I've had a nightmare month at work. There have been many things that have been irritating, but the worst has been the new release of my work's purchasing system, which was introduced at the beginning of November.
You would think that this might be a relatively straightforward exercise--simply transfer the users on the old system to the new system, ensuring that they have the same access rights and responsibilities as previously. But no, no, no.
Some people were OK and could use the new system no problem. But many were not OK. Take my situation--I was a shopper and an approver in the old system. In the new system I can approve (but only by clicking on the 'approve' link in the automated email that the system sends, not by actually going into the system itself!), but I have no shopping responsibility whatsoever.
I have been chasing this up tirelessly, as has the Head of Finance in my department, but to no avail. The systems team simply come back each time saying that I am not a migrating user, i.e. was not a user on the old system. BUT I WAS! Can't they just look at the old system and see that?!
It seems that the solution for me to be able to shop is to do lots of classroom-based training (I've already done lots of online training), including the training for new users -- WHICH I'M NOT!!
So, in the new year, rather than getting on with any real work, I'll be attending various training sessions which I don't actually need. What a ridiculous waste of time!
15 December, 2013
08 December, 2013
Job interviews
I have a lot of experience of job interviews -- both experience of sitting on interview panels and of being interviewed myself -- and they always strike me as distinctly weighted in favour of the employer.
Clearly, interviews provide an opportunity for employers to decide whether or not a candidate is to their liking and whether or not they want to hire that person. But I'm also of the opinion that interviews should provide an opportunity for candidates to find out whether or not a hiring company is to their liking (and careers advisers and the like will certainly tell candidates that they should treat interviews as such).
Of course, you can often get a pretty good idea of whether you want to work for a company from the interview. However, it seems to me that it is nearly always the company, rather than the candidate, who retains the power in this situation. For starters, the company will be interviewing several candidates, not just the one--and in this climate you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be more than one candidate who the company considers 'appointable'. Secondly, interviewers (and others) may encourage candidates to ask questions, but in my experience certain types of question are often not welcome. At interviews, I make a point of asking the questions 'What's it like to work here? What's the culture like?' in an attempt to understand what the people are like and whether the company would be a congenial place to work. Yet these questions often meet with looks of surprise or indirect, meaningless answers. They are simple enough questions and my sense is that (many) employers simply don't like being asked such things. It is, however, considered perfectly acceptable for an interview panel to ask a candidate very similar questions. 'What are your three strongest and your three weakest points?' is a good example.
And then you come to the business of informing candidates of the panel's decision after the interviews. The successful candidate is informed very quickly, of course, but those who are unsuccessful can wait several weeks before being informed, and then this is usually via a standard email from the HR team with no opportunity given to seek feedback. I can't imagine that it would go down too well if a successful candidate kept a company in suspense, taking several weeks to respond to their offer of employment!
When I sit on an interview panel, I do my best to answer candidates' questions as openly and honestly as I can. I also let unsuccessful candidates know the outcome quickly myself, ahead of the impersonal email from the HR team. Not only is this the decent way to treat people who have taken the time and trouble to attend for interview, but it also gives the company the reputation for being decent and honest.
It's just a shame more employers don't seem to see things the same way.
Clearly, interviews provide an opportunity for employers to decide whether or not a candidate is to their liking and whether or not they want to hire that person. But I'm also of the opinion that interviews should provide an opportunity for candidates to find out whether or not a hiring company is to their liking (and careers advisers and the like will certainly tell candidates that they should treat interviews as such).
Of course, you can often get a pretty good idea of whether you want to work for a company from the interview. However, it seems to me that it is nearly always the company, rather than the candidate, who retains the power in this situation. For starters, the company will be interviewing several candidates, not just the one--and in this climate you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be more than one candidate who the company considers 'appointable'. Secondly, interviewers (and others) may encourage candidates to ask questions, but in my experience certain types of question are often not welcome. At interviews, I make a point of asking the questions 'What's it like to work here? What's the culture like?' in an attempt to understand what the people are like and whether the company would be a congenial place to work. Yet these questions often meet with looks of surprise or indirect, meaningless answers. They are simple enough questions and my sense is that (many) employers simply don't like being asked such things. It is, however, considered perfectly acceptable for an interview panel to ask a candidate very similar questions. 'What are your three strongest and your three weakest points?' is a good example.
And then you come to the business of informing candidates of the panel's decision after the interviews. The successful candidate is informed very quickly, of course, but those who are unsuccessful can wait several weeks before being informed, and then this is usually via a standard email from the HR team with no opportunity given to seek feedback. I can't imagine that it would go down too well if a successful candidate kept a company in suspense, taking several weeks to respond to their offer of employment!
When I sit on an interview panel, I do my best to answer candidates' questions as openly and honestly as I can. I also let unsuccessful candidates know the outcome quickly myself, ahead of the impersonal email from the HR team. Not only is this the decent way to treat people who have taken the time and trouble to attend for interview, but it also gives the company the reputation for being decent and honest.
It's just a shame more employers don't seem to see things the same way.
03 December, 2013
Seven day price drop for "Travels on a Greyhound Bus"
My novel "Travels on a Greyhound Bus" will be available for just 99 cents/99 pence for a seven day period from 6--12 December.
This is an easy, fun read about how relationships change over time and how people react when those relationships come under pressure. It has some good independent reviews from Laura's Book Reviews and Kirsty I Heart Books, as well as good reviews on Amazon.
You can download "Travels on a Greyhound Bus" at Amazon UK and Amazon.com.
The blurb follows below:
People change. Relationships evolve. But sometimes by too much...
Hip students Araminta Stewart and Giles Richmond meet entirely by chance when travelling around the USA by Greyhound Bus. They hit it off. Some twenty years later, they are married with three children and have reached a crisis point in their relationship.
Araminta thought she knew what she wanted all those years ago. But now she’s got it, is she really happy? Or could there be more to life than this?
Told from Araminta’s point of view, "Travels on a Greyhound Bus" follows the couple as they navigate these two very different periods in their lives. While their early relationship flourishes, their later relationship appears to be disintegrating.
Faced with disappointment, frustration and the biggest challenge to their marriage yet, the question is: will Araminta and Giles’ relationship survive the journey of a lifetime?
This is an easy, fun read about how relationships change over time and how people react when those relationships come under pressure. It has some good independent reviews from Laura's Book Reviews and Kirsty I Heart Books, as well as good reviews on Amazon.
You can download "Travels on a Greyhound Bus" at Amazon UK and Amazon.com.
The blurb follows below:
People change. Relationships evolve. But sometimes by too much...
Hip students Araminta Stewart and Giles Richmond meet entirely by chance when travelling around the USA by Greyhound Bus. They hit it off. Some twenty years later, they are married with three children and have reached a crisis point in their relationship.
Araminta thought she knew what she wanted all those years ago. But now she’s got it, is she really happy? Or could there be more to life than this?
Told from Araminta’s point of view, "Travels on a Greyhound Bus" follows the couple as they navigate these two very different periods in their lives. While their early relationship flourishes, their later relationship appears to be disintegrating.
Faced with disappointment, frustration and the biggest challenge to their marriage yet, the question is: will Araminta and Giles’ relationship survive the journey of a lifetime?
23 November, 2013
Changes, changes
I have been a customer of Lloyds Bank for longer than I care to remember. When I first signed up at the tender age of sixteen and deposited my first few pounds, it was just Lloyds pure and simple. No association with any other banks. And the logo was the good old fashioned black horse. The Lloyds black horse looked, back then, like a 'proper' horse with a long, flowing mane and tail. It had nothing remotely in common looks-wise with the prehistoric white horse at Uffington. And, indeed, the television advertising featured a beautiful, galloping, jet black horse.
Some ten years later, Lloyds Bank merged with the TSB and became Lloyds TSB -- although I still, determinedly, continued to refer to it by its old name of Lloyds. At around the same time, the logo underwent a transformation. The 'real' black horse morphed into a mere representation of a horse, bearing more than a passing resemblance to the white horse at Uffington. And, of course, the television advertising no longer featured the beautiful, galloping specimen.
Now, in 2013, it appears that we have come full circle. Lloyds Bank and the TSB have disentangled themselves once more. The old fashioned Lloyds black horse has been reinstated (I wonder how much the advertising company charged for that stroke of genius?). And, what's really funny is that all of this is being marketed as if it's completely novel and has never been thought of before.
But I remember back to pre-1995 when the situation was exactly as it is now in 2013 -- and I'm not that old, so I'm sure plenty of others remember too. Funny old world...
Some ten years later, Lloyds Bank merged with the TSB and became Lloyds TSB -- although I still, determinedly, continued to refer to it by its old name of Lloyds. At around the same time, the logo underwent a transformation. The 'real' black horse morphed into a mere representation of a horse, bearing more than a passing resemblance to the white horse at Uffington. And, of course, the television advertising no longer featured the beautiful, galloping specimen.
Now, in 2013, it appears that we have come full circle. Lloyds Bank and the TSB have disentangled themselves once more. The old fashioned Lloyds black horse has been reinstated (I wonder how much the advertising company charged for that stroke of genius?). And, what's really funny is that all of this is being marketed as if it's completely novel and has never been thought of before.
But I remember back to pre-1995 when the situation was exactly as it is now in 2013 -- and I'm not that old, so I'm sure plenty of others remember too. Funny old world...
17 November, 2013
Changes to GCSEs
The government recently announced changes to the GCSE examinations in England -- the biggest overhaul "for a generation", to coin their words.
Some of the basic changes are as follows:
Some of the basic changes are as follows:
- A new grading system based on numbers (1-9) rather than the current system based on letters (A*-G).
- Modular assessments to be replaced by full exams taken at the end of the two years of study.
- In English literature students will study texts in detail and these will include high-quality works by authors such as Shakespeare and the Romantic poets.
- There will be more marks awarded for spelling, punctuation and grammar.
- The new maths exam will cover more topics and be more challenging.
For those of us who took the old O' level exams at sixteen--over "a generation" ago, I suppose--these changes sound very familiar. O' levels had no course work whatsoever and one final exam was taken for each subject at the end of the two years of study. Correct spelling, grammar and punctuation were regarded as very important and marks awarded accordingly. Some of the maths questions that were set in the O' level exam were genuinely hard, even for those people who were good mathematicians. And we certainly studied "high-quality" literature--always a Shakespeare play and a selection of other classics. In fact, I wonder what English literature is all about if students don't study (at least some) "high-quality" texts.
So, it's not so much a major change to GCSEs, rather a major reversion to the old system of a generation ago. Plus รงa change...
08 November, 2013
Fireworks -- now and then
We went to see a fireworks display at the weekend. It was great fun -- lots of food stalls, activities for the kids, live music, a laser light show, and a bonfire. And, yes, the fireworks were good too. A really professional display with lots of impressive fireworks set off in very quick succession, creating quite a picture.
My only complaint about fireworks these days is that they're over so quickly. When I was a kid, there were very few professional displays, so it was usually a case of going round to a friend's house where there was a big garden and intrepid parents. There was a bonfire (often barely under control), hot chocolate and undercooked jacket potatoes, and sparklers. But the fireworks display always took an inordinate amount of time because the fireworks were set off very slowly one at a time by adults who didn't know what they were doing. And, of course, many of the fireworks that you could buy in those days simply didn't go off at all. But it all added to the atmosphere.
There was a bit of a health and safety issue back in those days, of course. Uncontrolled fire, incompetent people in charge of fireworks, children running around unchecked. It wasn't so great, after all, but it's always interesting to compare now with then, particularly where health and safety is concerned.
My only complaint about fireworks these days is that they're over so quickly. When I was a kid, there were very few professional displays, so it was usually a case of going round to a friend's house where there was a big garden and intrepid parents. There was a bonfire (often barely under control), hot chocolate and undercooked jacket potatoes, and sparklers. But the fireworks display always took an inordinate amount of time because the fireworks were set off very slowly one at a time by adults who didn't know what they were doing. And, of course, many of the fireworks that you could buy in those days simply didn't go off at all. But it all added to the atmosphere.
There was a bit of a health and safety issue back in those days, of course. Uncontrolled fire, incompetent people in charge of fireworks, children running around unchecked. It wasn't so great, after all, but it's always interesting to compare now with then, particularly where health and safety is concerned.
03 November, 2013
Very successful free promotion!
My first free promotion for my novel "Travels on a Greyhound Bus" finished at eight o'clock this morning, and it was a good one.
I had over 3,000 downloads, the book stormed into the Amazon.com free charts at #2 in the Family Life genre, and someone who had downloaded the book during its free period read it immediately and gave it a five star review! Throughout the free period, "Travels" fluctuated between #2 and #5 in Family Life, and #7 and #18 in Women's Fiction. Result!
Having been sceptical at first, I have to say that I now really enjoy the whole independent publishing scene. I have two books independently published so far and am working on a third. I love the freedom that you have to design your book how you want to, to price it as you wish, to decide whether and how to run free promotions. And I love the speed of the whole process -- once you've decided to publish, you can just go ahead and do it.
Despite the success of this promotion, there is one thing that I do find frustrating.You can never quite work out why your promotion has gone well. So, this book did really well in the US during its promotional period, but less well in the UK, whereas my other book, "A Matter of Degree", did much better in the UK in its free promotional period. Why? I don't know.
But maybe that's a perennial marketing problem, rather than an independent publishing one. Maybe its never that clear why one approach goes well and another less well. Still, if the formula works, stick to it -- and that's what I intend to do!
I had over 3,000 downloads, the book stormed into the Amazon.com free charts at #2 in the Family Life genre, and someone who had downloaded the book during its free period read it immediately and gave it a five star review! Throughout the free period, "Travels" fluctuated between #2 and #5 in Family Life, and #7 and #18 in Women's Fiction. Result!
Having been sceptical at first, I have to say that I now really enjoy the whole independent publishing scene. I have two books independently published so far and am working on a third. I love the freedom that you have to design your book how you want to, to price it as you wish, to decide whether and how to run free promotions. And I love the speed of the whole process -- once you've decided to publish, you can just go ahead and do it.
Despite the success of this promotion, there is one thing that I do find frustrating.You can never quite work out why your promotion has gone well. So, this book did really well in the US during its promotional period, but less well in the UK, whereas my other book, "A Matter of Degree", did much better in the UK in its free promotional period. Why? I don't know.
But maybe that's a perennial marketing problem, rather than an independent publishing one. Maybe its never that clear why one approach goes well and another less well. Still, if the formula works, stick to it -- and that's what I intend to do!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)