The phenomenal rise in the use of Web 2.0 facilities by business is something to behold – but is it the technology being exploited or perhaps people with yet more new responsibilities to discharge up and above their already busy schedule ?
Twitter, Blogging, Social Networking – all fantastic methods of getting a message out to huge numbers of people instantaneously but where is it all leading?
Are we spending too much time contributing and not enough absorbing ? Is everyone doing the same ? Are we fooling ourselves that people are better off as a result of our post – or would we be better off taking the same amount of time to pick one interesting article read and digest it in depth and contemplate how we could use the concepts for our own / our company’s benefit.
Has the actual amount of useful information increased in line with the diversity of technology created to disseminate it – or have we just buried the forest of knowledge in 140 character string leaf litter ?
True growth and enlightenment takes time – read, absorb, challenge, re-think, apply, assess – surely this is better than tweet, blog, e-mail and post ?
As ever I would welcome your views.
Monday, 8 February 2010
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Six Sigma or Sick Schema
In these challenging times how many businesses are lowering their quality standards either knowingly or through a reduction in their attention to detail.
In many communities the need to ensure personal data accuracy is regulated in law but many business process outsourcing organisations remain passive in ensuring the data they hold remains accurate - relying upon their clients to inform them of issues - normally after mistakes have been made (many of which are costly - either monetarily or reputationally) .
Active monitoring and cross referencing of data is essential to spot potential problems and allows outsourcing organisation to offer a much more intelligent and proactive service to their customers - and if done comprehensively - could even for a revenue stream for them.
Understanding the data models and semantics for the information being held is the key to success - but this is not rocket science - as people, after all, (despite how certain organisations behave), are "real world beings" - so the information held is normally logical and understandable - therefore mapping between systems is simple even if volumes sometimes cause a problem.
Once customers core records are established and checked processes to keep the data accurate have to be embedded - and there is nothing better than confirming with the individual whether something is right or not - whilst people will often not volunteer a change - most will very quickly inform you of a problem - and if done properly will be welcomed.
Six Sigma is an excellent method and philosophy for addressing process deficiencies within organisations but perhaps common sense and a good service mentality are pre-requisites for achieving a higher level of quality in basic people data management.
I would welcome your views.
In many communities the need to ensure personal data accuracy is regulated in law but many business process outsourcing organisations remain passive in ensuring the data they hold remains accurate - relying upon their clients to inform them of issues - normally after mistakes have been made (many of which are costly - either monetarily or reputationally) .
Active monitoring and cross referencing of data is essential to spot potential problems and allows outsourcing organisation to offer a much more intelligent and proactive service to their customers - and if done comprehensively - could even for a revenue stream for them.
Understanding the data models and semantics for the information being held is the key to success - but this is not rocket science - as people, after all, (despite how certain organisations behave), are "real world beings" - so the information held is normally logical and understandable - therefore mapping between systems is simple even if volumes sometimes cause a problem.
Once customers core records are established and checked processes to keep the data accurate have to be embedded - and there is nothing better than confirming with the individual whether something is right or not - whilst people will often not volunteer a change - most will very quickly inform you of a problem - and if done properly will be welcomed.
Six Sigma is an excellent method and philosophy for addressing process deficiencies within organisations but perhaps common sense and a good service mentality are pre-requisites for achieving a higher level of quality in basic people data management.
I would welcome your views.
Thursday, 14 January 2010
Employee Protection - Help or Hinderance ?
Employee Protection regimes like the UKs TUPE Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations are seen as a positive sign of a civilised society and developed economy - However in today's market conditions are such laws detrimental to the population at large ?
Whilst it is quite often the thought of pension liabilities (which sit outside the realms of such regulation for the majority of employees) which put off prospective outsourcing bodies bidding for particular work (particularly in the public sector) - How many contracts which are take up are delivered with underwhelming performance because despite the injection of new thinking much of the work carried out by an outsourcer is delivered by the same people who carried out the job before a transfer. Whilst retaining skills and knowledge are fundamental to delivering a successful service - so are energy, enthusiasm and openness to new thinking - some of which can be drained by the transfer process itself - which frequently can be fraught - usually through uncertainty of the unknown and the fear that results.
Could costs to business and the public sector be reduced if such regulation were relaxed to an extent - and could performance be improved through a greater injection of new talent, new thinking and avoiding the "well its always been done this way" attitude, and the historical burdens of knowledge which frequently cause interruptions to peoples delivery of their new roles.
Whilst controversial - perhaps if looking at a macro level, allowing outsourcing organisations to deliver services back without an excessive burden of responsibility re staff transfer just might deliver services of a higher quality at less cost to the benefit of both parties.
This is not to say that staff should not be moved across - as all too frequently good transferring employees feel invigorated by the new challenge and contribute greatly to the success of a new service - however it is perhaps those whose performance has been less than good over a period and has been left unchecked who could unfairly benefit from the protection and reduce the overall performance of the new relationship at the expense of the customer and the economy as a whole.
Is it time to change or at least reflect upon the regimes in place today for the benefit of the nation as a whole. After all we all want better service at lower cost - should we not therefore look for every opportunity to influence this outcome?
I would welcome your views.
Whilst it is quite often the thought of pension liabilities (which sit outside the realms of such regulation for the majority of employees) which put off prospective outsourcing bodies bidding for particular work (particularly in the public sector) - How many contracts which are take up are delivered with underwhelming performance because despite the injection of new thinking much of the work carried out by an outsourcer is delivered by the same people who carried out the job before a transfer. Whilst retaining skills and knowledge are fundamental to delivering a successful service - so are energy, enthusiasm and openness to new thinking - some of which can be drained by the transfer process itself - which frequently can be fraught - usually through uncertainty of the unknown and the fear that results.
Could costs to business and the public sector be reduced if such regulation were relaxed to an extent - and could performance be improved through a greater injection of new talent, new thinking and avoiding the "well its always been done this way" attitude, and the historical burdens of knowledge which frequently cause interruptions to peoples delivery of their new roles.
Whilst controversial - perhaps if looking at a macro level, allowing outsourcing organisations to deliver services back without an excessive burden of responsibility re staff transfer just might deliver services of a higher quality at less cost to the benefit of both parties.
This is not to say that staff should not be moved across - as all too frequently good transferring employees feel invigorated by the new challenge and contribute greatly to the success of a new service - however it is perhaps those whose performance has been less than good over a period and has been left unchecked who could unfairly benefit from the protection and reduce the overall performance of the new relationship at the expense of the customer and the economy as a whole.
Is it time to change or at least reflect upon the regimes in place today for the benefit of the nation as a whole. After all we all want better service at lower cost - should we not therefore look for every opportunity to influence this outcome?
I would welcome your views.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
