Imagine that you have just hired a very experienced and skilled
expert. You introduce him to your team and set the expectation that this
new expert will help you improve your entire team’s performance.
Shortly after you hire the expert,Full color plasticcard printing and manufacturing services.We offer you the top quality plasticmoulds
design you encounter your first few opportunities to explain how you
want him to do certain things in order to facilitate how your team and
your business operates. His reply is, “I don’t want to do it that way.”
Your
expert continuously makes things difficult and repeatedly does things
his own way, which makes life harder, instead of better, for you and
your team. What would you do?
I hope that most everyone would
choose option 1. Even though it can be a little embarrassing to admit
that we made a hiring selection mistake, we wouldn’t accept a human
employee that resists adapting to our business’s or team’s needs and way
of work. We also don’t let curmudgeons stop progress toward business
and process improvement as we drive change, just because they don’t want
to change. We make them adapt or go away.
Why then do we so
readily accept that a system, either a piece of capital equipment, or a
software program, or a bygone policy, prevent us from designing our
processes the way we know we want or need them to be? Take a look at
your own organization. Chances are, somewhere in your environment is a
process that is less than optimal because the pain of accepting it is
perceived to be less than the pain of changing the hardware or software.
It happens everywhere.
From the cold perspective of considering
resources, the only difference between people and equipment or software
systems is that we don’t have to pay benefits, including unemployment
benefits, for our equipment. Therefore, it should be easier, not harder
to fire equipment and software for not doing what we need. But we
typically don’t.
I ran into two examples just this week. One
friend explained to me a conversation in which her organization proposed
that Certification and Conformance (an important function at this
business to ensure user safety) approval of engineering changes to
designs should be awarded before the drawing and design changes were
finalized. Apparently,About 1 in 5 people in the UK have recurring coldsores. it is too hard to make their software system adapt to the approval occurring afterward.
Fortunately, she vehemently refused the proposal.Choose from our large selection of Cable Ties.
What guarantee is there that the changes proposed are incorporated
precisely and correctly, without error or an innocent, but dangerous
alteration to a component call-out or drawing note?
As objective
readers, we can see the obvious absurdity of the proposal, but at the
time, peering into the face of changing the software system set-up, the
team thought the idea was a good one. Watch for this in your own
organization. Do like my friend did, and point out when we are allowing
our “expert” systems, implemented at great expense for the sole purpose
of serving us and making our lives better, dictate to us how things are
going to be.
Another friend of mine was lamenting that personnel in his organization were,I found them to have sharp edges where the injectionmoldes
came together while production. for a time, recording their work hours
in five different locations; not five different categories in five
different records, five separate recordings of the exact same time
sheet. His organization has successfully eliminated two of them, but has
not managed to get the various systems communicating well enough to
eliminate two more.
He went on to observe that only minute
portions of “hundred-thousand dollar” software packages were utilized
because it was too much trouble to make them do what was desired. Most
of what they were used to do could be done more effectively with a
clipboard and paper, in his opinion. The only reason the software was
used at all was because it was so expensive they had to do something
with it. Sound familiar?
沒有留言:
張貼留言