Clones of Ourselves

[dennisbbb]

Should a company be so scared about keeping the computers running smoothly that it needs to hire "clones" of ourselves?

Some of the reasons are:

1) Just in case the Application Specialist is out on vacation, someone fully trained can cover without panic.
2) Just in case the Administratro quits, someone fully aware of the infrastructure can take full charge.
3) Just in case they terminate the Web Administrator, there will already be a fully trained 2nd Web Administrator.

As you can see, the company is so scared that it needs clones of each position.

The questions:

1) Are the majority of companies like this?
2) If so, can responsibilities be jointly managed?
3) Is job security affected somehow for both the original and the clone?
4) What other solutions are there to assure the company that such a drastic tactic is not wise besides wasting money?


Your thoughts are appreciated!

 

[EBGreen]

We always keep at least two people trained on any given project/topic. Usually one is the primary and the other is a backup. The goal is not to have a "clone" but to have someone that would have a minimal ramp-up time if they had to step in for the primary. Not having a backup seems silly to me.

[red]"... isn't sanity really just a one trick pony anyway?! I mean, all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you are good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit!" - The Tick[/red]

 

[Grenage]

To a degree it's probably healthy in the right situation (the position is truly critical). I'd like to think I am fairly important to the company I work for, I implemented most of the current network myself, ensure everything is secure etc etc; basic network admin stuff. I am however under no illusions of being irreplaceable, should I be fired I am sure a competent consultant could assist until a replacement was up to scratch. Documentation will help a large amount if you are replaced but it would still be a while before everything was absorbed.

So my initial thoughts might be:

1) Probably not many, it would be a costly redundancy.

2) Provided the staff in question get along and there is enough to do, I don't see why not. The field would probably have to be large enough that having two members would benefit.

3) Yes, if the company were to change it's policies; I would imagine those policies would have to have been implemented for a very good reason in the first place though.

4) That's a tough question, I'd probably point back to #2 and ensure that the fields being covered were overlapping but not completely. You've got good redundancy but not a spare set of hands wandering around like a lost soul.


Carlsberg don't run I.T departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[gbaughma]

If the company is taking a "team approach", truly thinking "Win-Win", then enough people would be informed that someone else could ramp up quickly.

Unfortunately, people don't think that way generally.

The concept of "Win-Win" is getting out of the thought that there is only so much pie; and if someone gets a larger chunk of that pie, then there's less pie for me.

To truly think "Win-Win" (and to use the pie analogy), people must realize that there IS no pie. I have some flour, someone else has sugar, someone else has fruit, and through cooperation, we can MAKE a pie. But no one person can make a pie by themselves.

Once you get into thinking "Win-Win", and realize that you can do more cooperatively, *then* amazing things get done.

And, believe it or not, you've done it before. Have you ever had a really heavy piece of furniture that you couldn't move by yourself? You asked for help. Using cooperation, you got a job done that you weren't able to do by yourself.

OK... I've rambled enough.


Just my 2¢

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg

 

[sbudzynski]

A company should always have another person who can fufill an employee's job while they are on vacation. This is a nice internal control, make your employees take vacations so that another employee can do their job for a while. The 2nd employee can pick up on stuff the managers might be missing, whether it be faster ways to do things or errors being made.


----------

Steve Budzynski


"So, pass another round around for the kids. Who have nothing left to lose and for those souls old and sold out by the soles of my shoes"

 

[dennisbbb]

From a company's perspective, it is nice to have knowledgeable hands on deck while paying salaries as low as they can. However by doing this, there are consequences to both employees involved, and ultimately will affect the efficiency of the company with higher turnover rate.

Some obvious ones that will drive a high rate of turnover.

1) A shared position will divide the number of tasks in half for each individual.
2) With two people involved per position, the likelihood of a raise for each individual is minimized.
3) Morally speaking, that feeling of pride/importance per employee is lessened.

 

[SantaMufasa]

Dennis,

For how many of your really important files do you have only one copy? You/I would be nuts to have only one copy of data that is "important" to us. A disk should never be worth more to a person/company than the cost of blank media.

Applying the same priciple to a company's workforce, a company would be nuts to have only "one copy" of an important worker...And no single worker should be able to "hold the company hostage" via her/his unduplicated knowledge (particularly when that "knowledge" is [most likely] the company's from a legal perspective).

No one should ever be in the inappropriate position of being irreplacable. Being so makes the worker also less able to be mobile (i.e., go work for another organisation) if s/he chooses.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I can provide you with low-cost, remote Database Administration services: see our website and contact me via www.dasages.com]

 

[LadySlinger]

1) Are the majority of companies like this?
Of the 3 companies I have worked for since college, 1 did this. The second panic when I turned in my resignation and the 3rd already went through a crappy IT person whom they layed off so they're making sure if ever I leave there can be an easier filler than before.

2) If so, can responsibilities be jointly managed?
yes, providing there is a lot of communication between the two people. Once one drops their level of communication, the other will not be updated on any changes and therefore could have a harder time if they go on vacation.

3) Is job security affected somehow for both the original and the clone?
If the clone is there to solely exist to be a vacation filler, then not anymore then today's standards. However it would be wise for the "clone" to contract himself out and keep 2-3 jobs solely as the vacation filler. Or in the time of lay-offs or the main IT quitting, then take over the position until the company finds a replacement.

4) What other solutions are there to assure the company that such a drastic tactic is not wise besides wasting money?
Document and stay organized. My disaster-recovery plans include more information then necessary in the event that I'm no longer available to recover data lost.
I keep myself organized by documenting all serial numbers of software, mapping out emails within my Inbox and organize all of my documentation either by server or software.
I think of the statement "What if I..." and fill in the blank. Died? Went into a coma? was seriously injured and in the hospital? I want as little phone calls as possible if I'm on vacation or home sick (and especially if I'm in the hospital or dead LOL).