Best Mattresstype For Scoliosis

The optimal organizational performance is less than the sum of optimal processes

optimize the quality of the organizational system

One of the trends of recent years has been on process management, or improving business performance through improved processes internal. In principle it makes sense because from a reductionist conception if we improve the parts of a whole is improved.

However, many companies are managed by process, after an apparent initial improvement, fail in the end a proper level of competitiveness. Let's see why.

could put this question another way, Is it the best of an organization the sum of the optimal process? Do you get optimum results from a company optimizing the performance of each department and process? The answer is no, especially when it comes to optimizing costs and execution times.

separately optimizing processes we can not optimize the overall performance of the organization as there is a relationship, visible or not, between all processes so that any action on a process affect other processes organization, better one, we can make other. The purpose must be to improve the outcome of the entire organization and this requires an exercise of joint optimization and not individual.

If we optimize the costs of a process, reducing them by any mechanism other than the indirect effect of improving the quality of the organizational system will cause a deterioration in other processes such that the sum will always be worse . An example
this graph represents two processes

.

Gárafico 1 - Relation% defects - Cost of two processes

This graph is the relationship between the processes of Purchasing and Production at two of its variables: cost-quality supplies.

descending curve on the left represents the cost of production and quality of supplied components (measured by the% of defects), and if the percentage of defective supplies low production costs will also drop because there are fewer rework costs, adjustments, arrears and losses. Optimum point would be in the bottom right. The upward curve to the right gives the relationship between the costs of purchase and the% of defects. We see that as the cost increases reduced the percentage of defects. The optimum would be at the bottom left.

see that neither gives the optimal lower total cost and it is somewhere in between. The first conclusion is that the optimal cost minimization is not achieved in any of the sweet spots of the processes P and C. It follows that we can not simply optimize both processes separately without damaging the sum which is the final result measured in terms of lower cost.

To achieve lower total cost should reduce, not the purchase cost as is commonly believed, nor the cost of production as it is very close to the% of defects, but the quality of the processes by improving the organizational system seen as a whole. Thus the total cost reduction is a result of improved quality organizational system. The opposite is not true.

The chart below shows us how we can improve the optimal through adequate organizational system upgrade will streamline the relationship between purchasing and production processes, bringing their best. In this case that we simulated moving clockwise curve shopping, which is equivalent to bringing the best of both curves.

Gárafico 2 - Improving the Optimod two processes by redesigning the organizational system

The consequence is that if we focus our efforts on improving the quality of the organizational system, improve quality processes and reduce total costs while if we focus our efforts on reducing process costs, quality deteriorates and eventually the costs will rise.

Another important conclusion is that allocating individual or departmental goals, it may cause serious harm to the overall performance .

This also concludes that the achievement of all departmental objectives and process do not guarantee that the company achieves its results.

only improved organizational system will enable us to achieve organizational results. We must move to improve processes to improve the quality of the organizational system.

These findings and many more said W. Edwards Deming as a result of his long experience in the study and improvement of many companies.

What Is European Sharking

Confetti: Present Perfect # 4




This past Saturday I had the honor of working with an installation at the First Anniversary of space The Forn Art. Although the party is over the piece will stay there for a while, so anybody can go visit her (warning prior to jdelgado @ elforndelarte). The studio is on Calle Fray Luis de León 10, across from La Casa Lit.

Milena Velba With Santa Claus

Paulo_ April 14 May: Scenic Landscapes Workshop Registration

 

record video frames (Thanks Vale, Noe and Fede!)

How Long Will Seman Show Up

The executive and science of understanding people

Competitiveness and Job Satisfaction

A inseparable

said

W. Edwards Deming the greatest failure of the manager is not able to take advantage of the skills and desire to learn from the employees the benefit of all : the organization itself and its employees. (1)

decades lead has been confused with command and control, with the exercise of power and competition between people. Little has changed since the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century.

Maintain extended consideration of the employee as a "resource" someone who is used but in which capacity is not created and therefore should be subject to strict control. Technology has evolved, science, society, the formation but the style of management seems to have stalled, just his rhetoric has changed.

calls for collaboration, teamwork, responsibility and respect do not always represent more than mere rhetoric of a business model directed in the style of a century ago, but immersed in a society that has changed and requires another speech.

The consequences are companies with employees with low competitiveness and high level of anxiety and dissatisfaction with their work . Extensive studies show a direct relationship between the systemic and employee satisfaction in a period of time and increased efficiency at a later time. (2)

Some companies have indeed been led by managers who understood and were able to take advantage of this knowledge of their competitors.

personal satisfaction and development of their own talent they have amazing strength in the will of the people. Why not be used for the benefit of all?

The answer is simple, steering mechanisms and compensation are based on the employee-resource, not the employee-citizen (person responsible and intelligent). The starting point is based on the assumption of "bad" employee. It distorts reality to the detriment of most people and organization.

Most people would be pleased to contribute more to the company they work if she felt part of a team. Working for pay, yes, but this only results in an offset contract. The real involvement comes from the emotional side of People born only if you feel satisfaction with what is done.

The Management of the future must restore the person to a rightful place in business organizations for the benefit of all , organization and employees.

benefit or wage dilemma no longer exists in terms of before. The greatest value to the organization is not the level of activity on the product as before. It is the initiative, continuous improvement and innovation that come from a fantastic attitude and intelligence for the organization and as such are neither measurable nor are priceless, but they improve the competitive pace grows satisfaction of the employees involved in their achievement.

Against

widely believed, should lead efforts to align and unite, guide, teach and promote group collaboration. The manager will be in the future only if their skills "technical" adds the need to build collaboration and this comes from a deep understanding of people.

Far from creating competition, the manager should let bring out the intrinsic motivation that people carry within . The employee must be seen as a collaborator who wants to contribute their skills and feel good about yourself and the organization.

Motivation is intrinsic to the employee, or come and must come from outside people. But organizational conditions should allow to surface. Not motivate people, but an adverse environment overrides the intrinsic motivation.

Innovation Initiative and other air need to flourish.

competitiveness and meeting the people at work go hand in hand or will not .

(1) W. Edwards Deming, "Out of the Crisis ", 1982
(2) Daniel J. Koys, Department of Management DePaul Universit, Personnel Psychology, " The effects of employee satisfaction, ..., on Organizational Effectiveness " 2001