Recruitment sync

Person #48: Yeah, can you hear me? I think we're live. Person #11: I can hear you. Give me one second, I'm just closing something. Person #48: Take your time. Person #11: Okay. I'm here. So what do we have? Person #48: So, the shortlist for the analyst role. The one we posted under the Mawaheb pipeline, data analysis unit. You had the meeting with the committee last week, I think, right? Sunday? Person #11: I know which role. I'm just checking—you said two names, and I want to see the CVs on my screen. Person #48: I sent them over this morning, should be in your inbox. Two names. Both from the Tomouh upskilling batch, actually—the one that finished in July. So they've got the certification from the program, which is a good sign. And, uh, I think one of them, the first one, also did a stint at the Department of Culture and Tourism as an intern, so there's some government exposure already. Person #11: Okay, hold on. I have the email. Just give me one second. Person #48: Sure. Person #11: Yeah, I see it. So what are we looking at? I see, uh, the first one, Khalid, is that right? Khalid Al Mansoori? And the second is— Person #48: Meera. Meera Al Shehhi. Person #11: Right. So what's your recommendation? Or are you just presenting both and letting me decide? Person #48: Well, I mean, I have a slight preference, to be honest. But I want to hear your take. From a technical standpoint, Khalid has, uh, he did the Python track in the Tomouh program, and he's been working with Power BI on his own projects. He showed me some dashboards he built for, like, a personal project on traffic data in the city. It was actually decent work. Meera, on the other hand, is more of a communicator. She did the—she was in the policy track, not the technical one. So her digital skills are more basic, but she's very, very organized. She ran the logistics for the Al Jadaara graduation in May, so she knows how to get things done. Person #11: Hmm. Person #48: I know the role is data analysis, so you might say Khalid, but I think—and this is just my opinion—she might be easier to place within the team. She's just—she fits. People like her. She's very, you know, proactive. Person #11: I don't hire people because "people like them." I hire people who can do the work. Person #48: No, no, I get that. I'm just saying—both are viable. I just wanted to present the full picture. Person #11: What's the grade we're offering? Person #48: Uh, that's the thing. The committee, in the meeting you had on Sunday, they set it at Grade F, I think? Starting salary around, uh, 22,000? Is that right? Person #11: No. It was Grade E. I approved Grade E for this role. Person #48: Oh. I thought it was F. Let me check my notes. Person #11: I don't need your notes. I'm telling you. Grade E. You're confusing it with the other role, the support officer one, which is F. The analyst role is E. It was agreed in the committee meeting, and I signed off on it. Person #48: My mistake, ji. Okay, Grade E. Person #11: So the question is, are these two candidates good enough for Grade E? I don't want to have a situation where we bring someone in at E and they can't handle the complexity of the work. Because then we're stuck. We can't demote them. It's a bad look. Person #48: Yeah, yeah, no, I agree. And that's—that's actually kind of my concern with Meera. She's lovely, but she's not—her technical foundation is not as strong. Khalid is more ready for the work. But, you know, Khalid also has, like, an offer from, I think, from G42? He mentioned it casually in the interview. He didn't make a big deal of it, but I think he's got options. Person #11: Of course he does. G42 takes all the good ones. That's why we have this problem. Person #48: Exactly. So if we offer him E, he might just take the G42 offer instead. Whereas Meera, she'd be very happy with E. She'd probably stay for years. You know, loyalty factor. Person #11: So your suggestion is that we lower our standards so that we can get someone who will stay? Person #48: No, no, no. I'm not saying lower standards. I'm saying—look, we have a pipeline. Mawaheb is about placing people. Sometimes you take a slightly less experienced candidate who has the right attitude and you develop them. That's the whole point of the program, right? We can train her. She's smart. She just needs time. Person #11: We don't have time. We have a dashboard that needs to be built. We have a backlog of—what is it now?—sixteen requests from the entities. And the ADEC quarterly report is due in—what?—three weeks. I need someone who can start producing from day one, not someone who needs six months of hand-holding. Person #48: I understand. I'm just presenting the trade-off. Person #11: Is there no third option? What about the other candidates from that Tomouh batch? There were—I think—twelve of them. We only shortlisted two? Person #48: Yes, twelve. But, I mean, most of them didn't apply. They went for private sector roles. You know, the ones who are really good—they get snapped up fast. We get the ones who are left. Person #11: That's a pipeline problem. Why are we losing them to private sector? We're paying Grade E. That's competitive. What's G42 paying? Do you know? Person #48: I don't know exactly. I heard the starting base is around 28 to 30 for this kind of role. Plus benefits. So, yeah, they're offering more. Person #11: We can't match that. We don't have the flexibility. The ADEC salary scale is what it is. Person #48: Right. Person #11: So we're not going to win on money. We have to win on other things. The mission. The stability. The, you know, the government experience. Some people want that. Not everyone wants to work for a company. Person #48: Yeah. That's what I think too. And that's why I think Meera—she's the type who values the mission. She mentioned in her interview that she wants to—she said she wants to "serve the country." She said that. It wasn't corny, it sounded sincere. Person #11: Hmm. Person #48: But, I mean, it's your call. I'm not going to push. Both are fine. I just want to make sure we fill the role before the end of Q3. Because we're already behind on the data quality work for the TAMM integration. Person #11: Are we behind? I thought the data quality work was on track. Person #48: Not exactly. The—well, we'll get into it if you want, but the—the entity-side data mapping, it's taking longer than we planned. The team from the Department of Finance, they had to pause their end for two weeks because of the budget cycle. So we lost that time. And then the Health Department, they're—they have a new data governance officer who wants to re-review everything. So we're, you know, we're managing. But it's tight. Person #11: Yaani, nobody can just—it's always something with these entities. They never just give you the data. They always have to have a meeting about whether they're allowed to give you the data. Person #48: That's the nature of the work, I guess. Person #11: Yeah. Okay. So let me think about this. Let me think about the two candidates. Actually, hold on—are they both available for another interview? I want to meet them. I want to see them for myself. Person #48: Sure. I can arrange that. Maybe early next week? Sunday or Monday? Person #11: Sunday is bad. I have the—the thing with the Minister. Monday afternoon? After 3? Person #48: Let me check with them. I'll send you a doodle poll. Or, I mean, I'll just ask them directly. You know, it's faster. Person #11: Fine. And can you send me Meera's—what did you say, her portfolio? Did she have a portfolio? Person #48: She has a one-page summary that she put together. It's more of a, like, a visual CV. It's in the same folder. It's attached. Yeah. Person #11: Okay. Wait, I'm looking at it now. Person #48: Focus on the bottom section, where she lists her project coordination work. She ran the Al Jadaara graduation. That was a big event—seven hundred people. She had to coordinate with the venue, the catering, the speakers, the—the VIP protocol for His Highness's office. She handled all of that. That's project management skill. That's not nothing. Person #11: No, it's not nothing. But it's not data analysis either. Person #48: True. Person #11: What did she do in the Tomouh program? Did she take any modules on analytics? Or was it all policy and governance? Person #48: She took the policy track, which includes, um, a module on data literacy. So she understands the basics. She knows what a KPI is, she can read a chart. But she's not going to write a SQL query. Person #11: We don't use SQL that much. We use the platform tools. Power BI, the dataiku instance, the—the tableau thing that the consultants set up. She could learn those. They're more visual. Person #48: Yeah, exactly. That's what I'm saying. She could learn. She's smart. And she's very, very hardworking. Like, she answers emails in—she responds within the hour, even if I send it at night. She's that kind of person. She's eager. Person #11: Where do you get that? From the email exchange? Person #48: From the interview, and from, you know, she emailed me a thank-you note after the interview. On the same day. She had a follow-up question about the role. That shows initiative. Person #11: Fine. Fine. So what about Khalid, then? What's the risk with him? He takes the G42 offer, we waste our time. Person #48: That's the risk. But that's not necessarily—I mean, if he takes it, we move on. We have other candidates. But I think he might—he might actually stay if we can make the offer compelling. He told me he's interested in government work because his father is in the military. He has a—there's a sense of duty. Person #11: There's a lot of people with a sense of duty who are also looking at private sector salaries. Person #48: Ha, true. Person #11: I just—look, I don't want to make a decision based on fear of losing someone. I want to make a decision based on who is actually better for the team. Who is going to deliver. I've been burned before, I'm telling you. I brought in someone who was—had all the right "attitude," as you say, and then she couldn't handle the workload. She cried in my office after two weeks. Cried! And then she resigned. And we had to start the whole process again. Person #48: That's—I didn't know that. Person #11: It was before your time. It was in the early days of the merger. Anyway. My point is, I'm suspicious of charm. I want to see the work. Person #48: Fair enough. That's fair. Person #11: So what about the other thing I asked you about? The—the dashboard for the workforce mobility data? Did you get the specs from the vendor? Person #48: Uh, sorry, which vendor? The Deloitte team, or the Indian vendor? Person #11: The Indian vendor. The ones who built the original dashboards for the HR Authority—back then. They're still under contract for maintenance, right? Person #48: Yes, they are. The contract goes until—I think—March next year. Then it's up for renewal. And, you know, we should probably—we should probably think about whether we want to renew them, or whether we bring in someone else. Person #11: We'll deal with that later. But the specs—did you ask them for the data dictionary? I need the data dictionary to understand what they're actually measuring. I don't trust their KPI definitions. They have—I told you before—they have some weird definition for "Emirati employment" that doesn't match with the ADEC scorecard. They count people who are just—who signed up on Mawaheb but haven't been placed. That's inflated. Person #48: Yeah, I know. I flagged that to them in the meeting last week. They said they'd update it, but they haven't. You know how it is with them. They're slow. Person #11: They're slow because they're overbooked. They're running like six other projects for the Department of Finance. We're a small fish for them. Person #48: Exactly. That's why I think we should—when the contract ends—we should consider moving that maintenance in-house. We have the capacity. Or we could use the GovDigital team, you know, the Common Digital Platforms unit. They have people. Person #11: I don't want to get into an argument with GovDigital about who owns what. They're very territorial. Let's just—for now, let's just get the data dictionary. Send them a formal email. Copy me. If they don't respond by the end of the week, I'll escalate to their Director General. Person #48: Okay. I'll do that. Today. Person #11: Good. Now, back to the candidates. Let me think. Let me—actually, is there a way we can see a sample of Khalid's work? He has those dashboards he made? Can he share them? Person #48: He showed me. I can ask him to send them to you. The files are on his personal—he did them on his own time. I don't think there's a confidentiality issue. It's just traffic data, which is public. Person #11: Fine. Ask him. Person #48: Will do. Person #11: And for Meera, I want to see—what's the equivalent? Her project plan for the Al Jadaara event? Is there an artifact? A, you know, a Gantt chart or something? Person #48: I can ask her for that too. She probably has the pack that was sent to the VIP office. It would have the timeline, the logistics plan. That's a good artifact. Person #11: Okay. So let's do that. Send me both. And then we'll set up the interviews for Monday. Person #48: Wait, you said Monday afternoon. Is that—yeah. Let me just confirm—you said after 3, right? Person #11: Yes. After 3. But I have a 4:15 call with the Chairman's office. So the interview has to be done by 4. Person #48: Okay, so 3 to 4. That's tight. We can do 20 minutes each. Is that enough for you? Person #11: Should be. I'm not going to do a formal interview. I just want to see them, ask a couple of questions, get a sense of whether they're real or not. Person #48: Okay. 20 minutes each. I'll schedule it. 3:00 and 3:30. Person #11: 3:00 and 3:30. Good. Person #48: And, uh, just to be clear—are we both okay with the grade being E? I just want to make sure we're aligned. Because I had written down F in my notes, and I want to update my records. Person #11: Yes. Grade E. Starting salary 24,500. Plus the housing allowance. That's what was approved. Person #48: 24,500. Got it. I had 22,000 in my notes. I'm glad we caught that. Person #11: It's in the committee minutes. You should—make sure you read the minutes. I know you didn't read them. I can tell. Person #48: I—I skimmed them. I missed that part. Person #11: Read the minutes, habibi. It's important. Person #48: You're right. I'll read them fully today. Person #11: Okay. So, anything else on this? Or is that it? Person #48: I mean, there's one more thing. It's not about the hiring, but it's about the—the team structure. We're still missing a data engineer. You know, the one who was supposed to start in July? Person #11: Right. The Egyptian guy who got the better offer from the bank at the last minute. Person #48: Yeah. He did. So we're still looking. And I've been thinking—maybe we should look outside the government. Maybe we should look at, you know, the private sector, or even international candidates. We need someone who's really, really strong with the data engineering side. We have a lot of—we have a lot of data coming in from the entities that's in different formats, different quality, and we need someone to build the pipelines. That's not a junior role. That's a mid-level or senior role. Person #11: The budget for that role—is it still there? Or did we lose it when the person didn't join? Person #48: I think it's still there. But I need to confirm with Finance. It might have been—you know, with the autumn budget review, sometimes they claw back unfilled positions. I'll check. Person #11: If we lose it, we lose it. We can't fight the Department of Finance on this. They have the numbers. Person #48: I know. I'll check today. Person #11: And if it's still there, we need to move fast. We can't have another two-month search. Post it. Now. Use the usual channels. And also—do we have a referral bonus? Can I refer someone? Person #48: Referral bonus? I don't think we have that in the government system. In the private sector, yes. But here, no, I don't think so. Person #11: We should propose it. It would help. But not now. Now, let's focus on the analyst role. Person #48: Okay. Person #11: Okay. So, send me the work samples. Set up the interviews. And send the email to the vendor. Anything else? Person #48: I think that's it. Person #11: Good. I'll talk to you tomorrow. Person #48: Actually, wait. Before you go. I have a quick question about the—the announcement that was sent out about the new HR policy. The one about the—was it in the internal newsletter? About the flexible working hours pilot? Person #11: What about it? Person #48: I just—I want to make sure our team is eligible. Because the way I read it, it said "for roles in the HR and administrative functions." But we're in the digital function. So I think we might be excluded. Is that correct? Person #11: Where did you see this? The newsletter? That was—that was drafted by—I think—the communications team at Government Talent. And I haven't—I don't think it's been fully approved yet. It might be a leak. Person #48: It's in the official newsletter. It's—I got it this morning. It's quite detailed. It says the pilot starts in October, for six months, in three entities. Person #11: Which three entities? Person #48: It says the Department of Health, the Department of Municipalities and Transport, and the Abu Dhabi School of Government. Person #11: ADSG? That's us. I mean, that's part of the DGE. They're under our umbrella. So is that—I don't know. That might be a mistake. Or they might be piloting it at ADSG because they're small and—I don't know. Person #48: So we're not included? Person #11: It doesn't matter. We're not doing flexible hours in our team. We need our people in the office. The work is—you know, it's collaborative. We can't have people working from home all the time. Not for this role, anyway. Person #48: I wasn't asking for me. I was asking for the team. Person #11: I know. The answer is no. Not right now. Maybe later. But for now, we're in the office. Person #48: Okay, fine. Person #11: Anything else? Person #48: No, that's it. Person #11: Good. I'll talk—hold on, I have another call coming in. Let me just—hello? Yeah, can you hold on one second? No, no, I'm in a meeting, I'll call you back in five minutes. Okay. Yeah. Sorry about that. Where were we? Person #48: We were done. Person #11: Right. Yes. Good. So the work samples— Person #48: I'll send them today. And the interviews for Monday at 3 and 3:30. Person #11: Perfect. And the vendor email. Person #48: Today. With you copied. Person #11: Great. I'll—I'll see you tomorrow. Person #48: Actually, do you want me to also prepare—I mean, I'm assuming—should I prepare anything for the interview? Like, a technical question set? Or is it just a meet and greet? Person #11: I want one technical question for each of them. Something that tests basic analytical thinking. Not, you know, not a trick question. Just—give them a scenario. A dataset. And see how they would approach it. Person #48: Okay, I can do that. Do you have a preference for the scenario? Maybe something related to the Mawaheb placement data? Person #11: That's fine. Use the Mawaheb data. It's what they'll be working with. Just—don't make it too easy. And don't make it too hard. I want to see how they think. Person #48: Got it. Person #11: And write down their answers. I'll want to see them after. Person #48: Will do. Person #11: Okay. Good. Anything else? For real this time? Person #48: No. That's everything. Person #11: Good. Yalla. Talk tomorrow. Person #48: Thanks. Person #11: Sure. Bye. Person #48: Bye. Person #11: Oh wait—actually—no, you know what, I'm going to—before you go, just to be clear about the offer letter. Once we pick someone, who issues it? Is it us in the Human Resources unit, or is it the—the central Government Talent team? Person #48: That's a good question. I think—I believe it's the central Government Talent team. They have the—the official process. We—we don't have the delegation to issue offers directly. At least not for Grade E and above. For Grade F and below, we can. But for E, it has to go through the central team. Person #11: How long does that take? Usually? Person #48: From the date of approval? I've seen anything from three days to two weeks. It depends on their backlog. And on the end of quarter, if there's a lot of—you know, with the budget cycle, there might be a freeze. Person #11: A freeze? Nobody told me about a freeze. Person #48: It's not official. It's just—everyone is saying that the Department of Finance might announce a freeze on new hires in Q4. Until the new budget is approved. You know, this happens every year. Person #11: That's—if that happens, we lose the candidate. They're not going to wait two months. Person #48: I know. It's a risk. But maybe we can—we can try to get the offer out before the freeze. If we pick someone on Monday, and the process takes two weeks, we might just make it. Person #11: That's not a lot of time. We need to move even faster. Can we—is there a way to expedite? Like a priority request? Person #48: I can try. I know a person in the Government Talent team. I'll see what I can do. But no promises. Person #11: Do it. Do whatever you need to do. Person #48: Okay. Person #11: And if the freeze does come, and the offer hasn't been made, we can—we could hire them as a consultant first. Through the procurement gate. That's a way to get them in. We've done that in the past. Person #48: That's true. We did that for the—for the data analyst from the bank. He was a consultant for three months before we made him permanent. Actually, no, he wasn't—he joined from the bank directly. The consultant thing was for someone else. But yeah, we can do that. Person #11: Right. So that's a backup. Good. So—we have a plan. Good. Person #48: Yes. Person #11: Okay. Now, I have to take this other call. I'll talk to you tomorrow. Or—you know what, no, I'll see you at the leadership meeting on Sunday. We'll catch up then. Person #48: Is there a leadership meeting on Sunday? I didn't see it in the calendar. Person #11: It was added this morning. Check your calendar. Person #48: Oh. Okay. I'll check. Person #11: It's at 10:00. The Chairman's office called for a prep session before the ADEC meeting. Person #48: For the ADEC meeting? What's on the agenda? Is it about the—the digital strategy? Person #11: I don't know the full agenda. I just know we have to be there. And you should come prepared to talk about the TAMM integration data quality issue. If they ask about it, you're the one who knows the details. Person #48: I'll prepare a brief. Person #11: Good. Good. Now I really have to go. Inshallah, we'll get this role filled quickly. Person #48: Inshallah. Person #11: Bye. Person #48: Bye. Person #48: So, just to close the loop on the Emirati analyst role—I sent the revised job description to Rania yesterday evening, around six. Did she get back to you on the grade? Because if we're still stuck at the same band, we're going to lose this candidate. She's got another offer from Mubadala, I think. Or was it ADNOC? I can't remember which one. Person #11: She told me this morning. She said the grade is final. It's a 9B, not a 10A. The compensation committee met last week and they're not flexible on this. The data on similar roles across the sector shows 9B is the median for someone with her experience profile—two years, one promotion, no management experience. So we either get her at 9B or we don't get her. Person #48: But she's got the TAMM background, Doctor. She was part of the team that built the AI assistant for the Ministry—the one that won the award at GITEX last year. That's not exactly entry-level. And we're asking her to come in and hit the ground running on the data quality issue. That's not a 9B problem, that's a senior problem. Person #11: I understand. But the data says what the data says. And the compensation committee is not going to make an exception for one candidate. We had this same conversation for the data engineer role in March—remember? We said the same thing, ended up coming back with a 10A, and then HR got audited by the Executive Council on salary drift. I'm not going through that again. Person #48: Ji, I remember. I just—she's actually perfect for this, Doctor. She knows the systems, she knows the entities. I've been trying to get her to apply for six months. She finally agreed because she wants to work on the AI-native strategy. If we lowball her, she'll walk. Person #11: Then we walk. Or we wait for the next batch from Mawaheb. The placement pipeline has a cohort finishing in November—there's a candidate from MBZUAI who is doing something similar, worked on the NLP stuff, and he's available at a lower band. So we have options. But if you want her, you need to make the case with Rania directly. I can't fight this battle for you. I have the Mawaheb board meeting tomorrow and the ADEC prep on Sunday. Person #48: I understand, I understand. Let me talk to her. I'll draft a short memo—maybe one page, with the specifics, the project timeline, why she's critical, and we can send it to the committee before their next meeting. They meet again in—do you know when? Person #11: September tenth. And the memo won't hurt, but don't expect a miracle. The committee is under pressure to show savings this quarter, especially after the GITEX budget overrun. And no one wants to explain another exception to the Chairman. Person #48: GITEX overrun? I thought the budget was approved as planned. I didn't hear about an overrun. Person #11: It's not public. But the final invoice for the pavilion came in about fourteen percent over the original projection. The vendor—the one from Germany—had some additions that were not in the original scope. And now the comms team is trying to get it absorbed into next year's budget. It's not a huge deal, but it's the kind of thing that makes the committee nervous about any kind of spend that looks discretionary. And an exception to the salary scale looks exactly like that. Person #48: Fourteen percent, ya Allah. Over what, three million? That's not a small amount. Person #11: It's four point three million. Nine hundred thousand over. But it's done. The point is, let's not create another headline. So if you want to fight for the 10A, go ahead, but time your memo well and don't make it sound like we can't do the job without her. Because we can. Person #48: I know we can. But we'll do it slower. And the platform—the data quality issue—it's not going to fix itself. The entities are already complaining about the dashboards. The DoH called me yesterday about the service metrics—they're seeing discrepancies between what TAMM shows and what their internal systems show. If I don't get someone who knows both sides, this becomes a six-month project instead of a three-month one. Person #11: The DoH call—was that about the integration or about the new service form? I saw an email from them about the service form. Person #48: It was about both, actually. The integration sync is off—they're showing a 94% success rate on the service completions, but their internal tracking shows 91.3%. The difference is in the timeout errors. When a user takes more than three minutes on a step, the system times out and the submission is recorded as complete on our side but not on theirs. So the numbers don't match. And then the new service form—the one that went live on Monday—it has a dropdown for the emirate that defaults to Abu Dhabi city, but the users are complaining that they can't change it to Al Ain or the Western Region. It's a small thing, but the complaints are coming in. Person #11: Wait, that dropdown issue—that's been known since the user testing phase. I remember seeing a bug report on that. Was it not fixed before the release? Person #48: It was fixed. But—and here's the thing—it was fixed in the staging environment, but the deployment to production didn't include the fix. The code was merged on the right branch, but the deployment pipeline had a configuration issue and it didn't pick up the latest build. So we deployed the version from last Tuesday, which had the bug. It's a classic deploy pipeline issue. We caught it by Wednesday afternoon, but the Monday and Tuesday traffic already went through. Person #11: So who caught it? Did the team notice, or did the complaints come in? Person #48: We noticed the logs. The error rate spiked on Tuesday night—about eleven percent of the submissions had the dropdown issue. But the complaints didn't start until Wednesday morning, when the social media team flagged it. So we caught it internally, but we didn't react fast enough to prevent the noise. It's been about four days now, and we've deployed the fix. The numbers are back to normal. But the entity is still angry, and they're going to bring it up in the service council meeting if we don't have a good answer. Person #11: The service council—is that next week? I think I have a conflict. Person #48: It's next Tuesday, the first of September. And yes, you're on the agenda. I saw the email from the Chairman's office. They want an update on the data quality initiative and the integration roadmap. Person #11: I'll be there. I'll need a one-slide summary of what happened, what we fixed, and what's still open. Can you prepare that? Keep it clean, no jargon. The Chairman doesn't want to hear about deployment pipelines. He wants to know that the numbers match and the entities are happy. Person #48: I'll have it ready tomorrow. And I'll include the dropdown issue as a footnote—actually, no, I'll include it as a "lessons learned" section. That way we show we're on top of it. Person #11: Good. And the role—the analyst position—you'll still try to get her? Or are you going to wait for the November cohort? Person #48: I'll try for her. I'll send the memo to Rania today, and I'll follow up tomorrow. But if the committee says no, I'll talk to the MBZUAI candidate. I don't want to, but I will. Person #11: And what about the engineers you need? The two for the mobile app team? Person #48: The recruitment is still ongoing for those. We've shortlisted three candidates for the senior role—one from Careem, one from the International Holding Company, and one internal from the legacy ADDA side. The internal candidate is good, but he's not sure about the grade—same issue. And for the junior role, we got a few applications from the Tomouh platform, but the quality is—it's mixed. We're interviewing next week. I'll have a final recommendation by the tenth, inshallah. Person #11: The tenth is the same day as the compensation committee. So if you need a grade adjustment for any of them, you have to get it in before that. Don't wait for the last minute. Person #48: Noted. I'll make sure of it. And one more thing—the environment for the new TAMM release. We're planning to do a load test on the staging environment this week, but we're not getting enough traffic to simulate the peak. Is there any way we can use the production traffic from the last Eid holiday to run a simulation? Person #11: That's an interesting idea. But the data from Eid—it's a holiday, so the traffic pattern is different. People aren't doing regular transactions. It's mostly the service centers and a few high-traffic apps like the parking and the utility payments. If you want a realistic simulation, you'd need a normal working day. Or you could use the data from the last day of Ramadan, which had a similar pattern to a normal Thursday. But I'm not sure if we have that data stored. You'd have to check with the data team. Person #48: I'll check with the data team. If they have it, we can run the simulation this weekend. If not, we'll use the Eid data and adjust for the expected growth. Person #11: And what's the expected growth? For the new release, I mean. Person #48: We're projecting a twenty percent increase in concurrent users for the first month, based on the adoption curve from the last release. The new journey for the business licensing—the one that crosses the DMT and the Department of Finance—is expected to drive a lot of traffic. Plus, the AI assistant feature is being promoted on the app, so there's a risk of a spike from that. We need to make sure the servers can handle it. Person #11: Twenty percent is a big number. Are we sure the infrastructure can handle that? The data centers—the new ones in the desert—they were supposed to be online by now, but I heard there was a delay with the cooling system. Person #48: The cooling system issue was resolved last week. The vendor from Finland came in and fixed the issue. The commissioning is still ongoing, but the first phase is expected to be live by the middle of September. So for the release in October, we should have the additional capacity. But if the commissioning is delayed again, we'll have to manage with the existing capacity. We can do it, but we'll have to throttle the peak traffic, which will affect the user experience. Person #11: Throttling is not acceptable. The Chairman has been very clear about that. If there's a risk of downtime during the GITEX period, we need to know now, not in October. Person #48: I understand, Doctor. I'll get a status update from the infrastructure team this afternoon and share it with you by tomorrow morning. If there's any risk, we'll flag it and we'll have a mitigation plan ready. Person #11: Good. And the mitigation plan—make sure it includes the communication strategy. If we have to make any changes to the release date, I need to know the moment you know, so we can manage the messaging. Person #48: Of course. I'll keep you posted. And I'll have the one-slide summary for the service council by tomorrow as well. Anything else? Person #11: No, I think that's it for now. But one more thing—the Mawaheb placement for the November cohort. I know you're looking at the MBZUAI candidate, but there might be another one from the defense sector program. He's finishing in December, and he's got a strong background in data analytics. Let me send you his profile by email today. If the Mubadala candidate doesn't work out, he might be a good alternative. Person #48: I'll look out for it. And if he's good, we can interview him before the December intake. That way, we have a decision before the end of the year. Person #11: Perfect. Now, I have to take this other call. I'll talk to you tomorrow. Or—you know what, no, I'll see you at the leadership meeting on Sunday. We'll catch up then. Person #48: Is there a leadership meeting on Sunday? I didn't see it in the calendar. Person #11: It was added this morning. Check your calendar. Person #48: Oh. Okay. I'll check. Person #11: It's at 10:00. The Chairman's office called for a prep session before the ADEC meeting. Person #48: For the ADEC meeting? What's on the agenda? Is it about the—the digital strategy? Person #11: I don't know the full agenda. I just know we have to be there. And you should come prepared to talk about the TAMM integration data quality issue. If they ask about it, you're the one who knows the details. Person #48: I'll prepare a brief. Person #11: Good. Good. Now I really have to go. Inshallah, we'll get this role filled quickly. Person #48: Inshallah. Person #11: Bye. Person #48: Bye. Person #48: Actually, wait—before you go—the leadership meeting on Sunday, is it the usual conference room or the smaller one? Because the Chairman usually prefers the bigger one for ADEC prep, but I want to make sure we're not fighting for space with the comms team. Person #11: It's the big one. The Chairman wants the projector for the dashboard review. And the comms team is using the small one for the media briefing. So don't worry about that. Person #48: Good. And should I bring the—the printed copies of the dashboard or just the digital version? The last time, the projector had issues and we had to scramble for the printed ones. Person #11: Bring printed copies. Just in case. And make sure they're the updated ones—the ones with the corrected numbers. The ones from last week had the error on the service completion rate, and the Chairman noticed. He didn't say anything, but I saw him mark it. Person #48: I'll make sure they're the latest. I'll print them on Friday morning before the weekend, so they're ready. Person #11: Good. Now, truly, I have to go. This other call is with the Talent Council, and they're not happy about the placement numbers. I can't be late. Person #48: Understood. Go. I'll send you the memo draft by end of day. And the infrastructure status update by tomorrow morning. Person #11: Great. Talk soon. Bye. Person #48: Bye. Good luck with the Talent Council. Person #11: I'll need it. These guys are tougher than the compensation committee. Bye. Person #48: Bye. Person #11: You still there? Person #48: Yeah, sorry, just checking my notes. So, the memo draft—should I send it to your assistant or directly to you? Person #11: Directly to me. And copy Fatima. She's tracking the action items for the Chairman's review. Person #48: Copy Fatima. Got it. And the infrastructure status—that's the one with the Q3 targets, right? The 99.9% uptime figure? Person #11: Yes. And make sure you include the incident log from last week's TAMM outage. The Chairman will ask. He always asks. Person #48: Right. The outage. We're still doing the root cause analysis on that, but I have the preliminary findings. The vendor says it was a load balancer misconfiguration, but— Person #11: But you don't believe that. Person #48: I think there's more to it. The logs show some unusual traffic patterns before the failure. I've asked the SOC team to dig deeper. Person #11: Good. Keep on that. The last thing we need is another GITEX headline about TAMM being down. The media team is already nervous about the coverage from last year. Person #48: I know. They're still sensitive about that. I'll have the full RCA by Sunday. That gives us time to prepare a response if anyone asks. Person #11: Sunday morning, not Sunday evening. The meeting is at nine, and the Chairman likes to review materials an hour before. So, eight at the latest. Person #48: Eight o'clock Sunday morning. I'll have it done. I'll send it Saturday night, actually. That way you have time to review. Person #11: Saturday night works. My kids are asleep by nine, so I can look at it then. Person #48: How old are your kids now? If you don't mind me asking. Person #11: Six and four. The four-year-old just started asking why I'm always on calls. It's a phase, I'm told. Person #48: My nephew does the same thing. He thinks my laptop is a toy. He tried to join a sprint meeting once. The team got a kick out of it. Person #11: Kids. Anyway, I really do have to go. The Talent Council call is starting. They get testy when I'm late. Person #48: Go. I'll send the memo by five. Person #11: Perfect. And the infrastructure status by tomorrow morning. Person #48: Yes, tomorrow morning. Before nine. Person #11: Good. And don't forget the printed copies for Sunday. Person #48: Friday morning, first thing. I'll put them on your desk. Person #11: My desk or the Chairman's office? Person #48: Your desk. You can review them before handing them over. Person #11: Fine. Good. Talk to you Sunday. Person #48: Sunday. Bye. Person #11: Bye.