Interesting, actually, Mr.byhills. I was writing a report yesterday and thinking about how, when I first started at my placement, I was given a series of experiments to do with a view to developing a sensor package.
After being told the routine I was to use, I thought “These experiments are rushed; we need to find the simplest model of the system, work on that until we can infer from our remote position the state of the item we are trying to monitor. Then, slowly add additional complications, step by step, ensuring that this does not damage our ability to maintain the accuracy of our inference of the system”.
But as I’d just started as a placement student, and it was the Director* of the division, I thought “Better keep that to myself, don’t make a fuss etc etc”.
After 3 months the data set [beautifully categorized and managed, cross referenced and with all experiments very carefully executed exactly as discussed] was returned to me because no-one could find the trend or patterns in it to allow us to infer from our sensing package what was happening with the monitored item.
Should I have refused to do the work as directed? Should I have done BOTH what he asked and what I wanted to do?**
Would this make me a good manager? NB – the Director of Studies at my University told the Director in question the same thing as I was thinking a little later, and nothing was done/changed.
*He’s a nice chap and clearly usually knows what he’s doing, I’m just using this as an example.
**A la development of the 512k Macintosh. When the original Macintosh was launched, Steve Jobs said there was no need for more that 128k of RAM, but the team knew better. So they made one in their spare time, and when it became apparent it was needed, Jobs had to U-Turn. Luckily, it was already ready; probably saving the company.