Hi all, it's been a long time since I updated you. This is how it went so far: The on-site manager and senior manager scheduled a meeting with me, but it never took place, and I was never informed of the reason why the meeting didn't happen. Our supervisor was asked to check with the client about my technical gaps, which my supervisor is not interested in doing, as he feels it may give the client an opportunity to complain about him and others directly to the offshore team. However, he did take this as an opportunity to coordinate.
I have since moved to another on-site location as part of the client's planning and due to my pushing, and shortly he will join me here. The client also never clarified his claim that I have technical shortcomings. So, the bottom line is that he abused me, yet he got what he wanted by making an issue of my performance.
Regarding the issue of the client's call on my technical gaps (after a drunken individual complained in the middle of the night), I called the on-site manager and discussed:
a. If the client is not happy with my technical skills, why is he complaining after 16 months of service delivery, during which I exceeded billing expectations by 17%?
b. I requested to receive detailed feedback from the client so that I can improve or consider leaving.
c. In 2007, I was working as an Oracle DBA supporting Peoplesoft. I was hired as an 80:20 Oracle:Peoplesoft specialist. I received two weeks of training in Peoplesoft offshore. During on-site onboarding, I was trained to support the Production System (still 80:20). I was then assigned a Peoplesoft upgrade project, shifting the ratio to 20:80. My performance was evaluated, and I was given one week to complete the task. After a week, the manager expressed satisfaction and encouraged me to continue. Subsequently, I was trained for ITG (kintana) for a week at the manager's request to support ITG, making the ratio 50:50 between Production Support and Change Management. Currently, in Singapore, I am a COE resource assigned to Batch Engineering and ITG Engineering, which are entirely new areas with this client. It appears there may have been poor planning from the client and inadequate requirements gathering by my employer, but I acknowledge these challenges are common in IT. I am eager to learn, but expert-level quality of delivery requires time.
Instead of addressing the core issue of personal abuse, the entire institution is focused on the client's unfounded complaint. While I understand the business concerns, I believe equal attention should be given to employee welfare.