On Mon, 3 Aug 1998 08:11:05 +0100, Katie Law wrote:
>3. Imagine keeping the accounts and payroll in paper format (which our
>previous financial partner did)...
What's wrong with that? There are millions of small shops doing that
all over the country and they are very happy, thank you!
I have 6 members of staff that I pay directly. Why should incur the
cost of a payroll system when it can be done in 30 minutes on paper?
However, more on that below.
>Setting up the system has taken time,
>but running the system now set will be 100% more efficient,
Thank you, KT for giving me an opening to butt in ;-)
I note you say "will be" not "is" ;-)
This is the key element here that Midge and Roberts have not touched
on.
We seem to forget that *setting the systems* is the starting point.
Once you decided what your systems and SOPs are, you get out and find
solutions, management solutions, that will help you achieve the
implementation of those systems. You do that for *each* system and for
the organisation as a whole.
So, the emphasis should be on the *process* not the technology. If
you have crap process, you'll have crap technology to allow you to
carry on.
I guess it's called reverse engineering ;-) Each and every
organisation and small shop must have its own set of systems first.
The technology is only part of the process.
Take the Internet, for example. We've had many problems over the
years because the process is technology and technologists driven. The
Internet may be starting to turn around because there is less emphasis
on the technology and more on the people who use it. Process
re-engineering again.
Perhaps I should just give my whole time to writing 'The Grammar' ;-)
One small comment about banks:
The banks made huge efficiency gains, but:
a) do I get cheaper or better service? I'd say not
b) I lost the friendly local branch manager who would drop in and have
coffee with me or I can ring and discuss stuff with. I miss that.
Now back to the 'however' I mentioned above:
The advent of PCGs is a far bigger revolution than many people imagine.
Are we all aware what exactly that revolution is?
I believe that the biggest change PCGs *may* produce is the
introduction of the *Enterprise-wide culture*.
Enterprise-wide solutions to enterprise-wide problems BUT with the
still in existence incompatibilities inherited from the old culture.
Unless 'The Enterprise' sorts out the relation between its production
resources and its order book, no amount of technology can deliver
better patient care. All that you would've achieved is spending money
on technology only to flog a dead horse and you end up delivering, at
best, the same service cheaper by paying the workers less for more.
At worst, the clinicians may wake up one day and say sod this for a
lark and walk out because 20 pounds an hour does not produce efficient
enjoyable enterprises like the banks. The banks succeeded in pleasing
their shareholders but you ask any middle management or till person who
are still looking for a job 10 years later!
In summary:
1. applying expensive technology to small shops is probably wasteful
2. the leap from small shop to enterprise is gigantic
3. you won't be able to ake that leap without fundamental change in
the culture
4. you have to make that leap because the thing will be worse without
it
5. 'culture' means 'people'
6. technology fits in (or not) with the overall enterprise systems
Perhaps we need to spend some time on the issues of culture rather than
technology because the technology bit is the easy bit :-)
Ahmad
________________________________________
Dr Ahmad Risk
http://mednetics.org
home: +44 1273 748198
work: +44 1737 240022
fax: +44 1737 244660
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
