Revalida

Just for the record, I blogged my answers to our latest Revalida.

If yes: How you believe you will be able to contribute in that office's goals. Please also indicate any new strengths and aptitudes you discovered in yourself while in that office.

If no: Why?

SCM. This is a no because I'm afraid I may have to give up my enthusiasm for Science and Construction if I join this group. Procurement strategies and synchronizing of supplies were mostly the things I learned here. It will be a very different avenue for me and I may lack enough interest to be a big contribution to the group.

TCSG. Although TCSG applies many Engineering principles in its work flow, I find their tasks and outputs very hypothetical. Strategies being developed here are mostly assumptive. I may not be able to give much contribution in having their goals achieved because I'll be seeking a different environment, one that involves actual risk and resistance like QC and FOG. No.

PCG. Yes, this might be one of my possible deployment office. A year ago, I was certified by the Stanford It Learning for completing the course “PRIMAVERA 6.0 Enterprise for Project Management and Planning” at their school. This skill of mine might serve the group in their need of competitive planning engineers.

When we were in PCG, we were with the other PCG trainees (non mts). They were ahead of us in terms of training modules and exercises because they started earlier. I just found mysef getting eagerly excited doing the exercises the other trainees were doing. In fact I started doing exercises ahead of other MT's. What really caught my interest was the PIPE RACK planning and manpower balance. I just enjoyed doing PCG works. I may have a natural aptitude for PCG but I'm still considering other groups like QC and FOG.

SAFETY Our stay here was focused on making a management review and statistical analysis of our company's accidents and casualties. My interest in this kind of work has gone long ago since I started getting deeply involved in sciences and engineering. This is a very important group though. They're the ones assuring one very important aspect in construction; SAFETY. (safety, production and quality)

QC Yes. Main reason why: 50% documentation and office, 50% site. My ability to easily understand plans and specifications is one big help to the attainment of their goals. There was even one time when I stood for our company against the client's QC engineers because they misunderstood the plans and demanded for a rework. Good thing I studied the plan before the inspection. We could have thrown large amount of money. I also discovered the authoritarian side of me which I can use for properly managing a QC group and policing the aggressive operation to avoid variance between plans and construction.

Read more...