I was reminded once again why I am studying for an MBA degree: the studies 'top off' my need for intellectual stimulation. Whilst my day job provides a certain amount of stimulation, there are times when it doesn't and when people's actions cause a great deal of frustration. Yesterday was one of those days.
I was examining with someone the bill of materials (BOM) for a specific part, the left hand something of a table, which led us to examine the BOM for the right hand part. These two parts should have identical BOMs, as the materials required are the same, but they should have different technical drawings as the finished products obviously are not identical: they are enantiomorphs.
Unfortunately, the BOMs were not identical; the BOM for the right hand part was empty and of course the BOM for the left hand part contained twice the quantities needed for the part. The clever dick who defined the BOM reckoned that the left hand part would never be required without the right hand part and so he could save himself ten seconds by defining one BOM for both parts.
Apparently (and this is not my area of speciality), it is possible to order one part without the other. If only the left hand part were ordered, then twice the required amount of raw materials would be withdrawn. If only the right hand part were ordered, then no raw materials would be withdrawn. But even without this, it is more logical and more correct to define a BOM for each part.
This sort of thing makes me want to punch walls. I'm not sure who the specific person was who defined this double BOM, but it doesn't matter too much; all members of the group which defines these BOMs suffer from chronic misunderstanding of what an ERP system is along with a genetic rigidness of thought. Curiously (or not), all four members of the group have Russian ethnicity.
Yesterday evening's lecture in Human Resources Management was about recruitment and selection, and so ties in very nicely with the work that I do with the occupational psychologist. On the other hand, the conclusions of the HRM course are in opposition to those held by the psychologist, which causes me frequently to adopt a doublespeak position. There are only about fifteen students present at the lecture, which allows 'the audience' to interrupt the lecturer frequently with insights and asides. So, along with the source material, we heard about Dan Ariely and an article (whose title escapes me) about how people select recruits on the basis of only characteristic - such as whether one's degree is from a university (good) or from a college (bad) - without regard to any other characteristic of the applicants.