There's no standards war inside the BBC- there are a large number of very clever people, and in areas where new technology is to be developed and deployed, there are often intense discussions of what the best course of action is. To be honest, that's one of the best bits about working here- pretty much all voices get heard.
The organisation has as whole struggled recently to manage this kind of role recently, and it's tended to be somebody's send job (somebody already very busy). I'd anticipate whoever takes this job on would get a lot of backing from across the organisation, and be a focal point for much decision making. You'd be in the middle of wide ranging and intense discussions, and you'd be engaging with people inside and outside the corporation of course, but since the role is officially 'representing' the BBC, that would give the person in the role a fair amount of clout. They'd be busy people! a On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Brian Butterworth <[email protected]>wrote: > > On 7 September 2010 11:00, Ant Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yeah, we really should get our job descriptions checked for plain english- >> the BBC has a whole language of it's own in many areas, and unfortunately I >> think it can act as a barier to getting people in. >> > > I really thought that was the idea. I might apply now I understand it. > > >> >> If people would like to give us feedback or send us questions regarding >> this job add we'll try and get answers back to all. They'll be public >> though- in order to ensure it's a fair and open process. >> > > The only thing you don't seem to get from the job description is the amount > of backing you would get. I would have thought that there is a good chance > that the role would get an "absorb the flack" from people (like me), unless > the senior management really do regard standards as important. > > So, is there a "standards war" raging within the BBC, or does there need to > be? > > >> >> a >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Richard P Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Aha, thanks Simon ... confusion over. :-) >>> >>> On 7 Sep 2010, at 11:39, Simon Thompson wrote: >>> >>> 9 is the pay grade, not the number of days - 9D means a grade 9 person on >>> days conditions. >>> >>> It may be a continuing or fixed term contract. >>> >>> >>> On 7 September 2010 10:23, Richard P Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> This is why I find the 9 days bit intriguing. In the "old" days I used >>>> to put in 120 hour weeks, so I know exactly what you mean by addiction... >>>> the interesting part is that the UK seems to have gone to part time >>>> contracts where, as Simon says, you can work an 80 hour week with no >>>> overtime. >>>> OK, you get days off in lieu, but in that kind of job I suspect that >>>> finding the free days to take off could be pretty difficult... unless you >>>> take a long holiday every summer... in which case the BBC office >>>> effectively >>>> "closes" for that time. >>>> I think that I can see this ending is all sorts of chaos. :-) In my >>>> case, we did not get paid days off in lieu... so if you needed to sleep you >>>> had to swallow the financial inconvenience. Neither way is perfect, but >>>> calling for a contractual 9 day week seems somehow unsettling for me. >>>> Looks like a great job though, they'd also prefer someone >>>> "uncompetitive" - now that made me smile. >>>> Regards >>>> RichE >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Simon Thompson >>> GMAIL Account >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Ant Miller >> >> tel: 07709 265961 >> email: [email protected] >> > > -- Ant Miller tel: 07709 265961 email: [email protected]
