Curt Doolittle

Theme: Productivity

  • HELP: STUPID ACCOUNTING QUESTION – PROJECT ACCOUNTING Costs, Expenses and ‘Float

    HELP: STUPID ACCOUNTING QUESTION – PROJECT ACCOUNTING

    Costs, Expenses and ‘Floats’.

    1) A cost is something that does not get consumed in the process of producing revenue.

    2) An expense is something that does get consumed in the process of producing revenue.

    3) A project expense (a ‘float’) is neither an expense nor a cost, but a loan from the company to the customer, which is billed to the customer as if it is revenue.

    Now, given that in project accounting, one can be reimbursed (float), or one can bear the expense (expense), but rarely if ever bear a cost, what is the proper sequence for booking transactions?

    In the states we book project expenses as revenue, even though it distorts both revenue and profitability. In the international market, I’m not sure I understand how this is generally done.

    I actually should know this and I don’t, or I’ve forgotten.

    Thanks in advance.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-19 10:36:00 UTC

  • Oversing: Well, you know, there is a big difference between companies who do TWO

    Oversing: Well, you know, there is a big difference between companies who do TWO THOUSAND projects a year, and those who do ten, twenty or one hundred. Some of us have serious work loads. Now, that’s a 50K project average. And that means we had a lot of small projects to mix with the big ones. But still, 2000 deliverables is a lot of deliverables to manage. That’s 2000 risk management efforts. It’s hard work.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-14 17:02:00 UTC

  • Is it just me, or is progressivism reducible to a search for reasons to feel goo

    Is it just me, or is progressivism reducible to a search for reasons to feel good about yourself without having to actually do anything productive, or bear any cost?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-01 16:17:00 UTC

  • ERIC FIELD GETS IT RIGHT – ORGANIZERS OF PRODUCTION IN THE DIVISION OF INTERTEMP

    ERIC FIELD GETS IT RIGHT – ORGANIZERS OF PRODUCTION IN THE DIVISION OF INTERTEMPORAL KNOWLEDGE AND LABOR

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-21 07:37:00 UTC

  • My answer to How do you make programmers work 60-80 hours per week?

    My answer to How do you make programmers work 60-80 hours per week? http://qr.ae/Encsr

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-20 12:43:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/568752915697045504

  • How Do You Make Programmers Work 60-80 Hours Per Week?

    The answer, as a political economist, is this:

    Why are you trying to obtain a discount on the cost of software development by obtaining two employees worth of work from one employee?  I mean, that’s the honest question?

    If instead, you ask, “why do some programmers like to work 80 hours a week, and others do not?”  It’s because if you’re working on a game program, or something that is passionately fascinating to you, then you’d rather do that than anything else.  But you cannot possibly make most programming that interesting. 

    I work easily 14 hours a day between my occupation and my avocation, and often much more, and usually six or seven days a week.  But I both have the physical and mental capacity to do so (mostly), and I would rather do my vocation and avocation than I would do anything else.

    The number of people with the (a) physical, (b) mental ability, plus treat programming as both (c) vocation and (d) avocation, and who (e) prefer doing very little else – is just limited.

    So, just as very few species can be domesticated, because they require compatibility in five different behavioral traits, very few programmers (or people in general for that matter) can work that hard that much because all five of the criteria a,b,c,d and e, must be met to get that from people.

    Money actually won’t do it, only make it easier to do.  Opportunity helps motivate a little.  Love of what they do helps most, and  the individual’s genetics are the greatest determinant. 

    But, if you think you can ‘motivate’ people into working those hours the only way that I know of is to do it for six weeks or less, and bonus EVERYONE Involved something life-altering if they achieve the goal, after which they get a vacation for two weeks.  Why?  Because social membership will drive people more than any other factor – at least for short periods of time. 

    If you put such an incentive together, anyone who doesn’t carry the water of the whole team – fire immediately, and keep the rest. Otherwise they poison the well.

    But it’s an illogical man that seeks to obtain two people’s worth of labor from one person.  I mean, that’s not only fruitless, and marginally impossible: it’s immoral.

    Which is why so many countries forbid it.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-make-programmers-work-60-80-hours-per-week

  • How Do You Make Programmers Work 60-80 Hours Per Week?

    The answer, as a political economist, is this:

    Why are you trying to obtain a discount on the cost of software development by obtaining two employees worth of work from one employee?  I mean, that’s the honest question?

    If instead, you ask, “why do some programmers like to work 80 hours a week, and others do not?”  It’s because if you’re working on a game program, or something that is passionately fascinating to you, then you’d rather do that than anything else.  But you cannot possibly make most programming that interesting. 

    I work easily 14 hours a day between my occupation and my avocation, and often much more, and usually six or seven days a week.  But I both have the physical and mental capacity to do so (mostly), and I would rather do my vocation and avocation than I would do anything else.

    The number of people with the (a) physical, (b) mental ability, plus treat programming as both (c) vocation and (d) avocation, and who (e) prefer doing very little else – is just limited.

    So, just as very few species can be domesticated, because they require compatibility in five different behavioral traits, very few programmers (or people in general for that matter) can work that hard that much because all five of the criteria a,b,c,d and e, must be met to get that from people.

    Money actually won’t do it, only make it easier to do.  Opportunity helps motivate a little.  Love of what they do helps most, and  the individual’s genetics are the greatest determinant. 

    But, if you think you can ‘motivate’ people into working those hours the only way that I know of is to do it for six weeks or less, and bonus EVERYONE Involved something life-altering if they achieve the goal, after which they get a vacation for two weeks.  Why?  Because social membership will drive people more than any other factor – at least for short periods of time. 

    If you put such an incentive together, anyone who doesn’t carry the water of the whole team – fire immediately, and keep the rest. Otherwise they poison the well.

    But it’s an illogical man that seeks to obtain two people’s worth of labor from one person.  I mean, that’s not only fruitless, and marginally impossible: it’s immoral.

    Which is why so many countries forbid it.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-make-programmers-work-60-80-hours-per-week

  • The 21st century worker has opinions. About himself, the business, and society.

    The 21st century worker has opinions. About himself, the business, and society.

    Unfortunately it is an empirically uninformed one.

    Oversing.

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-16 07:27:00 UTC

  • MALINVESTMENT Whenever Investment is Provided by Those Without Occupational Depe

    MALINVESTMENT

    Whenever Investment is Provided by Those Without Occupational Dependence Upon Income From Practice Of Craft.

    It is tragically simple to detect malinvestment.

    Some malinvestment often produces extraordinary ends at the top, where experimentation is being performed.

    The remaining malinvestment is simply malinvestment – the seeking of rewards by those without the knowledge and ability to construct them.

    Flocking and schooling create malinvestment.

    Central bankers create flocking and schooling in consumption industries which obscure ‘growth’ in productivity (waste)

    Investors create flocking and schooling to speculative innovations (gambling).

    Entrerpreneurs create flocking and schooling to PRODUCTIVE innovations.

    Now, you can get into all sorts of niche arguments over this, but once we come to terms on terms, my arguments will stand. You might argue that in the short term, our moral obligation is to keep money moving and consumption moving. And I agree with that. I just disagree with that being a measure of ‘good economics’ or good policy, and instead, a necessary tragedy given insufficient innovation, and excessive human reproduction.

    On the other hand, a declining population producing increasing productivity is the only logical and rational goal that we can pursue over the medium and long term.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-07 03:44:00 UTC

  • I beat myself up about every imperfection in our product. Then I look at Yammer,

    I beat myself up about every imperfection in our product.

    Then I look at Yammer, Asana, Mavenlink, Jira, Pivotal, Tenrox, Changepoint.

    We can taste it. We are close enough to taste it. But we are still behind schedule, and over budget.

    On the other hand, it rocks.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-26 13:47:00 UTC