GovTech

Grade I with performance grade C+, IPB 1000.90% months.

Grade H with C, only 1 month IPB. with CP is 2 months.

Am a cruiser, TS team at site. I purposely push all the work to app team and the SA, i just shake my legs and end up they have to go directly to the vendor.

I pity you guys work until so hard to get C+ or B, when i have to do nothing much and leave on the dot back home.

Its because of jokers like you who claimed to be Cloud engineers or network engineers who knows nuts about Cloud, come and act like you know and causes so much work for the app team and SAs. Actually app team dont really need such a TS team who is just a slacking or proxy for raising request to vendors. You dont even deserve a "warm seat" in the organisation.

Originally Posted by Unregistered man

Grade I with performance grade C+, IPB 1000.90% months.

IPB 10months or 1month? what is the amount?

Originally Posted by relax lie flat

Grade H with C, only 1 month IPB. with CP is 2 months.

Am a cruiser, TS team at site. I purposely push all the work to app team and the SA, i just shake my legs and end up they have to go directly to the vendor.

I pity you guys work until so hard to get C+ or B, when i have to do nothing much and leave on the dot back home.

mind to share the ipb amount? Thy

Not sure the whole organisation is daff or what. Last time in IDA, the requirements for PM, BA or technical staff needed years of experience; we talking about 8 years and above.

After years into govtech, they "Dropped" the hiring requirements to like "2 years experience" or even opening to "fresh grad".

Then now trying to make the experienced engineer complete with these "2 years+" engineer on the same grade for a C+, and normalised and pegged the bonus to a "median pay of job function". This decision is stu.pid because the work allocation between a same grade different experience staff is totally different, but yet the grade C+ forces the experience staff to get a normalised bonus.

The definition of "C", "C+" or "B" is still subjected to your RO and your bootlicking abilities. Its never fair in corporate or public sector.

Eventually the organisation will be left with a bunch of young engineers that "claimed credits" but doesnt really contribute to the organisation. I can only see a downfall with current top management.

The whole org already failed since the start from DFS 1.0 and 2.0, and each role is so defined until the customer gotten sick of this nonsense for seconded staff to site.

It goes to show the whole organisation is still driven by Politics and own set of management KPIs.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Not sure the whole organisation is daff or what. Last time in IDA, the requirements for PM, BA or technical staff needed years of experience; we talking about 8 years and above.

After years into govtech, they "Dropped" the hiring requirements to like "2 years experience" or even opening to "fresh grad".

Then now trying to make the experienced engineer complete with these "2 years+" engineer on the same grade for a C+, and normalised and pegged the bonus to a "median pay of job function". This decision is stu.pid because the work allocation between a same grade different experience staff is totally different, but yet the grade C+ forces the experience staff to get a normalised bonus.

The definition of "C", "C+" or "B" is still subjected to your RO and your bootlicking abilities. Its never fair in corporate or public sector.

Eventually the organisation will be left with a bunch of young engineers that "claimed credits" but doesnt really contribute to the organisation. I can only see a downfall with current top management.

The whole org already failed since the start from DFS 1.0 and 2.0, and each role is so defined until the customer gotten sick of this nonsense for seconded staff to site.

It goes to show the whole organisation is still driven by Politics and own set of management KPIs.

you mean compete? I think its intentional. But yes, i agree with you that the DFS2.0 complicated tree diagram is nobody give a f***. And also agree that customers dont like this fine grain definition of job roles as its a way of charging higher AEP on them. The most hilarious thing is Govtech sell the customer "outcome based" and only put e.g. 10 staff with 5 fixed and 5 roaming, so that they can squeeze the $$ out of customer and pay for a headcount that is 30% at the site, for a 100% cost.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Then now trying to make the experienced engineer complete with these "2 years+" engineer on the same grade for a C+, and normalised and pegged the bonus to a "median pay of job function". This decision is stu.pid because the work allocation between a same grade different experience staff is totally different, but yet the grade C+ forces the experience staff to get a normalised bonus.

The definition of "C", "C+" or "B" is still subjected to your RO and your bootlicking abilities. Its never fair in corporate or public sector.

agreed with your points bro
what is DFS?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

agreed with your points bro
what is DFS?

you don't know meh.

its Duty Free Store

/s

Originally Posted by Unregistered

you mean compete? I think its intentional. But yes, i agree with you that the DFS2.0 complicated tree diagram is nobody give a f***. And also agree that customers dont like this fine grain definition of job roles as its a way of charging higher AEP on them. The most hilarious thing is Govtech sell the customer "outcome based" and only put e.g. 10 staff with 5 fixed and 5 roaming, so that they can squeeze the $$ out of customer and pay for a headcount that is 30% at the site, for a 100% cost.

What is happening, whether the indeed saga, over-hiring, appraisal changes, shifting of function from one team to another and let the teams dog eat dog, is just a manifestation of where the snr leadership priorities (to put it nicely) are. While staff may complain about unfairness, pay issues etc, the bigger problem is what exactly are going on in the decision making process at the top.