Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
- From: Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:46:31 +0200
- Message-id: <20090717094631.GA20439@celtic.nixsys.be>
- In-reply-to: <20090625201959.GA5706@sirena.org.uk>
- References: <20090623093053.GC21949@xanadu.blop.info> <4A40A925.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090623102446.GA26845@xanadu.blop.info> <email@example.com> <4A40CBC4.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090625122320.GH17812@sirena.org.uk> <20090625144650.GG3283@matthew.ath.cx> <20090625201959.GA5706@sirena.org.uk>
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:20:00PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
> > > templated questions. I felt that all I was doing was shooting enormous
> > I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
> > useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction
> > in other ways as appropriate, as long as it produces a similar result
> In theory. In practice that wasn't the impression that was given; the
> impression that was given was that they really really should be used.
> Even if I had carried on it was uncomfortable knowing that there
> presence or absence of the templates varied.
In practice, I (with my not that often used FD hat on) will accept an AM
report that is a result of a non-templated process, provided that the AM
was thorough in their requests.
If 'not using the templates' is just an excuse for "I think there's just
way too much stuff in the templates, and I want to get this over with,
with as little effort as possible", then I will not accept it. However,
if the mailbox convinces me that the AM did indeed thorougly check the
skills and knowledge of the NM, in about as thorough a manner as would
be done through use of the templates (or better, which is hardly
difficult), then I personally do not object to people ignoring the
templates; on the contrary.
I don't have any reason to think the DAM's idea of this is different,
but I could of course be mistaken.
> > (you are happy that the candidate _does_ know all those things and will
> > probably get them right in practice).
> Personally I think it's far more interesting to try to get an idea of
> how they'll handle things if they're working on something they've not
> looked at before and how they'll handle things when stuff doesn't go
> according to plan. The big lists of questions kind of work against
That is most certainly true; the big list of questions is mostly an
attempt at trying to cover as much as possible, so anyone (even those
who clearly know their stuff) are tested thoroughly. Personalizing the
process by asking little questions about things the applicant is clearly
an expert on, but asking more and doing more mentoring on areas the
applicant is not an expert on, is certainly welcome. I definitely would
like to see more people doing so.
The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is
trying to fool the system.