Advice for working with feedback
Discussion
Hello,
I'm about to graduate in Mechanical Engineering and obviously have been looking for a job.
I've had feedback from 4 different graduate interviews/assessments which I wasn't successful at. The roles were quite mixed: project management, improvement consulting, energy consulting and Hydropower engineering, all for large companies. The latter said I was excellent but they can only hire one and someone was slightly better which is fair enough.
The others have given me feedback which has generally been similar. I'm good at presenting, very good mathematically and analytically but my team working and ability to influence isn't quite there. For example, one group task I failed, I found the right answer but wasn't able to convince the rest of the group.
It's encouraging that I'm able to get the interviews but lack one or two skills. Clearly I need to develop better influencing skills, and stop focusing on the numbers too much. I'm also told I need to be more outward and create more of an initial impact.
Does anyone have a recommendation of what kind of thing I could do to work on these?
So far I've been trying to create more of an assured demeanor, using definite terminology and speaking with more conviction, but I wondered if there was anything any PHers have done to come out of their shell to help with this?
I'm about to graduate in Mechanical Engineering and obviously have been looking for a job.
I've had feedback from 4 different graduate interviews/assessments which I wasn't successful at. The roles were quite mixed: project management, improvement consulting, energy consulting and Hydropower engineering, all for large companies. The latter said I was excellent but they can only hire one and someone was slightly better which is fair enough.
The others have given me feedback which has generally been similar. I'm good at presenting, very good mathematically and analytically but my team working and ability to influence isn't quite there. For example, one group task I failed, I found the right answer but wasn't able to convince the rest of the group.
It's encouraging that I'm able to get the interviews but lack one or two skills. Clearly I need to develop better influencing skills, and stop focusing on the numbers too much. I'm also told I need to be more outward and create more of an initial impact.
Does anyone have a recommendation of what kind of thing I could do to work on these?
So far I've been trying to create more of an assured demeanor, using definite terminology and speaking with more conviction, but I wondered if there was anything any PHers have done to come out of their shell to help with this?
Whilst this great reflection and something to work on over time, it's quite difficult to change your spots overnight. I'd keep plugging away with applications, making fine adjustments as you've started to and one of your applications will eventually 'click'.
Do also think about your dress, posture, eye contact, ability to listen to others (and acknowledge their good ideas) then add your own thoughts when appropriate. Those and many others count towards the impression you make.
Good luck!
Do also think about your dress, posture, eye contact, ability to listen to others (and acknowledge their good ideas) then add your own thoughts when appropriate. Those and many others count towards the impression you make.
Good luck!
Try and video a few mock scenarios and watch yourself back. You will be able to see what others can then. Some basic things such as eye contact, expressions, hand gestures, leaning forwards etc all help to generate a style. Language and grammar also help. But, as you have found once you get to a certain level of detail and content the ability to be engaging and charismatic is important.
There are a few subtleties you can try, however, it is hard to change your personality. If you keep plugging away you will get lucky.
I remember fluking a graduate assessment centre after having failed several. The reason being that the group exercise was something I had done for real at work, so while everyone else was trying to digest the brief, I was already telling them exactly what needed to be done, when, by whom etc. It made me look ultra-confident and capable but in reality it was blind luck :-)
If you can afford it a more expensive suit, a proper pair of shoes (Loakes or above for a guy, LK Bennet or better for a girl) and decent silk tie (or female equivalent) will work wonders. Knowing you are better dressed than the other people in the room will subconsciously have you standing up a bit straighter yourself.
You can also lower your voice a little, speak slightly more slower and deliberately with a little more pronunciation than you would normally use. We're not talking James T Kirk or James Earl Jones, but you get the idea. That should not only give you more of an impression of authority, but also you will have more time to think when you are speaking more slowly. If people try to cut in, keep talking through them and they will shut up. I know it's rude, but sometimes you have to fight to win. Equally, however, do not feel you have to talk for the sake of it. Listen and only join in when you are contributing something effectively. Make eye contact with one or two people who you have picked as the friendliest; win them first and you can then start to turn the room.
Perhaps the best piece of advice is to network beforehand. Ruthlessly. Beginning at the train station/nearest services/hotel reception/wherever candidates start to congregate. Identify your competitors and talk to all of them. Find out their degree, their hobbies, their preferences (quiet, loud, conservative, liberal, whatever). Keep your own answers non-committal. Then when you are in the group situation you can identify the right buttons to push for each competitor. e.g. in a group situation if you have identified someone is quiet and meek, ask them for their opinion. That wins you double brownie points (inclusiveness, ability to hear other opinions and seek consensus + you will have an ally).
There is probably loads more that someone like rog could write, but realistically you need to ensure you don't accidentally get yourself a job you don't want by virtue of playing the game too much :-)
I remember fluking a graduate assessment centre after having failed several. The reason being that the group exercise was something I had done for real at work, so while everyone else was trying to digest the brief, I was already telling them exactly what needed to be done, when, by whom etc. It made me look ultra-confident and capable but in reality it was blind luck :-)
If you can afford it a more expensive suit, a proper pair of shoes (Loakes or above for a guy, LK Bennet or better for a girl) and decent silk tie (or female equivalent) will work wonders. Knowing you are better dressed than the other people in the room will subconsciously have you standing up a bit straighter yourself.
You can also lower your voice a little, speak slightly more slower and deliberately with a little more pronunciation than you would normally use. We're not talking James T Kirk or James Earl Jones, but you get the idea. That should not only give you more of an impression of authority, but also you will have more time to think when you are speaking more slowly. If people try to cut in, keep talking through them and they will shut up. I know it's rude, but sometimes you have to fight to win. Equally, however, do not feel you have to talk for the sake of it. Listen and only join in when you are contributing something effectively. Make eye contact with one or two people who you have picked as the friendliest; win them first and you can then start to turn the room.
Perhaps the best piece of advice is to network beforehand. Ruthlessly. Beginning at the train station/nearest services/hotel reception/wherever candidates start to congregate. Identify your competitors and talk to all of them. Find out their degree, their hobbies, their preferences (quiet, loud, conservative, liberal, whatever). Keep your own answers non-committal. Then when you are in the group situation you can identify the right buttons to push for each competitor. e.g. in a group situation if you have identified someone is quiet and meek, ask them for their opinion. That wins you double brownie points (inclusiveness, ability to hear other opinions and seek consensus + you will have an ally).
There is probably loads more that someone like rog could write, but realistically you need to ensure you don't accidentally get yourself a job you don't want by virtue of playing the game too much :-)
Twin2 said:
The others have given me feedback which has generally been similar. I'm good at presenting, very good mathematically and analytically but my team working and ability to influence isn't quite there. For example, one group task I failed, I found the right answer but wasn't able to convince the rest of the group.
I have feedback similar to this in the past. One thing that was highlighted to me was that when I talk I prefix a lot of my sentences with "I think", "maybe", "perhaps" etc. The problem with that is if you don't believe in what you are saying no one else will.Not sure if that is helpful or not but I have found that since I am more aware of it and do it less what I say has more impact.
944fan said:
I have feedback similar to this in the past. One thing that was highlighted to me was that when I talk I prefix a lot of my sentences with "I think", "maybe", "perhaps" etc. The problem with that is if you don't believe in what you are saying no one else will.
Not sure if that is helpful or not but I have found that since I am more aware of it and do it less what I say has more impact.
I think I have the same trait.Not sure if that is helpful or not but I have found that since I am more aware of it and do it less what I say has more impact.
Replacing it with, "based on my experience" and "after careful consideration", etc can change how people perceive what you say.
Thank you all for your ideas.
I'll definitely video myself, that's interesting. Or perhaps do a mock assessment at university and ask to video it.
In my normal life I'm trying to be aware of when I say "maybe" or "I think so" and be more definite about everything I say, to appear confident. Regarding talking slowly, I already do, something I picked up living in Germany and having no one to talk to that spoke English as their first language, so I had to slow down and think of the easiest way to say what was on my mind. Now I just have to adapt it to make my speech either more eloquent or more to the point.
I'll definitely video myself, that's interesting. Or perhaps do a mock assessment at university and ask to video it.
In my normal life I'm trying to be aware of when I say "maybe" or "I think so" and be more definite about everything I say, to appear confident. Regarding talking slowly, I already do, something I picked up living in Germany and having no one to talk to that spoke English as their first language, so I had to slow down and think of the easiest way to say what was on my mind. Now I just have to adapt it to make my speech either more eloquent or more to the point.
The trick really is to explain your reasoning. It doesnt matter if you cant do public speaking the to level of an on stage comedian or newsreader, it's being able to put your point across logically with backup showing how you've got to where you ended up
Feedback can always be taken with a pinch of salt anyway, there's not many places who'll actually tell you 'we got someone with more experience who wanted less money'
Feedback can always be taken with a pinch of salt anyway, there's not many places who'll actually tell you 'we got someone with more experience who wanted less money'
Twin2 said:
So far I've been trying to create more of an assured demeanor, using definite terminology and speaking with more conviction, but I wondered if there was anything any PHers have done to come out of their shell to help with this?
This is key, smart people see multiple solutions to a problem and as a result qualify their language with caveats which reduces the impact because it creates an impression of prevarication. While the former serves you well in an academic environment, it can be counter productive in the commercial setting. Cultivate the habit keeping it simple when presenting a solution, hold your reservations in reserve, unless some specifically asks about them.When presented with a flawed/poor alternative, do not immediately challenge it by pointing out the flaws, instead use questions to help the others understand the flaw(s).
I would be tempted to respond with something like, "I'm happy to receive your feedback and I agree that a company that values conformity over thoroughness would not be a good fit for myself." You can afford a little arrogance here because they have already suggested you are the opposite.
4x4Tyke said:
This is key, smart people see multiple solutions to a problem and as a result qualify their language with caveats which reduces the impact because it creates an impression of prevarication. While the former serves you well in an academic environment, it can be counter productive in the commercial setting. Cultivate the habit keeping it simple when presenting a solution, hold your reservations in reserve, unless some specifically asks about them.
When presented with a flawed/poor alternative, do not immediately challenge it by pointing out the flaws, instead use questions to help the others understand the flaw(s).
I would be tempted to respond with something like, "I'm happy to receive your feedback and I agree that a company that values conformity over thoroughness would not be a good fit for myself." You can afford a little arrogance here because they have already suggested you are the opposite.
Well, this is exactly why I didn't get one of the jobs.When presented with a flawed/poor alternative, do not immediately challenge it by pointing out the flaws, instead use questions to help the others understand the flaw(s).
I would be tempted to respond with something like, "I'm happy to receive your feedback and I agree that a company that values conformity over thoroughness would not be a good fit for myself." You can afford a little arrogance here because they have already suggested you are the opposite.
Everything else was excellent except the group exercise where we were to find a solution that balanced cost, time and didn't upset locals or customers. The solution everyone else backed was one that took twice the amount of time that mine did, and ran straight past a customer, who wouldn't consider us for more work if we annoyed them. BUT, they said, it cost 2% less. I had the solution that was correct and didn't get the job because "I couldn't convince the team of the correct solution." Which is completely counter intuitive, that they DO want to hire people who can't see that the flaws. In my book, being right comes first, every time, but I'd have had the job if I'd just voiced my reasons.
I had an interview yesterday for a new position where I work part-time that will have me making fast decisions based on real-time data, in an effort to get better at this too, fingers crossed.
Twin2 said:
Well, this is exactly why I didn't get one of the jobs.
Everything else was excellent except the group exercise where we were to find a solution that balanced cost, time and didn't upset locals or customers. The solution everyone else backed was one that took twice the amount of time that mine did, and ran straight past a customer, who wouldn't consider us for more work if we annoyed them. BUT, they said, it cost 2% less. I had the solution that was correct and didn't get the job because "I couldn't convince the team of the correct solution." Which is completely counter intuitive, that they DO want to hire people who can't see that the flaws. In my book, being right comes first, every time, but I'd have had the job if I'd just voiced my reasons.
I had an interview yesterday for a new position where I work part-time that will have me making fast decisions based on real-time data, in an effort to get better at this too, fingers crossed.
Don't be too disheartened; they may have binned every single person from your group. The others for not seeing the correct solution and you for not convincing them. It is not necessarily the case that they have chosen other people who made a mistake. Everything else was excellent except the group exercise where we were to find a solution that balanced cost, time and didn't upset locals or customers. The solution everyone else backed was one that took twice the amount of time that mine did, and ran straight past a customer, who wouldn't consider us for more work if we annoyed them. BUT, they said, it cost 2% less. I had the solution that was correct and didn't get the job because "I couldn't convince the team of the correct solution." Which is completely counter intuitive, that they DO want to hire people who can't see that the flaws. In my book, being right comes first, every time, but I'd have had the job if I'd just voiced my reasons.
I had an interview yesterday for a new position where I work part-time that will have me making fast decisions based on real-time data, in an effort to get better at this too, fingers crossed.
These sorts of traits of persuasiveness/influencing skills/stakeholder management are just as if not more important that having a 'correct' answer. Just like in commerce or politics or any organisational change management project, you can have a factually strong argument but unless you have the backing and mandate you are on the path to nowhere.
edc said:
These sorts of traits of persuasiveness/influencing skills/stakeholder management are just as if not more important that having a 'correct' answer. Just like in commerce or politics or any organisational change management project, you can have a factually strong argument but unless you have the backing and mandate you are on the path to nowhere.
This!You don't need to think up the correct answer to be a good manager; you just need to recognise a good idea and convince other people to get onboard with it. From experience, the loudest and most assertive guy in the room generally has the last word.
In terms of developing your own assertive professional personality, it isn't easy but it can be done. A lot of it is mental; people fear to raise their voice or push their viewpoint for fear of being knocked down or ripped apart. You need to get over that doubt in your own head for a start, then look to build on that.
Try to look at situations in your day-to-day life where you would usually back down or capitulate and start to push back a little. If somebody asks you to do something, get something else in return. "Yes, If..." & "No, But..."; two really important phrases that help to control the situation. Only do something for something in return.
Once you've got the hang of that, move into social group situation and try to be the centre. Sounds easy, but it is difficult to master without looking like a t
t. Baby steps... 
The Beaver King said:
This!
You don't need to think up the correct answer to be a good manager; you just need to recognise a good idea and convince other people to get onboard with it. From experience, the loudest and most assertive guy in the room generally has the last word.
In terms of developing your own assertive professional personality, it isn't easy but it can be done. A lot of it is mental; people fear to raise their voice or push their viewpoint for fear of being knocked down or ripped apart. You need to get over that doubt in your own head for a start, then look to build on that.
Try to look at situations in your day-to-day life where you would usually back down or capitulate and start to push back a little. If somebody asks you to do something, get something else in return. "Yes, If..." & "No, But..."; two really important phrases that help to control the situation. Only do something for something in return.
Once you've got the hang of that, move into social group situation and try to be the centre. Sounds easy, but it is difficult to master without looking like a tt. Baby steps...
As above you need to watch, observe, deconstruct, learn and digest from a variety of speakers/listeners/presenters. You will be able to develop your own style.You don't need to think up the correct answer to be a good manager; you just need to recognise a good idea and convince other people to get onboard with it. From experience, the loudest and most assertive guy in the room generally has the last word.
In terms of developing your own assertive professional personality, it isn't easy but it can be done. A lot of it is mental; people fear to raise their voice or push their viewpoint for fear of being knocked down or ripped apart. You need to get over that doubt in your own head for a start, then look to build on that.
Try to look at situations in your day-to-day life where you would usually back down or capitulate and start to push back a little. If somebody asks you to do something, get something else in return. "Yes, If..." & "No, But..."; two really important phrases that help to control the situation. Only do something for something in return.
Once you've got the hang of that, move into social group situation and try to be the centre. Sounds easy, but it is difficult to master without looking like a t
t. Baby steps... My current CEO is very charismatic. He speaks in a style and with language that makes him sound commanding without screaming at you. He uses his eyes, facial expressions and his hands to engage you while you are sitting 5 rows back.
My old boss and MD had a much more different style. He didn't have the same presence. But, he is able to connect with people on a very humorous, personal and social level. He can make a dry subject interesting and make it relevant to the audience.
Both are from sales backgrounds. Another poster wrote earlier about 'relationship building' and scouting out your fellow interviewees. You need to find a way to connect and build a rapport with people and to gain their trust and respect. Of course, in your group interview scenarios there is only so much you can do but you can sow the seeds. Sometimes simply being friendly and nice to people will buy you their attention so they at least listen to you positively in the first instance. You have to interact and contribute. Look at the Apprentice. We all love to hate the smart-arse know it all that says nothing but then jumps in at the crux to shut everybody else down and tell them their way is the best or that they have the right experience for the task.
[quote=Twin2
I've had feedback from 4 different graduate interviews/assessments which I wasn't successful at. The roles were quite mixed: project management, improvement consulting, energy consulting and Hydropower engineering, all for large companies. The latter said I was excellent but they can only hire one and someone was slightly better which is fair enough.
The others have given me feedback which has generally been similar. I'm good at presenting, very good mathematically and analytically but my team working and ability to influence isn't quite there. For example, one group task I failed, I found the right answer but wasn't able to convince the rest of the group.
[/quote]
I'm an engineer at lead level with a bit over 20 years experience. I've been client representative or lead engineer for my discipline on several projects in the $1bn+ range, so this is my opinion of much of the graduate selection process:
The contrived scenarios which you have been subjected to a fundamentally flawed. IMHO the HR dept will have no idea who is good or who is not based on the selection process you underwent. The only thing you will learn from those comments is how to bullst better in this type of selection process, but this is not even the useful sort of bullst which is helpful in your engineering career.
You are a fresh graduate, you have little or no experience outside of study which is relevant to the job. There are limited numbers of people they can hire and many applicants, so they have to pick somebody, but the way they are carrying out the selection process is contrived and not reflective of a real work environment, so it is basically a waste of time other than to eliminate the obvious plonkers. I'm not entirely sure what the best way to do graduate recruitment would be, but these silly games certainly aren't the best way. I do not believe that these assessments are able to rank or profile candidates, other than to eliminate clearly bad candidates. Don't take it personally if they say you aren't good at this or aren't good at that.
Regarding you (alleged) lack of ability to influence people. As a fresh graduate, you won't be in a position to influence anybody for at least a year in any case because when you start you won't know anything (I'm not picking on you or graduates in general, but you will be working with people with degrees _and_ experience so they will know more than you do). You don't need to influence people at university, other than perhaps how to pull somebody from the university bar, so you can't have been expected to fully develop these soft skills yet. Even if you lack those skills now (and I don't believe the assessments you have described will tell one way or the other), then you have a couple of years to learn before you even need those soft skills.
I went for several of these BS waste of time interviews when I graduated and now that your thread has made me look back on them, they were NOT for the best companies to work for. They were for companies where there was a more limited scope to progress or where you were a commodity item or where there was some silly long hours live for the job corporate culture. I'd be wary of "improvement consulting" companies. That's not really engineering, you will struggle to get a technical job afterwards and they will work you hard but you pay will actually lag behind other branches of engineering.
If you want to do engineering, there are plenty of companies with straightforward interviews where if you present yourself as having he technical skills and reasonable personal skills (and we are talking engineers here, so miracles in the personal skills department are not expected!) then you will be looking good for the job.
As a general rule, go for the job which pays the most. Current downturn aside, that is something in the oil and gas or renewables industry.
Regarding soft skills which are actually useful for more than passing a contrived graduate selection process: be confident and believe in yourself. Pay attention to detail. If you get a +/- sign wrong in an exam and get the wrong answer but have otherwise followed the correct method, then you will get most of your marks. If you get a +/- sign wrong on a real job, it is a real problem which can leave you with significant egg on your face. Make sure you are doing the correct calculation, not just a very detailed calculation on the wrong thing. I have seen that many times. Go and talk to other people to make sure you understand and have all the information which can be obtained. Many problems arise because people sitting 30 feet away from each other in the same office do not exchange information.
I've had feedback from 4 different graduate interviews/assessments which I wasn't successful at. The roles were quite mixed: project management, improvement consulting, energy consulting and Hydropower engineering, all for large companies. The latter said I was excellent but they can only hire one and someone was slightly better which is fair enough.
The others have given me feedback which has generally been similar. I'm good at presenting, very good mathematically and analytically but my team working and ability to influence isn't quite there. For example, one group task I failed, I found the right answer but wasn't able to convince the rest of the group.
[/quote]
I'm an engineer at lead level with a bit over 20 years experience. I've been client representative or lead engineer for my discipline on several projects in the $1bn+ range, so this is my opinion of much of the graduate selection process:
The contrived scenarios which you have been subjected to a fundamentally flawed. IMHO the HR dept will have no idea who is good or who is not based on the selection process you underwent. The only thing you will learn from those comments is how to bulls
t better in this type of selection process, but this is not even the useful sort of bullst which is helpful in your engineering career.You are a fresh graduate, you have little or no experience outside of study which is relevant to the job. There are limited numbers of people they can hire and many applicants, so they have to pick somebody, but the way they are carrying out the selection process is contrived and not reflective of a real work environment, so it is basically a waste of time other than to eliminate the obvious plonkers. I'm not entirely sure what the best way to do graduate recruitment would be, but these silly games certainly aren't the best way. I do not believe that these assessments are able to rank or profile candidates, other than to eliminate clearly bad candidates. Don't take it personally if they say you aren't good at this or aren't good at that.
Regarding you (alleged) lack of ability to influence people. As a fresh graduate, you won't be in a position to influence anybody for at least a year in any case because when you start you won't know anything (I'm not picking on you or graduates in general, but you will be working with people with degrees _and_ experience so they will know more than you do). You don't need to influence people at university, other than perhaps how to pull somebody from the university bar, so you can't have been expected to fully develop these soft skills yet. Even if you lack those skills now (and I don't believe the assessments you have described will tell one way or the other), then you have a couple of years to learn before you even need those soft skills.
I went for several of these BS waste of time interviews when I graduated and now that your thread has made me look back on them, they were NOT for the best companies to work for. They were for companies where there was a more limited scope to progress or where you were a commodity item or where there was some silly long hours live for the job corporate culture. I'd be wary of "improvement consulting" companies. That's not really engineering, you will struggle to get a technical job afterwards and they will work you hard but you pay will actually lag behind other branches of engineering.
If you want to do engineering, there are plenty of companies with straightforward interviews where if you present yourself as having he technical skills and reasonable personal skills (and we are talking engineers here, so miracles in the personal skills department are not expected!) then you will be looking good for the job.
As a general rule, go for the job which pays the most. Current downturn aside, that is something in the oil and gas or renewables industry.
Regarding soft skills which are actually useful for more than passing a contrived graduate selection process: be confident and believe in yourself. Pay attention to detail. If you get a +/- sign wrong in an exam and get the wrong answer but have otherwise followed the correct method, then you will get most of your marks. If you get a +/- sign wrong on a real job, it is a real problem which can leave you with significant egg on your face. Make sure you are doing the correct calculation, not just a very detailed calculation on the wrong thing. I have seen that many times. Go and talk to other people to make sure you understand and have all the information which can be obtained. Many problems arise because people sitting 30 feet away from each other in the same office do not exchange information.
Edited by creampuff on Sunday 15th May 09:39
4x4Tyke said:
This is key, smart people see multiple solutions to a problem and as a result qualify their language with caveats which reduces the impact because it creates an impression of prevarication. While the former serves you well in an academic environment, it can be counter productive in the commercial setting. Cultivate the habit keeping it simple when presenting a solution, hold your reservations in reserve, unless some specifically asks about them.
Mmm, it is always good if a company presents a united and confident line to clients. However internally, you want to hear about all the qualifications and all the caveats because you need to know what could actually happen not just the simplified version which the client sees (unless the client has asked for everything). You also want the engineer, if they don't know something to say so or if there is insufficient information to say so. You can also say you don't know while still sounding confident and competent. If a shiny suit simplification is made, then sooner or later it will blow up in your face, it will blow up in your bosses face and it will blow up in cost overruns, failures to deliver, rework, things which don't fit or don't work. Nobody will be thanking anybody for not speaking up saying "we don't know enough" then.
Twin2 said:
Well, this is exactly why I didn't get one of the jobs.
Everything else was excellent except the group exercise where we were to find a solution that balanced cost, time and didn't upset locals or customers. The solution everyone else backed was one that took twice the amount of time that mine did, and ran straight past a customer, who wouldn't consider us for more work if we annoyed them. BUT, they said, it cost 2% less.
Was it really that straightforward? 2% is nothing, it is within the margin of error of even a detailed cost estimate. Was it really only 2%?Everything else was excellent except the group exercise where we were to find a solution that balanced cost, time and didn't upset locals or customers. The solution everyone else backed was one that took twice the amount of time that mine did, and ran straight past a customer, who wouldn't consider us for more work if we annoyed them. BUT, they said, it cost 2% less.
In that scenario, was the lost production/income/whatever taken into account with the solution which took twice as long as yours?
creampuff said:
Was it really that straightforward? 2% is nothing, it is within the margin of error of even a detailed cost estimate. Was it really only 2%?
In that scenario, was the lost production/income/whatever taken into account with the solution which took twice as long as yours?
No it wasn't, it was 6.9million compared with my 7.0, I rounded up!In that scenario, was the lost production/income/whatever taken into account with the solution which took twice as long as yours?
And yes, we would've lost a £xmillion contract but no-one seemed to care.
That's the issue, these people will have to be taught how to make decisions, which I think is much harder than being taught how to present them well.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff