I'm sorry, Strannik. I was only repeating what I'd heard. Thank you for correcting my mistaken impression.<br /><br />I didn't mean to make it sound demeaning; just that a shrewd engineer would not make it too easy to replace them. I didn't realize engineers were in such high demand there; here in the US, it's not too difficult to replace an engineer.<br /><br />Not to get things offtopic, but if a project's current state is not reflected by the documentation, then somebody is not doing their job. And I have seen it happen too. Too many people blow off documentation, forgetting that their colleagues do not have the same intimacy with their work as they themselves do. I've been involved in fixing projects where that has been the case. In my experience, the best way to do that is not to get mad at the engineers for not documenting, but to assign a person to make sure the documentation happens and is kept current. The engineers are busy enough without having to waste time with any more paperwork than is absolutely neccesary. Additionally, it is the responsibility of program management and the lead engineers to make sure that the documentation is not excessive, nor cumbersome. It shouldn't be a pain in the hinder to keep it updated. If it is, that means something is wrong, in my opinion.<br /><br />But I'll get off my CM/DM soapbox now. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>