, maintaining scout camps and facilities, and other costs. The BSA will probably have to spend more money on lawyers and publicity because of the actions of their employee. This is a shame since this money could be used for more productive things.
I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Friday, March 25, 2005
Thoughts on offshore development
Technology Chef
I was talking to my good friend Tom at lunch today and the subject of outsourcing arose. He made some interesting points and I'm inclined to agree.
The primary purpose of offshore development initiatives is to save boatloads of money on development projects. On the surface, this is good for business. Yet, after considering the hidden costs, I'm not sure this really works.
The typical project using a waterfall methodology involves analysis, design, coding, then QC. Tools and techniques such as .NET and Agile Methods have shrunk the development time by orders of magnitude already. Taking this offshore does not result in a huge savings since development is a miniscule portion of the total project effort.
My experience shows the bulk of the time is spent in design, testing, and pre-deployment activities. Most of these activities are not readily taken offshore because of too little planning and design, and too much conflict between language, culture, and time zones on the back end. Another way to say this is to assert that the design, QC, and Deployment are generally done in-house and this is where the bulk of your costs arise.
Let's assume we send development offshore. We just exacerbated the project communication by introducing culture, language, and time zone issues. This can become expensive. To overcome this, we need to spend much more time and money in the analysis and design phase. Our specifications must be rock-solid and thorough since the developers do not share the context within which the product needs are created. On the back end, we must still conduct exhaustive QC efforts because we don't want to bet the company on a team that has little to lose if it doesn't work. The in-house team must perform more tests and spend more time documenting defects to overcome the language and timezone barriers.
When all is said and done, the actual savings expected by taking work offshore are not realized because the setup and validation costs are so much higher. When this is combined with morale and retention in-house, it make sense to think long and hard before sending the business overseas.
I was talking to my good friend Tom at lunch today and the subject of outsourcing arose. He made some interesting points and I'm inclined to agree.
The primary purpose of offshore development initiatives is to save boatloads of money on development projects. On the surface, this is good for business. Yet, after considering the hidden costs, I'm not sure this really works.
The typical project using a waterfall methodology involves analysis, design, coding, then QC. Tools and techniques such as .NET and Agile Methods have shrunk the development time by orders of magnitude already. Taking this offshore does not result in a huge savings since development is a miniscule portion of the total project effort.
My experience shows the bulk of the time is spent in design, testing, and pre-deployment activities. Most of these activities are not readily taken offshore because of too little planning and design, and too much conflict between language, culture, and time zones on the back end. Another way to say this is to assert that the design, QC, and Deployment are generally done in-house and this is where the bulk of your costs arise.
Let's assume we send development offshore. We just exacerbated the project communication by introducing culture, language, and time zone issues. This can become expensive. To overcome this, we need to spend much more time and money in the analysis and design phase. Our specifications must be rock-solid and thorough since the developers do not share the context within which the product needs are created. On the back end, we must still conduct exhaustive QC efforts because we don't want to bet the company on a team that has little to lose if it doesn't work. The in-house team must perform more tests and spend more time documenting defects to overcome the language and timezone barriers.
When all is said and done, the actual savings expected by taking work offshore are not realized because the setup and validation costs are so much higher. When this is combined with morale and retention in-house, it make sense to think long and hard before sending the business overseas.
Who is Managing the Project Manager
The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®) identifies five phases of a project. These are Initiation, Planning, Execution, Control, and Closing. The project manager is introduced during initiation and plays many roles over the remaining phases. Successful project managers managed the triple constraints of quality, budget, and time to ensure the project stakeholders are satisfied.
Often a lot of time and money is exhausted before the stakeholders learn things are going astray. Since projects cannot afford to lose money or time it helps to have a tool to ensure the project manager is doing their job.
My article describes a tool that you can easily build or modify to make sure your own programs are running smoothly. Project Managers can use this tool as a checklist to remind them to cover all the bases.
The tool in this article describes an objective process to monitor the efforts of the project team and make midcourse corrections before major risks become serious issues.
I welcome your comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)