Thirteenth Floor…and Others

Last year, my employer flew me to their office in St. Paul, MN.  Sometimes I wonder why we end up with offices where we do.  I’m sure a geographer had a hand in it.  But anyway, ever notice how some places add an odd degree of drama to what would otherwise be benign circumstances?  Like someone had to come up with compelling narrative?  The office was in a suite, on the 6th or 7th floor–I can’t remember which–in downtown, in the First National Bank Building.

The building was apparently involved in some 1930s gangster-type shenanigans, and at one point the bank’s vault was the victim of an attempted robbery.  Supposedly the corridor leading to the vault is still riddled with Tommy-gun bullets.  But, the vault isn’t open to the public so I couldn’t verify this firsthand.  Nor did I take the time to verify the building’s backstory.  Maybe I will, after this.

Upon arriving at said building, like most normal people, my boss and I took the elevator.  This is what the panel looked like:

It gave me pause, more so than it would have had the numbers simply stopped at 7.  I brought this oddity to my boss’ attention, who responded with complete disinterest.  Then again, all he wanted to do in his off time was sit in his hotel room, so maybe some people are just generally uninterested with the world as a whole.  But not I!  This mystery needed investigation.

During our meetings, I made it a point to ask every group–the people who went to that office every day: What was on floor 16?  The responses were all of a similar variety.  No one knew, no one had thought about it, and no one had gone up there.  They saw this panel every day and not once did a single person push the button to floor 16.  It seemed that I would have to find out for myself.

Back in the elevator, on our way to the hotel, I pushed the button.  Now my boss’ indifference edged towards open irritation, but I ignored him.  My curiosity moved from just floor 16 to all the intermediate unlabeled floors as the elevator display also stopped listing numeric designations en route.

Upon reaching floor 16, the doors opened into a mysterious fog.  Not really.  They opened into a completely innocuous floor.  The doors, also devoid of numbers, taunted me with suspense as they were all locked.

I thought I might try for the stairwell and explore the unlabeled mystery floors below, but upon this suggestion, my boss threatened to abandon me.  I was, of course, capable of navigating my way back to my hotel room alone, but he was also ready to get food and I started thinking about what kind of dinner I could charge to the company card.  I left the building, possibly forever, none closer to a satisfying answer.  So if anyone finds themselves in St. Paul’s First National Bank Building, go to floor 16 and complete my unfinished saga.

–Simon

My Outlook: Office Doesn’t Excel

Do you know what they improved between MS Office 2013 and 2016?  NOT A DAMN THING!

Okay, to be fair, there were some totally awesome improvements, like…window stacking?  And new Excel graphs.  And there’s this map function apparently.  And better database integration support.  This would totally be worth buying a new license.

Of course, that’s not their MO anymore.  I realize it’s clichéd to blame Millennials for things as I’m apt to do, but it’s totally their fault.  They expect software to have no upfront cost, and to be completely cloud-based.  So now, Microsoft pushes subscription services instead.  Yay, just like DRM!  You never actually own anything anymore.

On the business side, we have the same thing: perpetual contracts, even when the new software adds no value.  So what did Office 2016 change?  Well, they moved all the functions around so I had to find them again.  And now, repeated keystrokes cause some type of application layer panic and everything crashes.

excelcrash
How about you just let me CLOSE the program?

Rant complete.  But I’m not one to complain without suggesting a solution.  I offer you an alternative: LibreOffice.  It’s an open-source fork.  So while you may be forever forced to use Microsoft products at work, you can still make a choice in your personal computing needs.

Now I’m going to get back to work and see if Excel launches.

–Simon

Ironic Inverse Ratio

Years ago, before my employer started its regular “Great Places to Work” program, it maintained a less grandiose practice of occasionally but regularly asking employees for feedback on how it could improve.  At the time I figured this was pointless lip-service, but I dutifully responded with reasonable requests.  One of these requests was for free coffee.

I didn’t expect them to hire a barista, serving Arabica blends.  Of course, I didn’t expect them to seriously consider the request at all.  But after several years, respond they did, and by popular demand installed coffee machines.  And for a good solid month I enjoyed free coffee–nothing great, but a drinkable instant coffee blend.  Quick and effective.

toxic
This is how the work coffee comes in

Then, someone cut costs and changed the blend.  Now, I can drink some pretty awful coffee, but overnight, the coffee had turned into toxic waste.  And toxic waste is probably less bitter–you know, the glowing green kind?  Sadly, I returned to making my own.  But the years passed and the machines remained, so someone had to of been drinking it.  Upon this realization, I started more closely observing who was still getting cups of the sludge.  They all fell into a certain demographic: from Sales, tall, men, middle-aged.  I wondered why successful businessmen were less picky about the quality of their coffee.  Then, I considered my father-in-law.  He is a retired defense-contractor engineer.  He also drinks Folgers.

I wondered: is coffee quality preference inversely proportionate to income level?  To answer this question, I decided to waste time and put off auditing the emails I needed to send out.

To quantify this correlation, I needed figures.  I felt it was safe to assume that the cost of the coffee blend increases with its quality.  What I needed then, were some salary figures.  To graph the slope, I only needed two points.  The first point was easy: take the most expensive coffee I see regularly in grocery stores: $15 a bag; and the lowest income bracket, minimum wage: $15,080.  For the second point, I needed the cost of the cheapest instant coffee available (what I presumed was being used in the machines at work).  Courtesy of Amazon, I found it at $3.33 a bag.  Then, consulting the various online utilities designed to inform the masses that everyone’s underpaid, I found the average salary for an experienced Sales manager to be around $115,000.  Now I had two points.  It was time to calculate the equation.

First, I calculated the cost per ounce of each coffee.  Going off a 12-ounce bag, the expensive coffee was $1.25 and the cheap coffee was $0.28.  But, to make these number more manageable for a formula, I multiplied by 100 to use cents, creating nice whole numbers to work with: 125 and 28.

With standard algebra, we can calculate the slope with (Y2-Y1)/(X2-X1):

(28-125)/(115000-15080)=~-0.000970777, or if you want to follow significant figures, -0.00097.

Following Y=MX+B, we need B to be X0 (in this case, the baseline of minimum wage) to equal the $15 coffee mark.  But first we divide by 100 to bring the scale back down.  After doing so, B is simply calculated to be 140.  Final formula:

((Slope*Salary)+140)/100

Peet'sSadly, I could not find an online calculator that provides coffee products by cost per ounce.  Searching for one only yielded a number of self-righteous articles criticizing how much coffee costs and how stupid people are for buying Keurigs or going to coffee shops.  But I did plug some numbers into the calculator, and my own coffee preference: Peet’s, ranks approximately by cost the type of coffee I should be buying.  So once again, the math doesn’t lie:

https://moorheadfamily.net/data/coffee3.xlsx

Aqua Vitae

–Simon

Zero Sum

In my prior job, I was a web developer for the company’s internal website.  Specifically, this website’s purpose was to consolidate process and procedural information for the agents on the phone, presumably so that they could quickly research what to do for any given scenario, because remember: time is of the essence!

Now I’ve noticed something about big companies.  An individual job will gradually acquire additional responsibilities until it reaches critical mass.  Then, like a plant’s bulb, the job splits, creating a separate position, related to the parent position.  That’s when the transition is mild.  Sometimes it’s like a star going critical, then exploding into a supernova.

Then something interesting happens, where the plant analogy breaks down: these satellite positions as I’ll call them, remain vaguely defined for a time.  Work is dispersed among them, and they gradually form solidly defined purposes.  But then, a management change occurs.  The new manager, eager to stand out as the new vanguard to change, decides to promote efficiency.  Efficiency is the oft correlate to cost reduction (though I find that debatable), and therefore the new manager combines positions and their duties, eliminating needless processes and jobs along the way.  The remnants of the supernova, having floated in their nebulous form, gradually coalescing from gravity into new celestial bodies, now collapses back into a new star–a facsimile of the original.

This new star remains as such until it again reaches critical mass, but by then the manager who created it has benefited from the transition sufficiently as to receive promotion.  The manager’s replacement sees this star and, eager to stand out as the new vanguard to change, breaks it up into satellite positions.  Attentive readers might be having a “Wait a minute…” moment right now.

escher
Life sure is an ant race

Yes, it’s cyclic.  I’ve experienced having my job redefined so many times that I now expect it as an inevitability.  As a result of this dynamic, my job only consisted of developing the Collections website.  Operations and Fraud had their own team of developers.  Whether or not this was more efficient is an argument left to history, and only a transitory state as defined by those in charge.

Yet, to me it seemed counter-intuitive to have no communication between the teams.  After all, we were doing the same thing, and using the same software.  It was only expected that each of us had differing levels of knowledge which, if combined, could benefit everyone, right?  Not waiting for any management sign-off, as is my way, I initiated dialogs with the other team members.  We began sharing knowledge, with limited success, but eventually my own manager saw the value and started some more formal cross-team discussions.

And all I was after was the sharing of knowledge and information, and to physically sit near each other.  My request for a desk near the Operations team was immediately denied.  Then, as the discussions began to involve higher levels of management, they died.  Some of the changes were minor, like upgrading to HTML5, or implementing RSS update feeds.  But ultimately, sensing stagnation and seeing opportunity elsewhere, I took a promotion and transferred to Marketing.

Two months later, one of the publishers from the Operations team ran into me as I was taking a walk outside.  She confirmed that all movement on the collective ideas had been paused indefinitely, much to her dismay.  Shortly thereafter, I received a group email from higher management confirming this.

Ultimately, I’m just as guilty, for I too benefited from this system.  In the process of pushing for change, I gained the experience and notoriety needed to achieve promotion, leaving my work, and any hope of meaningful lasting change, to atrophy, thus becoming part of the eternal cycle of zero sum innovation.

We are products of our time.  If the right conditions do not present themselves, any idea, good or bad, will fail to achieve fruition.  So it was with this story, but while we may not have seen our ideas implemented, technology forces change, and some version of them ultimately will be.  I’m curious how similar to our own goals they will turn out.

–Simon

Blaming the Borrowers

borrowersRemember that story with the little people who would steal insignificant items from around the house in order to craft useful tools needed for their survival?  It was a humorous take on the phenomenon of small and low-value clutter vanishing, seemingly without explanation.  It’s an innocent way to cope with the irritations of their misplacement.

Yet, fantasy aside, I notice a certain parallel between this event and the real world, specifically at work.  Why?  This building, a former military structure, might harbor the remnants of tiny X-Files-esque creatures, and that would be a far more entertaining explanation, but the more rational conclusion is that people as a whole posses flexible morals–which is a nice way of saying they’re lowlife thieving bastards.

“If it isn’t yours, don’t touch it.”  It’s a very simple bit of life guidance imparted by mothers upon their children, and then quickly disregarded.  Even in those days, school supplies and personal trinkets would go missing from my desk and wall-cubby–the problem being that personal storage at school had no means of security.  Once the scholarly youth reach a certain age, we apparently begrudgingly acknowledge that their innocence has been lost, and provide them with lockers.  Overnight, this solves the problem of theft.

From this moment on, we’re taught the basics of personal security.  We lock up our houses, cars, computers, and phones.  Any personal item not on our person gets secured.  Digital information receives encryption and access control.  Then we go to work and apparently, we completely un-learn everything we’ve ever learned about security, regressing back to grade school.  We’re issued cubicles which by their very nature are about as low-security as you can get.  And despite the regular lectures we receive about building security, the edifice is apparently so low-security that people have accidentally found their way into it, mistaking it for the courthouse next door, all the while patrolled by a security force too young to even buy beer.

Certainly everything could get locked in desk drawers, but that limits the efficiency of even having a desk if you have to go constantly rummaging.  Also, being human, it’s nice to have a small degree of personal effects upon my desk, such as photos, to remind me why I even come to work at all (it isn’t to fill empty time or to find meaning in my life).  And in my tenure with this company, things have gone missing from my desk.

Now, why do people steal?  I’ve pondered this question, but in the context of an office setting, I can’t think of a better explanation than “I want that”–so basic greed and self-serving motivations.  This isn’t a very interesting concept to explore, as it’s a basal animal reaction to a stimulus, so instead I focus on an observation: not why people steal, but what.

Based on past experiences, I find the items that go missing are valued at around $5 and hold no apparent sentimental value: decorations and office supplies.  These are items which could be requisitioned by the administrative assistants, or purchased at any general retailer, but apparently that’s too much trouble.  I’m assuming people, not without mom’s words of wisdom, have a general aversion to causing others pain, and so limit their thefts to items of low value so as not to cause financial stress, and avoid sentimental items because of the emotional pain their loss would inflict.  In the thief’s mind, the stolen item then isn’t all that important, so there isn’t much guilt involved with the crime, and besides, they could always justify the act as borrowing, like the person who borrowed my ruler…3 years ago? (I’m still waiting for its return).

Life lessons are always bitter.  I’ve learned to limit my desktop to pictures and general office supplies whose loss wouldn’t really upset me.  It’s an impersonal and spartan work environment, unquestionably impacting morale.  Maybe in another 10 years, my pay-band will net me an office.

–Simon