[150017] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: common time-management mistake: rack & stack
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Fri Feb 17 12:16:56 2012
From: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:15:58 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20120217144613.GB70102@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell@ufp.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 6:46 AM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: Re: common time-management mistake: rack & stack
> Low level employees should be apprenticed by higher level employees.
> Many of our skills are learned on the job; just like other trades
> someone with only book knowledge is darn near useless. Not only do
> those above need to teach, but they need to supervise, and exercise
> standards and quality control.
+1 I believe that can not be stressed enough. There is also another aspect=
to it in that about 15% of the population of people are "abstract" thinker=
s and 85% are "concrete" thinkers. The abstract thinkers are the ones who =
can come up with a vision in their head of how something should work as a s=
ystem and then set out and build it. Or when they are faced with a problem=
, can in their head envision the work around and then apply that vision on =
site to do things such as rewire a portion of the network in a methodical f=
ashion with no/little downtime. Those people are relatively rare and worki=
ng with your line staff gives one an opportunity to assess the various tale=
nt sets of the people in the organization. The abstract thinkers are the o=
nes good at being able to design a network from scratch and the concrete th=
inkers are the ones who will be great maintaining that network and keeping =
everything documented and done according to policy. You need both and it j=
ust so happens that you need more of one sort in just about the same propor=
tion that you find them in the general population. The key is to identify =
which people have which talents and place them where their natural abilitie=
s more closely mesh with their job requirements. If you can do that, you c=
an have a very powerful team. If you place people into positions simply ba=
sed on the number of years in the organization or because of holes punched =
in the cert ticket, you might end up with people in positions that they don=
't really like or aren't particularly good at doing. The first step in bui=
lding such an organization, though, is working closely with your people and=
attempting to identify whose natural abilities like in which direction. S=
ometimes it is more about talent than training, more about nature than nurt=
ure.
> To your point, if you look at skilled trades the simpler the task the
> more likely it will fall to the "new guy". Rack and stack is probably
> one of simplest jobs in our industry. A two man team, one senior, one
> junior, showing up at a colo may see the junior guy doing the physical
> work, while the senior guy works out any issues with the colo provider
> brings up the interconnection to them, etc.
But at the same time, if you have a guy who might not be so sharp at troubl=
eshooting a very complex network but is sharp as a tack when it comes to do=
cumenting things and keeping paperwork organized, that is a vital skill in =
the overall effort, too. That person should be given responsibility for ma=
intaining more of the documentation, organizing things so they are easy for=
other employees to find, etc. and their pay should still continue to incre=
ase as they gain wider scope across more of the organization over time. Th=
e point is that it often takes many different sorts of skills and attemptin=
g to match people's natural talents to the requirements of the organization=
benefits both parties provided the individual involved doesn't see their p=
osition as a dead end. A good person of the sort mentioned above can liter=
ally save hours of time for people doing other tasks such as troubleshootin=
g a problem. There is a certain synergy involved and some organizations re=
cognize that, and some don't. Some are better in an architectural role, so=
me are naturally better in a sustaining role, others are better at an organ=
izational support role and (darned) few are good at all of those tasks. So=
metimes we don't have the luxury of such specialization of roles, but some =
organizations do, particularly if they are in a phase of reorganization and=
downsizing. One thing to look at might not only be "how good is this pers=
on in their current role" but also "would this person absolutely kick butt =
in a different role".
> But key to an apprenticeship is that the senior guy does some of the
> low level work some of the time, and _shows_ the junior guy how to do
> it right. The senior guy might rack or stack a couple of boxes each
> colo they visit, and relate concepts like how the screw hole spacing
> works in the rack rails, how to plan cable management, proper labeling,
> and so on.
Actually, just having the senior person assist with some tasks such as movi=
ng/installing heavy/unwieldy gear does more than just show them how to do i=
t right, it is actually quite an important almost sort of bonding experienc=
e between employees. It says "I'm not allergic to work and not above doing=
the same job you are doing when it needs to get done, we are all important=
pieces of the big picture." It can give an employee a sense that they are=
respected and appreciated for the job they do, even if it is fairly low on=
the corporate org chart. It is still vital to the success of the overall =
business or they wouldn't be there to begin with. Doing things like this t=
elegraphs that in a tangible way without having to spew a lot of corporate =
propaganda.
=20
> It really accomplishes much of what everyone else is talking about,
> while still being productive. The "old hat" gets the downtime and
> catharsis of doing a simple, yet productive task. The new guy gets to
> learn how to do the job properly. The employer knows the work has been
> done right, as it was overseen by the old hat, and that they will have
> someone to replace him when the old hat retires.
The "old hat" still gets job satisfaction from seeing a vision come to phys=
ical life and operate as planned. Why deprive them of that? It can re-ene=
rgize one's love of a particular carrier field and remind them why they are=
in that field to begin with.
> Maybe if we did more apprecenship style learning folks would still know
> how to wrap cables with wax string. It's simple, fast, and works well.
Leo, in many trades, telecommunications being one of them, the military was=
one source of new people with some skills and with some hands-on experienc=
e. As that scales back these days, it gets harder to find such people. We=
don't have trade schools and we don't have apprenticeship programs like co=
mpanies used to have so I agree. People coming out of a community college =
or a certification program know enough to be extremely dangerous (sort of l=
ike a lieutenant with a screwdriver, the most dangerous person in the world=
aside from a corporal with a clipboard) and need to be mentored as they ga=
in perspective in real world situations. I completely agree that we should=
be looking more at our employees in the longer term as a nurturing process=
and identifying where their natural interests and abilities can benefit bo=
th sides of the equation. Having that interaction with the senior staff is=
vital. And that senior staff member should not only be explaining WHAT he=
is doing, but WHY he is doing it that way.
=20
