Re: Specifications

Subject: Re: Specifications
From: Christopher Carmichael <chrisc -at- SYNERGYMICRO -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:28:51 -0800

>2. Does anyone have any suggestions as to dealing with stubborn project
>leaders who don't seem to think these are important . I have tried the
>"legal liability" argument and the "we need them to write the manual"
>argument but to little avail.

Like an old military term, the chain-of-command is only as strong as the
weakest link. If the need is not perceived from above, then it won't from
below. Using that chain of command <<and not jerking it>> let your concern
be heard.

G'Luck!


+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Chris Carmichael I've been reformatted with new ideas, |
| Synergy Microsystems however the file allocation table is |
| San Diego corrupt. |
| 619.452.0020 x227 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
..........................................................................

Posts: mailto:techwr-l -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu
Commands: mailto:listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g. SIGNOFF TECHWR-L)
Archives: http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html,
http://www.documentation.com/, or http://www.dejanews.com/
Subjects: JOB:, QUESTION:, SUMMARY:, ANNOUNCE:, or none of these.



Previous by Author: Re: Idiot Audience
Next by Author: Re: "a" versus "an" with an acronym
Previous by Thread: Specifications -Reply
Next by Thread: Re: Specifications


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads