"resources"

[Andrew Robins]

Hi Everybody,

In the previous thread, I made the comment:

"Just as an aside (and I do this myself, so please don't take this personally). When did we start talking about people as "resources"? I try to avoid this where ever I can, but it is a pervasive meme that still catches me out on occassion. The term resources implies that people ( in this case testers) are interchangeable. Which we all know is not true."

To my mind the use of the term resource promotes "factory school" thinking. I used the term for years myself, and it still slips out on occasion, but I try hard to avoid it now.

Has this got any legs as a discussion point?

Cheers


Andrew

--
Test Manager, Tait Radio Communications

=======================================================================
This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended
addressee.  It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be
the subject of legal or other privilege, none of which is waived or
lost by reason of this transmission.
If the receiver is not the intended addressee, please accept our
apologies, notify us by return, delete all copies and perform no
other act on the email.
Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been
altered or corrupted during transmission.
=======================================================================

[Nethaji SC Bose]

The modern corporate world adopts the new public management practices where the classical thinking of work force is changed to human relation with psychological aspect of  constructive workforce rather than simply social animal...so the human resource in this scenario is goal oriented and mission driven rather than experimenting the means.

I like your word " Factory school" which is nothing but a machine oriented classical approach of management.

Regards,
Nethaji SC Bose.
Test engineer, Techno soft Corporation

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Software Testers New Zealand" group.

To post to this group, send email to software-teste...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to software-testers-new...@googlegroups.com.


For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/software-testers-new-zealand?hl=en.

[Andrew Robins]

Hi Nethali,

I can't claim the term Factory School as my own - others were there before me!

As for the use of the term resource to describe a goal oriented mission driven human rather than a simply social animal...

I am pretty sure that this is the definition that I am rejecting when I reject the use of the term "resource".

I feel that it is a simplistic, and not useful way to describe a person.

What good tester fits this box?

Most of the really good testers that I have dealt with, understand the primacy of human relationships in the work that they do. Those that don't need to be carefully supported, directed, and managed and can be a real pain to work with.

So - now that you have provided a definition, the question that I want to ask you is do you feel that this is a useful definition? Does it encourage you to look at people the way you need to look at them in order to deliver the best results?

For me the answer is a clear no.

Cheers

Andrew

[Shaun Boyce]

I think you're spot on re. the term promoting a factory school type of thinking, and more than that - it's probably appropriate when attempting a 'pure' factory school approach.

If the company you / someone works for is factory school focused, as some are, I would expect to hear people being referred to as resources (or similar) at lower and lower levels of the company hierarchy.

I wouldn't, for instance, expect to see many of the regular users of this group referring to testers as resources - not because the term itself is inherently bad but my impression is by-in-large the users here aren't factory school focused, so the term doesn't really apply.

I don't like the term in this context. People are a resource, in a sense, but I'd not choose to talk about a person as such personally.

[Nethaji SC Bose]

Hi Andrew,
                The explanation given by you is very much useful. But i slightly deviate from the term resource. Resource in the current scenario is dealt and recruited based on the goal and mission of the organization. The present context of human relation and its policies varies from region to region and it is not universalistic in nature and it is not  cross cultural. people working in the western countries and countries which are fully influenced and adopted the western culture enjoys and aware about their employee rights and responsibility. In certain level every employee move towards non-materialistic nature of  reward from materialistic nature (as said by Elton mayo- human behavioral thinker).

In this context, i would like to mention the real meaning of goal orientation and mission driven...It is nothing but grouping a set of people with common interest and moving them with team spirit( espirit de corps) and reaching a common point which is called as goal or mission. i think i over simplified this concept in my previous mail. I would also like to understand this concept of resource more in the form of empirical approach rather than normative.

I am eagerly expecting your feedback and constructive criticism.


Regards,
Nethaji SC Bose.
Test engineer, Techno soft Corporation, India

[Katrina Edgar]

Hi,

Seeing as it seems that this discussion still has legs...

> The term resources implies that people ( in this case testers) are interchangeable. Which we all know is not true.

Why aren't testers interchangeable? We should all hold a similar skill set. If you're resourcing a project, you'll want a certain number of testers to participate in it. The specific testers you choose may vary in individual quality, as will developers, managers, etc., but that doesn't preclude requiring a certain number of them?

I work in an agile environment, we use the term "resource" when speaking about how many people we need on our projects. Not in the least because we don't have enough people to resource them, so using names isn't an option. We could use the term people, but we tend to use resource for speaking at a high level, then developer and tester when describing the team breakdown. I don't have strong objections to the terminology.

Katrina

[Nethaji SC Bose]

Off course the term simply resource denotes the machine model theory of management, but in the present context of corporate world it does not have any validity. But somewhere around the other work group and work force it still have its validity.

In the present scenario if a employee is treated only as a resource in business term, the employee will be alienated from the organization goal and it gives an end to integration and harmony with in the team.

Finally in the present context of human relation  in the organization term resource simply not denotes the work force but a valuable key to reach the goal with team spirit.

Regards

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Software Testers New Zealand" group.

[Katrina Edgar]

Hi Nethaji,

> If a employee is treated only as a resource in business term, the employee will be alienated from the organization goal and it gives an end to integration and harmony with in the team

There is a difference between being treated only as a resource and using the term resource within an organisation, you've made a false equivalence. One is an organisation culture and one is just a word.

I disagree with being treated only as a resource by the business will "give an end to integration and harmony in the team". I've worked in a corporate environment as an employee number, but I was in a great team of people. You've made some pretty broad assumptions about what might result.

Katrina

[Nethaji SC Bose]

Hi Katrina,
Off course i agree with you that it is based on the organization culture. I am meaning the organization which practice the said culture. and not all and i am very specific and empirical in this point....I would like to see effective cross cultural practices which will increase the skills and promotes very good standard practices in the organization.
Regards,

Katrina

[Katrina Edgar]

I guess, in a nutshell, I just disagree with you :)

For me, someone using the term resource isn't an alarm bell. It's just a word. It doesn't necessarily reflect an evil organisational culture. Let's not overload it.

Katrina

[Nethaji SC Bose]

Me too reflect the same but i dont wanna narrow down it for self interest and exploitation

Katrina

[Andrew Robins]

Hi Katrina,

My responses in line below:

On 31 August 2011 09:05, Katrina Edgar <katrin...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

Seeing as it seems that this discussion still has legs...

> The term resources implies that people ( in this case testers) are interchangeable. Which we all know is not true.

Why aren't testers interchangeable? We should all hold a similar skill set. If you're resourcing a project, you'll want a certain number of testers to participate in it. The specific testers you choose may vary in individual quality, as will developers, managers, etc., but that doesn't preclude requiring a certain number of them?

I can't get past the first four words of this paragraph...

The short answer - which you allude to further on, is because they just aren't. And never will be. Differences matter. Of course some skills are common, and reuseable across testing domains. But its not just about skills. Chuck in domain knowledge, existing team relationships, preferences, levels of enthusiasm, familiarity with specific tools and technologies etc, etc, etc, and you have a prety powerful and compelling illustration of why testers are not and never will be interchangeable.

But you are correct in pointing out that when I plan a testing project, one of the first things I think about is how many testers I will need, and at that high level I am treating testers as if they were interchangeable. It is a useful mental shorthand for the early planning stages of a project. I just think that we are more likely to look at the actual human factors that need to be considered when taking our high level plans and turning them into a reality that gets implemented, if we use different language.

 

I work in an agile environment, we use the term "resource" when speaking about how many people we need on our projects. Not in the least because we don't have enough people to resource them, so using names isn't an option. We could use the term people, but we tend to use resource for speaking at a high level, then developer and tester when describing the team breakdown. I don't have strong objections to the terminology.

Katrina

Sure - it is a term in common usage. And most people do not consider it a loaded term.

But I do.

I see it as being a dehumanising use of language, and on a continuim.

At one end (the more neutral end) of the continuim you have terms like , "resource". At the other you have terms like "depreciating Human Capital" which is treasury speak from the 90's used to describe unemployed people.

Cheers


Andrew

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Software Testers New Zealand" group.

To post to this group, send email to software-teste...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to software-testers-new...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/software-testers-new-zealand?hl=en.

[Richard Robinson]

Personally, I use the resources and people interchangeably and have not met anyone that has called me out on it. When you get down to the philosophical/ideological debate, then we should not be dehumanising humans. But I dont see it as this. I see it as a common term that is easily understood. But it depends on the environment, the context, and the project and its people. If they want to be called people, then lets do that.

I dont see this as an issue in a fast paced environment with little time to lose.

[Oliver Erlewein]

So. Let me take this into the opposite direction. Every tester is an individual and has their own strengths and weaknesses. 

So in planning I now say I need a tester with testing abilities in functional testing above 6/10. And every tester has a or several rankings. Now we're getting closer to equating people to ability and away from the ominous resource. But would we be able to do this? Are we mature enough to deal with transferable down to that level? I'd probably doubt that. And I can just see the discussions around the rankings and ranking systems. 

Talking about a resource also protects the people. We're in a unexact business and talking about resourcing takes away a lot of human complexity and variation. As I said to some extent I believe it works both ways. 

Do I like talking about resources? Nope! I absolutely hate it. Do I have a practically viable alternative? Not yet. Is people a better word? Psychologically yes but that's about it really. 

Any thought on the above?

[Andrew Robins]

Hi Nethali,

I think that we can all agree that being goal oriented and mission driven is part of  (but only part of!) what we need to be successful as human beings, and as testers.

Looking at what you say below, I think that you are looking at the use of the term resource during the staffing and recruitment phase of a testing project.

If you check out my response to Katrina below, you will see my thoughts on that.

Cheers

Andrew

[Katrina Edgar]

I'm in agreement with both Oliver & Richard, although they got their point across much more eloquently.

I don't feel dehumanised by the term resource. I don't think it causes any specific organisation environment. I think as testers there are bigger battles to fight than 'don't call me a resource'.

> I just think that we are more likely to look at the actual human factors that need to be considered when taking our high level plans and turning them into a reality that gets implemented, if we use different language.

Yes, but once we start thinking of turning a high level plan in to reality, I would argue that you're no longer thinking at a high level? I would object to my manager addressing me as 'resource' in everyday use, but I don't think this was the original discussion point.

Thanks,
Katrina

[Andrew Robins]

I accept that I am in a minority here, and that for most people this is not a charged term.

The question that I am asking is.

"Should it be?"

But you are right to identify this as being a philosophical / ideological point. Which means that the likely verdict is that most of the time this is not going to be a battle worth fighting.

After all, as testers our job is to test stuff - not save the world.

Cheers

Andrew

[Andrew Robins]

Hi Katrina,

On 31 August 2011 12:37, Katrina Edgar <katrin...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm in agreement with both Oliver & Richard, although they got their point across much more eloquently.

I don't feel dehumanised by the term resource. I don't think it causes any specific organisation environment. I think as testers there are bigger battles to fight than 'don't call me a resource'.

Agreed on both points. I think it is more likely a symptom of organisational culture (and a common one), rather than a cause, and it is not necessarily a battle that needs to be fought.

I can't really imagine "correcting" anybody who uses the term resource. But I can imagine trying to promote discussion about our use of the term in a forum like this :-)

My decision to avoid using it myself, is a personal choice, rather than a personal crusade.

> I just think that we are more likely to look at the actual human factors that need to be considered when taking our high level plans and turning them into a reality that gets implemented, if we use different language.

Yes, but once we start thinking of turning a high level plan in to reality, I would argue that you're no longer thinking at a high level? I would object to my manager addressing me as 'resource' in everyday use, but I don't think this was the original discussion point.

The original discussion point was somewhat unspecific and philisophical (thanks Richard!), which can be a habit of mine!

Thanks,
Katrina

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Software Testers New Zealand" group.
To post to this group, send email to software-teste...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to software-testers-new...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/software-testers-new-zealand?hl=en.