by NickyBoy » Wed 21 Sep 2011, 08:02:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'B')ut may I ask...........when you work, does your end product add to the problem or does it ameliorate the problem? Or do you not care so long as you are doing something?
I'm a software developer, more specifically a coder with some forays into database/analysis work.
My work falls into 3 key areas
1 - Producing new software
2 - Adding functionality to existing software
3 - Fixing issues with existing software
My input is invariably positive - I am the digital equivalent of a resource producer/handyman.
Thankfully the same sort of intelligent management that keeps me to a 35 hour week has also secured me against my job being off shored. The powers that be at my company decided the drop in quality that results from off-shoring development and support to Asia was not worth the savings that would be made.
Consequently we maintain a very high standard of software and support and thanks to our very efficient man-hour/output ratio we actually produce software cheaper than our American competitors.
The key points of success, internally, are considered to be realising the value of a 35 hour week in highly cognitive jobs and keeping development local, where responsibility and quality are easy to track and maintain.
EDIT - As a side note, there is now an increasing trend in the IT industry to cut back on work hours and reverse the off-shoring process. Many companies are coming to realise the same thing our directors/managers figured out a decade ago. Having competent management also makes me happy and content - they actually earn what they are paid!
EDIT2 - I just realised you were asking about the end product of my work, not the process that I engage in. My bad.
As an example, for the previous month I have been working on an improvement to our Insurance package that is used by companies that provide Large Industrial insurance (boats/machinery/mining equipment/etc).
A hold-over from the paper-days is that quotes for insurance treaties would be offered one at a time, with them either being accepted and taken up into a treaty or rejected. Rejection would normally coincide with additional/changed information about terms from the client that would allow the insurance provider to generate a new quote. The process of to-ing and fro-ing would often take weeks. The software for its part would perform instantaneously but each individual quote would need to be analysed by the administration/management of the client.
My changes (held under the catch-all of 'Full Form Quotes') allow the insurance provider to send a batch of quotes, each slightly different, from which the client can choose one(while still having the option to reject them all, or select one as 'close' and then reject it to be used as the new baseline for another batch). This methodology has been present in other insurance fields for a while but until my changes this was practically unheard of in Large Industrial insurance.
In this way, large-industrial insurance negotiations can now be done in a few hours instead of a few weeks. Given that insurance of this type is often a prerequisite of a new 'real industry' process being initiated, I will be saving thousands of companies (clients of our clients) weeks of downtime.
I feel September has been a productive month and am proud to have used my skills to help thousands of companies reduce the effects of red tape
