Good intent and somewhat competent

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

At 10:06 AM +0900 1/20/97, David R. Conrad wrote:
>Howard,
>
>If Kim posts rough estimates, what do you think the probability is
>she'll be flamed with thermonuclear intensity should the actual
>numbers deviate from those estimates?  My guess would be the number
>approaches 1 as the actual numbers go over her estimates -- regardless
>of whatever provisos she puts in or all capital letter requests you
>might make to the peanut gallery.

I understand that we have a significant number of fools who flame at the
slightest hint of what they believe to be a conspiracy or an attempt to
mislead.  On the other hand, I have always been uncomfortable in seeing
budgetary numbers for ANYTHING without having a reasonable idea of the
underlying process.   A certain number of people who flame MIGHT be willing
to take a second look if they know some of the raw material from which the
budgetary numbers are derived.  Also, many people simply are not aware of
some functions that are needed in a real world operation.

I've been involved in the setup of not-for-profit industry consortia,
which, in the case of the Corporation for Open Systems, could also be read
disasters.  I hope we can learn from mistakes.  If I don't understand the
underlying functions in a proposal, just seeing budgetary numbers is of no
help in understanding the process or how it might be improved.

I've also spent time in national politics, and always remember the
admonition that people really shouldn't watch how sausage, or their laws,
actually are made.  Yet processes as well as budgets should be eligible for
review.

Kim,  I am obviously in no position to make other than a polite request for
these estimates, and I will as politely quiet down if you do not want to
provide them at this point.  I will argue that I believe they would be
helpful at this point, and I strongly suggest that they be available as a
supplement when the final budget is prepared.

>
>I'd really like to suggest we let Kim finish revising the draft
>proposal and working out real budgetary numbers -- it will make things
>a whole lot easier in the end.  Of course, I'd also like to suggest
>people stop getting into wars.  Both probably have equal likelihood
>of coming true.
>
>Regards,
>-drc
>--------
>>Kim,
>>
>>I understand fully that you need to do a full budget, and I am really not
>>trying to get you to commit on pieces.  If at all possible, I'd appreciate
>>it if you could give a sense of the range of time and average time it takes
>>your group to process a single allocation request.  I'm speaking of staff
>>hours, not duration in-and-out; I recognize there is probably an internal
>>review process.
>>
>>In fact, it might be very useful if you could share a general idea of the
>>work flow from when an allocation request is received to when it is
>>rejected or implemented.  TO ALL READERS:  I AM ASKING FOR A ROUGH ESTIMATE
>>HERE...not anything that we will hold Kim to in the future.
>>
>>The more I think about it, however, the more I think it might help get
>>rational people working together if they had a common view of the real-time
>>process.  RFC2050 deals with policy, an essential but different matter.
>>
>>Yes, I know you have to have lawyers.  When I did clinical things, we knew
>>we needed infection control people and a morgue, but they were not the
>>first focus.
>>
>>Howard