crazietalk.net

You're beautiful AD, and I love you!

What's the latest on the new job front?

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:You're beautiful AD, and I love you!

What's the latest on the new job front?

Thanks, Ozzie! I'm still in a holding pattern. No news since the last week of December. The UTMB folks are probably still waiting to receive my application from HR; they can't officially do anything until they get it.

ArkieDukie wrote:

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:You're beautiful AD, and I love you!

What's the latest on the new job front?

Thanks, Ozzie! I'm still in a holding pattern. No news since the last week of December. The UTMB folks are probably still waiting to receive my application from HR; they can't officially do anything until they get it.

Time to touch base with HR to make sure your application is 'complete'. ;)

windsor wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:You're beautiful AD, and I love you!

What's the latest on the new job front?

Thanks, Ozzie! I'm still in a holding pattern. No news since the last week of December. The UTMB folks are probably still waiting to receive my application from HR; they can't officially do anything until they get it.

Time to touch base with HR to make sure your application is 'complete'. ;)

Done. I didn't contact HR, I contacted the people in the dept where I'm applying. Repeat visit to be arranged soon.

Remember all that work I had to do a couple of weeks ago? The stuff I had to change my plans for? The stuff NuBarbie should've been doing? Well, PHB assigned me a task today: I have to write a highly detailed SOP for what I did, complete with screen caps of the program. Guess I have to make it idiot proof. Yes, and this is also something NuBarbie should be doing. Problem is, she doesn't know how to do it, as evidenced by the fact that I've already had to do this for her multiple times.

Have any of you read the book "The Charm School" by Nelson DeMille? It's an excellent book. The premise of the book is that the Russians (back in the cold war days) were using POWs from Vietnam to train KGB agents to blend in as Americans. The POWs were appearing to teach their KGB agent counterparts all they needed to know, but they would show them things that were slightly wrong in order to make people realize that the agents were not what they appeared to be. I'm thinking I may do this with the SOP. Windsor et al, what do you think?

ArkieDukie wrote:Remember all that work I had to do a couple of weeks ago? The stuff I had to change my plans for? The stuff NuBarbie should've been doing? Well, PHB assigned me a task today: I have to write a highly detailed SOP for what I did, complete with screen caps of the program. Guess I have to make it idiot proof. Yes, and this is also something NuBarbie should be doing. Problem is, she doesn't know how to do it, as evidenced by the fact that I've already had to do this for her multiple times.

Have any of you read the book "The Charm School" by Nelson DeMille? It's an excellent book. The premise of the book is that the Russians (back in the cold war days) were using POWs from Vietnam to train KGB agents to blend in as Americans. The POWs were appearing to teach their KGB agent counterparts all they needed to know, but they would show them things that were slightly wrong in order to make people realize that the agents were not what they appeared to be. I'm thinking I may do this with the SOP. Windsor et al, what do you think?

I'd agree, it's fun to think about, but I'd consider that to be failing the WTA test. Presumably, it's not out of scope of your job to document SOPs, regardless of who's going to be using them?

Plus, once the document is complete, then you can respond to NuBarbie's requests for assistance with, "RTFM."

ArkieDukie wrote:Remember all that work I had to do a couple of weeks ago? The stuff I had to change my plans for? The stuff NuBarbie should've been doing? Well, PHB assigned me a task today: I have to write a highly detailed SOP for what I did, complete with screen caps of the program. Guess I have to make it idiot proof. Yes, and this is also something NuBarbie should be doing. Problem is, she doesn't know how to do it, as evidenced by the fact that I've already had to do this for her multiple times.

Have any of you read the book "The Charm School" by Nelson DeMille? It's an excellent book. The premise of the book is that the Russians (back in the cold war days) were using POWs from Vietnam to train KGB agents to blend in as Americans. The POWs were appearing to teach their KGB agent counterparts all they needed to know, but they would show them things that were slightly wrong in order to make people realize that the agents were not what they appeared to be. I'm thinking I may do this with the SOP. Windsor et al, what do you think?

I think you are setting yourself up to get hung out to dry if you include anything that is even slightly wrong. I appreciate why you WANT to...but take a deep breath and step away from precipice....

Ok, now that we've averted a come-back-to-bite-you-in-ass situation...write the SOP exactly correctly...but one level ABOVE idiot proof...or one level above NuBarbie. It would be ideal if PHB understood it...and NuBarbie did not.
Oh, and when you're done...apologize for it being "so simplistic...hope nobody takes offense...but I wanted to make sure I covered everything...."

That seems like great advice!!!!!!!!!!!

windsor wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:Remember all that work I had to do a couple of weeks ago? The stuff I had to change my plans for? The stuff NuBarbie should've been doing? Well, PHB assigned me a task today: I have to write a highly detailed SOP for what I did, complete with screen caps of the program. Guess I have to make it idiot proof. Yes, and this is also something NuBarbie should be doing. Problem is, she doesn't know how to do it, as evidenced by the fact that I've already had to do this for her multiple times.

Have any of you read the book "The Charm School" by Nelson DeMille? It's an excellent book. The premise of the book is that the Russians (back in the cold war days) were using POWs from Vietnam to train KGB agents to blend in as Americans. The POWs were appearing to teach their KGB agent counterparts all they needed to know, but they would show them things that were slightly wrong in order to make people realize that the agents were not what they appeared to be. I'm thinking I may do this with the SOP. Windsor et al, what do you think?

I think you are setting yourself up to get hung out to dry if you include anything that is even slightly wrong. I appreciate why you WANT to...but take a deep breath and step away from precipice....

Ok, now that we've averted a come-back-to-bite-you-in-ass situation...write the SOP exactly correctly...but one level ABOVE idiot proof...or one level above NuBarbie. It would be ideal if PHB understood it...and NuBarbie did not.
Oh, and when you're done...apologize for it being "so simplistic...hope nobody takes offense...but I wanted to make sure I covered everything...."

Definitely good advice. This is actually what I meant by "slightly wrong." I'll be making assumptions on about knowing how to do certain things that she won't know how to do.

ArkieDukie wrote:

windsor wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:Remember all that work I had to do a couple of weeks ago? The stuff I had to change my plans for? The stuff NuBarbie should've been doing? Well, PHB assigned me a task today: I have to write a highly detailed SOP for what I did, complete with screen caps of the program. Guess I have to make it idiot proof. Yes, and this is also something NuBarbie should be doing. Problem is, she doesn't know how to do it, as evidenced by the fact that I've already had to do this for her multiple times.

Have any of you read the book "The Charm School" by Nelson DeMille? It's an excellent book. The premise of the book is that the Russians (back in the cold war days) were using POWs from Vietnam to train KGB agents to blend in as Americans. The POWs were appearing to teach their KGB agent counterparts all they needed to know, but they would show them things that were slightly wrong in order to make people realize that the agents were not what they appeared to be. I'm thinking I may do this with the SOP. Windsor et al, what do you think?

I think you are setting yourself up to get hung out to dry if you include anything that is even slightly wrong. I appreciate why you WANT to...but take a deep breath and step away from precipice....

Ok, now that we've averted a come-back-to-bite-you-in-ass situation...write the SOP exactly correctly...but one level ABOVE idiot proof...or one level above NuBarbie. It would be ideal if PHB understood it...and NuBarbie did not.
Oh, and when you're done...apologize for it being "so simplistic...hope nobody takes offense...but I wanted to make sure I covered everything...."

Definitely good advice. This is actually what I meant by "slightly wrong." I'll be making assumptions on about knowing how to do certain things that she won't know how to do.

And that conveniently allows a TAMO step - something she should know but since she is NuBarbie it must be TAMO.

TAMO?

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:TAMO?

From earlier in the thread: Then A Miracle Occurs. I had to look back to find it.

ArkieDukie wrote:

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:TAMO?

From earlier in the thread: Then A Miracle Occurs. I had to look back to find it.

Ah, yes. Thanks! TTFN

I received an e-mail this afternoon from a collaborator. She is preparing to submit a new grant application and was wondering if I'd still be interested in participating in her project. When she asked before, I said yes. In fact, I believe this particular question was the subject of another WWWD question. As we all know, the situation is a bit different now. How should I handle the question? Should I stall for a few days?

ArkieDukie wrote:I received an e-mail this afternoon from a collaborator. She is preparing to submit a new grant application and was wondering if I'd still be interested in participating in her project. When she asked before, I said yes. In fact, I believe this particular question was the subject of another WWWD question. As we all know, the situation is a bit different now. How should I handle the question? Should I stall for a few days?

Try and put her off for a few days...or (if you don't think she'll run to PHB or someone else) tell her you would like to but there may be some 'changes' made that might prevent your being able to dedicate time to it. Tell her you will let her know in a few days when you have a better idea of your availability.

windsor wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:I received an e-mail this afternoon from a collaborator. She is preparing to submit a new grant application and was wondering if I'd still be interested in participating in her project. When she asked before, I said yes. In fact, I believe this particular question was the subject of another WWWD question. As we all know, the situation is a bit different now. How should I handle the question? Should I stall for a few days?

Try and put her off for a few days...or (if you don't think she'll run to PHB or someone else) tell her you would like to but there may be some 'changes' made that might prevent your being able to dedicate time to it. Tell her you will let her know in a few days when you have a better idea of your availability.

Can you do this project in your new position? Can it be part of your research there? Or is the collaborator an employee where you are now?

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:

windsor wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:I received an e-mail this afternoon from a collaborator. She is preparing to submit a new grant application and was wondering if I'd still be interested in participating in her project. When she asked before, I said yes. In fact, I believe this particular question was the subject of another WWWD question. As we all know, the situation is a bit different now. How should I handle the question? Should I stall for a few days?

Try and put her off for a few days...or (if you don't think she'll run to PHB or someone else) tell her you would like to but there may be some 'changes' made that might prevent your being able to dedicate time to it. Tell her you will let her know in a few days when you have a better idea of your availability.

Can you do this project in your new position? Can it be part of your research there? Or is the collaborator an employee where you are now?

I thought about that too...and assumed the project would be a no go at the new gig...but if that isn't the case you still need to hold off - you will want to run it by your new boss before committing.

This person is a long-term collaborator of PHB. I'm confident that the work will stay here. That's okay; there will be more than enough work to keep me busy at my new position.

ArkieDukie wrote:This person is a long-term collaborator of PHB. I'm confident that the work will stay here. That's okay; there will be more than enough work to keep me busy at my new position.

Stall....say nothing...but do reach out personally after you've resigned and explain the delay....never hurts to keep those bridges intact!

windsor wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:This person is a long-term collaborator of PHB. I'm confident that the work will stay here. That's okay; there will be more than enough work to keep me busy at my new position.

Stall....say nothing...but do reach out personally after you've resigned and explain the delay....never hurts to keep those bridges intact!

Just got another message from the collaborator. The grant goes out on Friday and she needs an answer. Submitting the grant is no guarantee that it will be funded, but I would still feel badly about saying I'll do it when I will probably not be around. What should I do?