The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
I had a similar experience years ago. Did a report showing project costs based on hours and rates, shown for each individual on the project, then totaled up to the project, then all projects for each manager, all managers for each director, then a grand total. Since the directors, managers, etc. wanted to see the "real money", everything shown to the (U.S.) cent - no "extra" places shown.
Report was pretty nice - controls so each manager or director could only see "their" projects information, could switch between various summary-levels or go all the way into the details, etc.
Everyone happy until a new director comes in from HQ Sales to take place of a retiree. He insists that rather than just using the online reports that everyone else loves, it is "required" that PRINTED versions be prepared for all 5 directors every month (remember, he came from HQ so seemingly had to throw his weight around). Each monthly set ran to three 3-inch binders. It would take two admin assistants 2 weeks to get everything printed, copied, collated, and delivered.
The other four directors would just sigh and throw the printed copies on a shelf. This guy, however, would go through everything with a fine-toothed comb, as evidenced by him coming to me one month and starting to ream me out because his totals shown in the report summary were off from what he got by adding up every single line-item of every project under him - by $0.02 (of his multi-million dollar monthly budget - this was a pharmaceutical company in the 1980s). Thankfully, the director I was actually working under, who also happened to be the "managing director" and a VP, plus the auditor heard the commotion and came over. Mr. "2-cents" was given a lesson on rounding in reports and asked to explain why he was wasting so much of his time, plus taking a person-month of admin assistant time and 4 feet worth of dead trees looking for these kinds of "problems" rather than actually directing his projects. The reports stopped being printed and copied, and the fine-toothed-comb director was seen out the door shortly afterward.
Some posts are really entertaining (especially when he tells about crazy legacy issues), and some of it is really useful! (I made an adjustment as late as last night, based on what I read in one old entry about file system tunneling.
C++ / Win32 people will find more useful stuff there, there is less of C#/dotNet. But a lot is also general, about Windows in all forms.
I wonder if by correct they mean no hacks. In some cases hacks are acceptable if undesirable. The real world (deadlines and budget) often intervenes to undercut design, leading to kludges, and also maintenance can lead to kludgy code over time. Maybe by correct they mean with as little of this as possible. If I'm reading it charitably this is how I would interpret it.
Yeah, that could be true.
However, that doesn't show from the context.
It's really just a form that users have to fill out and since they always enter the same thing (everything is fine, if it isn't there's another form) the filling of the form has to be automated
Filling out the form regularly for all employees is a legal obligation and it could add up to thousands of forms per year.
It's really stupid, expensive and time consuming, but it's bureaucracy at its finest
The only thing I can think of is they're warning against overengineering this process?
In other words, it maybe could be made "more correct" to catch every single possible error, but the time involved in tracking down those corner cases and implementing a new part of the process is more costly than just having a human fix the spreadsheet when a corner case comes up.
Still seems weird; a fix is done once, so its cost is fixed. Manual fixes have an ongoing cost over time.