Fart

when we want to fart, certainly we think twice, there is about people who around you. therefore I will give you tips that people who around you don't aware if you're farting, hahahaha..

because when people know that you're farting, they will leave you and angry with. and then they will mock that you're smelly farting. more ever if you're dating with your close friend absolutely you won't your close friend know that you're farting. it so terrible if your close friend know that you're farting, and if she/he will leave you and you will be "jomblo akut". not only that but also when you're farting in your class as examination when at that time in quiet situation, definitely if you're farting you will be limelight. I can't believe that I fart in this condition.start now you don't worry if you want to fart. I have many powerful tips. this is it :

1. if you want to fart you must speak louder so that people in around you don't hear your fart sound.
2. divert attention, for example : woww what is it? (pointing in another direction)
3. accuse other person if he/she fart
4. immediately cover your nose
5. escape after you fart

is it good tips, right? lay a fart is boon from god, and not good if we hold this. and farting can make body healthy, relieved, and others. if my tips don't work maybe you must consult with doctor.

Read More

abbreviation words

doubtless you all guess, why do you take "abbreviation word" in your blog? I'm upset because every one in the short message always reply my message with abbreviation word like "y" (in Indonesian) (y=oke). whereas I write long massage, it so annoy guy. and I feel confuse when I chat with "alay" people (exaggerate people). Because I don't understand about their. they always combine numbers with letters, for example :

niluh : don't forget bring management's book, because I want to copy this book, and I need to do   my homework and tomorrow is deadline. and don't forget we meet in library at 3 PM. If you are busy you can contact me and I will decide when we are meet.

aji     : y (oke)

niluh : hmm -___-

aji     : 4much di mAnua? 4quwh di T4 ni

niluh : ??????

it so complicated, right? mainly about abbreviation words, like LOL (laughing Out Loud), ROFL (Rolling On the Floor, Laughing), LMAO (Laughing My As* Off LOL),  BTW (By The Way), ASAP (As Soon As Possible), LMFAO (every day I'm shufle it..) 

can you imagine when every body use abbreviation words in the daily activity?

niluh : d u k m b ? (do you know my bread?)

aji    : n I d k (no, I don't know)

niluh : d u s m b , l a u m , g a f m (definite you steal my bread, look at your mouth, go away from me)

aji    : g, I s, I s s s s s s s (guy, I'm sorry, I'm so so so so so so sorry )

It is veryyyyyyyyyyy complicated, so don't use abbreviation words again.

Read More

when girls and boys make mistake

Hello guys, if you're observe there is different condition when girls make mistake to boys, and when boys make mistake to girls. Maybe this condition is unfair for boys. but it is just joke guys.. It is fictitious, and if there is similarity story it just coincidental.

First, I want to tell you when a boy does something wrong. this is the conversation between a girl and a boy.

girl  : YOU BROKE MY FAVORITE LAMP !!
boy : it was an accident, I didn't mean to :(
girl  : I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU DID THIS (angry)
boy : I'm so sorry :(

related with this condition if boy make mistake, a girl angry and a boy became speechless. so, boy must apologize to girl because guy does something wrong, and let's we see what will boy do if girl make mistake? check it out :

and the second condition when a girl make mistake to boy, this is the conversation.

boy : you lost my dog
girl  : it was an accident. I didn't mean to :(
boy : I can't believe you did this

(so, which one who apologize first? the answer is a boy because usually girl say that :)

girl  : I say I already feel bad about it!! STOP MAKING ME FEEL WORSE (angry)
boy : I'm so sorry :(

from this story we can conclude that in many condition although girl make mistake, boy must apologize. hahhaha... just joke :D

Read More

Karnaval

Night last week I went to the intersection of five with my brother with the motor. we went there because we wanted to see the carnival. when he got there, five intersections have to be fulfilled by the hundreds or even thousands of people who want to enliven the event. we also are fighting for a place to go to see the carnival. there we saw people using unique costumes, and make-up is also unique as well. we are very happy to see it all, there we took a lot of pictures, especially pictures of people wearing interesting clothes.

It so nice night, and next time I will try to wear costume like them.

Read More

One Man's Meat

For Charles Lubin, the minuscule market for Sara Lee products ws not chicken feed. It was enormous or at least promising. When it matured into large enough proportions, the expected happened. Sara Lee became big enough and was available at a high enough price earnings ratio to be a good buy for a competitor of the baking companies. The same has happened to Pepperidge Farm, to Basic System, to Spencer Gifts to play skool, to Diner's Club to Bomar,to Oklahoma Oil and to many others who helped change the commercial environment they entered with such modest beginnings, and often uniformed optimism.

A lot of new industries originate in pure ignorance. Ignorance and incompetence, sustained only by blind enthusiasm, are the pathology of business failure  One out of many succeeds. The fact that success is so rare and originates out of such a welter of unbusiness like attitudes and practices does not justify the conclusion that all success is serendipitous, accidental or without food for learning.

What we learn is, again, that all big businesses and big industries started small, that large markets do not suddenly, or at least not very often, materialize full blown. They start small and grow nig. Even such a massive and costly new business as Comcast will one day be viewed as having started awfully small.

The significance of an industry's bigness is not its size but now its size developed. To understand growth and capitalize on opportunity it is useful to look at the business world not in terms of what consumer do, by in terms of how they get to the point of doing it. While markets expand because more people or companies buy a product, what is more relevant to recognize is that more people buy because more of them have learned to think of that product as an appropriate, a useful, and a legitimate item of consumption.

Read More

The Pathology of Revolution

Revolution are seldom made by insiders. A few exceptions prove the point that business revolutions are mad by outsiders. Typically also they are made not by successful giants but by small generally under capitalized and inexperienced outsiders.

One of the most remarkable recent examples is ocean cargo containerization. This revolution, which is still only in its infancy, did not emanate from the shipping giants American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, or United States Lines, or Grace Line, or Cunard, or Matson, or Moore McCormack. It was launched and led by Malcolm Mclean, then president of McLean Trucking Co. He had none of the constipating sentimentality that leads one to refer to a ship as a "she". He viewed ships as a giant bridge for his trucks. So in 1956, with four old tankers, he launched Sea/ Land, now the leader in ocean cargo containerization.

Other examples of big new industries and big new ways of doing things that emanated from the small beginnings of outsiders are almost endless : tape recorders and magnetic tape, motels, paperback books, television program production, frozen foods, vinyl tile, auto rentals, polarized glass, aluminum die casting, affinity group flying, helicopters, all purpose credit cards, supermarkets, plastic bearings, single handle faucets, rockets, chemical hair setters, hair coloring, "instant" photo developing, fast service gasoline stations, paper "cans," electronic copying. For the hopeful men of large corporations who annually approve large R % D budgets, large test market budgets, and large new business budgets, the list is too long for comfort.

Read More

From Small Beginnings

     Every business started as a small business. Big companies did not suddenly erupt from the primeval rock on some glorious spring morning to the inspirational accompaniment of the Beethoven's ''ode to joy.'' Even John D. Rockefeller started as a peddler with a horse. Eugene Ferkauf of Korvette sold discount luggage out of an obscure one-room second-floor loft. J. Eric Jonsson and Patrick E. Haggerty of Texas Instruments had a little geophysical operation y hay became interested in transistor. Appropriately to the Dllas origins they bet a lot on a little item. Charles Lubin ran an obscure little neighborhood bakery on Chicago's north side, which later achieved fame and fiscal eminence as Sara Lee cakes and pastries.
      Each of these men became a corporate hero, appropriately celebrated for his pioneering wisdom and entrepreneurial energy. Each no doubt deserves both his plaudits and his millions. Standard Oil is huge; Korvette is big and, for reasons not central  to this exposition, now transmuted into the less casually controlled orbit of another enterprise. Texas Instruments is enormous in both size and profits; and Sara Lee, though willingly gobbled up in the great meger movement, is willingly gobbled up by the rest of us in proportions greater than we would like but with resistance less than we can muster.
     The trouble with heroes is that their admirers endow them with such a powerfully brilliant glow that we are blinded to the more significant facts of their achievements. One thing is significantly identical about the heroes we have mentioned : Each made a revolution, and yet each made it in an industry to which he was a stranger and which was occupied by others of greater experience, larger fiscal resources, and more connections. Rockefeller was a vegetable peddler when others had already waxed rich in oil. Ferkauf was, in the accepted parlance of the trade, a more schnook compared with the experienced might of Federated Department Stores and Allied Stores. Compared with RCA, Philco, General Electric, and their heavily capitalized and innovation minded brethren, Texas Instruments was heavily capitalized and innovation minded brethren, Texas Instruments was a phantom outsider. And Mr. Lubin was so far outside the commercial baking industry that he probably could not have qualified as a journeyman baker in the mass production factories of Consolidated or Ward.

Read More

Thinking Big Is Not Enoudh-chapter Five

           Americans are noted for their preference for scale. Magnitude is a measure of meaning. The bigger the better. ''Thinking Big'' is the distinctive and perennial American slogan. A few years ago it was only kooks, impecunnious student couples, and two-car suburbanites in high personal property tax towns who were presumed to be attracted by Volkswgen's peculiarly European slogan : ''Think Small.'' Volkswagen's slogan worked not because it competed with America's think-big attitudes but because it actually complemented and reinforced them. It was not a challenge to American values. Its ambitions were actually a playful affirmation of what really counts, namely, bigness.
           The Volkswagen slogan had an appropriately minority suggestion of miniaturness and quaintness. It is not only because of its silhouette that the car is called ''The Bug.'' A bug is small, close to the ground, even cute. If it isn't careful, it might get overrun and flattened. In the American rhetoric, to qualify as cute something must be viewed as only temporarily small-a cute baby, a cute kitten. In short, it does not merit serious adult attention except as a fetching or exceptional curiosity. It is not quite finished, not quite mature, not really legitimate in any pratical way. When the young married couple starts facing the serious business of life, the cute little Volkswagen will obviously have to give way in favor of a solidly adult Detroit chariot.Or so it seemed.
           America thinks big. Nobody has the slightest doubt that to bebig is to be great.Only the unschooled child says that it's a ''great big house'' or a ''great big airplane.'' No well-acculturated American adult would utter such an obvious redundancy, except occasionally to speak of Texas millionaires.
            Bigness isa dream that continues to animate American life and shape its business ethic. Yet, powerful forces operate to suggest that business succes will increasingly require an unaccustomed parallel capacity to thinks small. It is a neccessity imposed on American business by the rising tendency of both industrialand household consumers to be more discriminating in what they buy. The day of the universal brand is rapidly yielding to consumer demands for specialty brands and tailored products uniquely suited to the particular discriminate function or styles of life that people are learning to value nd assert. This imposes on American business the necesity for a way of thinking that is already having a profound impact on organization structure and cost of doing business.

Read More

Selectivity and Segmentation

          New time are upon us. The traditional idea of the mass market, on which so many American business fortunes were built, is dying a gradual death. It may even be a complusive death. With fits and starts and occasional dramatic profits, it is still with us, but not, in the traditional sense, for long. It is being replaced by a new kind of market dominated by a new and powerfully different kind of consumer.
           The age of the indiscriminate mass consumer is in its twilight. We are rapidly entering an age of the discriminating consumer whose ambition is not to ''keep up with the Jonesess'' but to ''keep away from the Joneses.'' becoming a symbol of democratic affluence. They are becoming a symbol of mass-market anonymity, of deadening uniformity.
       For a good many  years to come, business success will depend less in an executive's capacity to think big and more on his capacity to think small-more correctly, to think selectively. He must stop thinking of his customers s part of some massively homogeneous market. He must start thinking of them as numerous small islands of distinctiveness, each of which reqires its own unique strategies in product policy, in promotional strategy, in pricing, in distribution methods, and in direct-selling techniques.
       An aggressively think-small attitude produced such enormous successes as Pepperidge Farm bread, Caedmon records, Early American cake mixes, compact cars and sporty personal cars, personal calculators, and even M&M candy. Enormous opportunity and profit await the company begins more aggressively to think small. And this applies most urgently to America's largest corporations, who seem so often to be so firmly married to the think-big formulas that produced such unmatched greatness in the past. For them, an unbending think-big attitude may be the surest road to ruin.
       In a world of system selling and broadly encompassing definitions of what an industry is, it is time we look again at the details of how the world now works.

Read More

Conclusion

          All this raises a seeminglys frightenng question: If conformity and rigidity are necessary requisites of organization, and if these in turn help stifle creativity, and furthermore if the creative man might indeed be stifled if he is required to spell out the details needed to convert his ideas into effective innovations, does all this mean that modern organizations have  evolved into such involuted monsters of administration that they must suffer the fearful fate of the dinosaur-too big and inwiedly to survive?
          The answer is no. First, it is questionable whether the crative impulse will automatically dry up if the idea man is required to take some responsibility forfllow-through. The people who so resolutely proclaim their own creative energies will scarcely assert that they need a hothouse for its flowering. Second, the large organization has some important attributes that actually facilitate innovation. Its capacity to distribut risk over its broad economic base and among the many individuals involved in implementing newness is enormous. Its resources and capacities make it both economically and, for the individuals involved, personally easier to break untriedground.
          What often misleads people is the false assumption that to make big operating changes also requires making big organizational changes. Yes it is precisely one of the great virtues of a big organization that, in the short run at least, its momentum is irreversible and its organizational structure is, for all practical purpose, nearly impenetrable. A vast machinery exist to serious attention, no matter how exotically revolutionary a big operating or policy change may be. The boat can and may have to be rocked, but pne virtue of a big boat is that it takes an awful lot to rock it. Certain people or departments in the boat may feel the rocking more that others, and to that extent strive to avoid the incidents that produce it. But the built-in stabilizers of bigness and of group decision making can be used as powerful influences in encouraging people to risk these incidents.

Read More

Adding Flexibility

           Finally, the large organization has alternatives to the alleged ''conservatizing'' conssequences of bigness. The realatively rigid organization can build into its own processes certain flexibilities that would provide fructifying opportubities for the creative but irresponsible individual. Some of these alternatives were discussed earlier.
            Some of them, however, have created their own organizational problems, some of them not terribly reassuring. The fact is that the problems and needs of companies differ. To this extent they have to find their own special ways of dealing with the issues discussed in this chapter. The important point is to be conscious of the possible need and value of finding ways to make creativity yield more innovation.
             Some companies have greater need for such measures than other. As pointed out earlier, the need hinges in part on the nature of the industry. Certainly it is easier to convert creativity into innovation in the advertising business than it is in an operating company, with its elaborate production pprocessses, long channels of distribution, and complex administrative setup.
              For those critics of, and advisers to, industry who repeatedly call for more creativity in business, it is well to try first to understand the profound distinction between creativity and innovation, and then perhaps to spend a little more time calling on creative individuals to take added resposibility for implementation. The fructifying potentials of creativity vary enormously with the particular industry, with the climate in the organization, with the organizational level of the idea man, and with the kinds of day-in, day-out problems, pressures, and responsibilities of the man to whom he addresses his ideas. Without clearly appreciating these facts, those who declare that a company will somehow grow and prosper merely by having more creative people make a fetish of their own illusions.

Read More

The advices Business

It is to be expected, therefore that today's most ardent advocates of creativity in business tend to be professional writers, consultants, professors and often advertising agency executives  Not surprisingly, few of them have any continuing , day to day responsibility for the difficult task of implementing powerful new business ideas of a complex nature in the ordinary type of business organization. Few of them have ever had any responsibility for doing work in the conventional kind of complex operating organization. They are not really practicing businessmen in the usual sense. They are literary businessman. They are the doctors who say "Do as I say, no as I do," reminiscent of the classic injunction of the boxer's manager, "Get in there and fight. They can't hurt us."

The fact that these individuals are also so often outspoken about the alleged virulence of conformity in modern business is not surprising. They can talk way because they themselves have seldom had the nerve to expose themselves for any substantial length of time too rigorous discipline of an organization whose principal task is not talk about action, not ideas but work.

Impressive sermons are delivered gravely proclaiming the virtues of creativity and the vices of conformity. But so often the authors of these sermons, too are "outsiders" to the central sector of the business community  The best known asserters that American industry is some sort of vast quagmire of quivering conformity the men who have turned the claim into s tire some cliche are people like William H. Whyte, Jt,. authr of The Organization Man, " Who is a professional writer, Sloan Wilson, author of The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, who was  college English professor when he wrote the book, and C. Northcote Parkinson (more on him later). also a professor.

It is of course inevitable that it is writers, and not business practitioners, who write mostly about business. My purpose is not to condemn them, or to condemn consultants or professors. American business appears generally to benefit from their existence  But it is harmful when the abused executive fails to consider that the very role of these men absolves them from managerial responsibility. Still, it is hard to accept uncritically the doleful prophesy that so many United States companies are hypnotically following one another in a deadly march of confining conformity. It is hard to accept the tantalizing suggestion offered by outsiders that business's salvation lies a massive infusion of creativity and that from this will follow an automatic flow of profit building innovation  Perhaps the source of these suggestion should occasionally be kept in mind.

Read More

The Psychology of " Idea Men "

The fact that a consistently highly creative person is generally irresponsible in the sense that we have used this term is in part predictable from what is known about the freewheeling fantasies of very young children. They are extremely creative, as any kindergarten teach will testify. They have a naive curiosity that stumps parents with question like, "Why can you see through glass?" Why is there a hole in a doughnut?" Why is the grass green?" It is this questioning attitude that produces in them so much creative freshness  Significantly, the unique posture of their lives is their almost total irresponsibility from blame, work, and the other routine necessities of organized society. Even the law absolves them from responsibility for their actions. But all spruces testify to their creativity, even biblical mythology, with its assertion about wisdom issuing from "the mouths of babes." Respectable scientific sources have compared the integrative mechanism of adult creativity with the childhood thought process that "Manifests itself during the pre-school period possibly as early as the appearance of three word sentences . . . "

Clinical psychologists have also illustrated the operating irresponsibility of creative individual in Rorschach and stroboscopic test. For example, one analyst says, "Those who took to the Rorschach like ducks to water, who fantasied and projected freely, even too freely in some cases, or who could permit themselves to tamper with the form of the blot as given, gave us our broadest ranges of movement. "In short, they were the least "form bound," the least inhibited by the facts of their experiences, and hence let their minds explore new, untried, and novel alternatives to existing ways of doing things.

The significance of this finding for the analysis of organizations is pointed up by the observation of another psychologist that "the theoreticians on the other hand do not mind living dangerously. "The reason is obvious. A theoretician is not immediately responsible for action. He is perfectly content to "live dangerously" because he does so only on the conceptual level, where he cannot get hurt. To assume any responsibility for implementation is to risk dangerous actions and that can be painfully uncomfortable. The safe solution is to steer clear of implementation and all the dirty work it implies.

Read More

The Chronic Complainers

As I have said, "identation" is nit a synonym for "inovation," conformity " is bot its simple antonym, and innovation is not the automatic consequence of creative thinking. Indeed, what some people call conformity in business is less related to the lack of abstract creativity than to the lack of responsible action, whether it be the implementation of new or o;d ideas.

The proof of this is that in most business organizations, the most continually creative men in the echelons below the executive level are men who are actively discontent with the here and now. They are the creative men, but they are also generally known as corporate malcontents. They tend to complain constantly about the stand pat senility of the management, about its refusal to see the obvious facts of its own massive inertia. They complain about management refusing to do things that have been suggested to it for years. They often complain that management does not even want creative ideas , that ideas rock the boat (which they do), and that management is interested more in having a smoothly running (or is it smoothly ruining  organization than is having a rapidly forward vaulting business.

In short, they talk about the company being a festering sore of deadly conformity, full of decaying vegetables who systematically oppose new ideas with old ideologies. And then, of course, they frequently quote their patron saint, William H. Whyte Jr., with all his misinformed moralizing and conjectural evidence about what goes on inside an operating organization.

Read More

WhyDoors Are Closed

The reason the creative malcontent speakers this way is that so often the people to whom he addresses his flow of ideas do, indeed, after awhile, ignore him and tell him to go away. They shut their doors to his endless entreaties ; they refuse to hear his ideas any longer. Why? There is a plausible explanation.

The reason the executive so often rejects new ideas is that he is a busy man whose chief day in, day out task is to handle an ongoing stream of pressing problems. He receives an unending flow of question on which actions must be taken. Constantly he is forced to deal with problems to which solution are more or less urgent but for which answers are far from self evident. It may seem stolen did to a subordinate to supply his boss with a lot of brilliant new ideas to help him in his job, but advocates of creativity must once and for all understand the pressing facts of the executives's life : Every time an ideas is submitted to him, it creates more problems for him and he already has enough.

Professor Raymond A. Bauer of Harvard has pointed out an instructive example from another field of activity. He notes that many congressmen and senators have the opportunity to have a political science "intern" assigned to "help" them. However, some congressmen and senators refuse this help on the grounds that these interns generate so many ideas that they disrupt the legislator's regular business.

Similarly, Dr. E Paul Torrence of the University of Minnesota found that teachers of highly creative children said they were less desirable to have in the classroom. They were measurably less studious and less hard working than highly intelligent students. They predictably departed in unpredictable ways from the expectations and order the teachers apparently felt required to institutionalize. Jonathan Kozol has written about quite similar problem in Boston's black ghetto schools.

Read More

Making Ideas Useful

Innovations necessary in business, but it begins with an idea with some body's proposal. How can the man with a new idea also be responsible  in the organizational sense?At least two "ideas" may be helpful :
1. He must work with the existing situation. Since the executive is already awhile he shuns more new ideas to solve problems he did not even know existed. He needs to get things done, not just more advice about what things to do or how to do them. The "idea man" has to learn to accept this as a fact of life. He has to act accordingly.
2. When the creative man suggests an idea, the responsible procedure is to include at least some minimal indication of what it involves in terms of concrete activities, cost, risks, manpower, time, and perhaps even specific people who ought to carry it through. That is the essence of responsible behavior, because it make sit easier for the executive to evaluate the idea while anticipating and dealing with the problems that will invariably come quickly to his mind. That is the way creative thinking will more likely be converted into innovation.

It will be argued, of course that to saddle the creative individual with the responsibility of spelling out the details of implementation will curb or even throttle his unique talent. This may e true. But this could be salutary  both for him and for the company. Ideas are useless unless used. The proof of their value is their implementation. Until then they are in limbo. If the executive's job pressure mean that an idea seldom gets a good hearing unless it is responsibility presented, then the unthrottled and irresponsible creative man is useless to the company. If an insistence on some responsibility for implementation throttles him, he may produce fewer ideas, but their chances of getting a judicious hearing and therefore of being followed through are greatly improved. The company will benefit by trig the ideas, and the creative man will benefit by getting the satisfaction of knowing he is being listened to. He will not have be a malcontent any more.

Read More

Need for discipline

Writers on the subject of creativity and innovation invariably emphasize the essential primacy of the creative impulse itself. Almost as an afterthought they talk about the necessity to teaching people to sell their ideas and stimulating executive to listen to the ideas of subordinates and peers. Then they often go on casually to make some unconscious statement about the importance of creating a permissive organizational climate for creative people. They rarely try to look at the executive's job and suggest how the creatives genius might alter his behavior to suit the boss's requirements. It is always the boss who is being told to mend his ways. The reason for their siding with the creative man is that the put side critics are generally as hostile to the very idea of the "organization" as the inside Creative men themselves. Both actively dislike organizations, but they seldom know exactly why.

Most likely the reason is that organization and creativity do not seem to go together. Organization and conformity do. Writers, critics, and other professionally creative people tend to be autonomous men, preferring to live by their personal wits. For them, to live in a highly structured organizational environment is a form of oppressive imprisonment. Hence, their advocacy of a "permissive environment" for creativity in an organization is often a veiled attack on the idea of the organization itself. This quickly becomes clear when one recognizes this inescapable fact : one of the collateral purposes of an organizational is to be in hospitable to a great and constant flow of ideas and creativity. Whether we are talking about the United States Steel Corporation or the United Steel Workers of America, the United States Army or the Salvation Army, the U.S.A or the U.S.S.R., the purpose of organization is to achieve the kind and degree of order and conformity necessary to do a particular job. The organization exists to restrict and channel the range of individual actions and behavior into a predicable and knowable routine. Without organization there would be chaos and decay. Organization exists in order to create that amount and kind of flexibility that are necessary to get the most pressingly intended job done efficiently and on time.

Creativity and innovation disturb that order. Organization tends to be inhospitable to creativity and innovation, though without creativity and innovation the organization would eventually perish. That is why small, one man shops are so often more animated and " inflationary  than large ones. They have virtually no organization and often are run by self willed autocrats who act on impulse.

Organization are created to achieve order. They have policies, procedures, and formal or powerfully informal rules. The job for which the organization exists could not possible get done without these rules, procedures, and policies. And these produce the so called "conformity" that is so blithely deprecated by the critics of the organization and life inside it.

Read More

Limits of Servitude

Limits of Servitude

        The trouble with thinking of oneself as providing services-either in the service industries or in the service industrie-is s or in the customer-service sectors of manufacturing and retailing companies-is that one almost inescapably embraces ancient, preindustrial modes of thinking. Worse still, one gets caught up in rigid attitudes that can have a profoundly paralyzing effect on even the most resolute of rationalist.

         The concept of ''service'' evokes, from the opaque recesses of the mind, time-worn images of personal ministration and attendance. It refers generally to deeds one individual performs personally for another. It carries historictal connotations of charity, gallantry, and selflessness, or of obedience, subordination, and subjugation. In these contexts, people serve because they want to (as in the priestly and political professions) or they serve because they are compelled to (as in slavery and such occupations of attendance as waiter, maid, bellboy, cleaning lady).

          In the higher-status service occupations, such as in the church and the army, one customarily behaves ritualllistically, not rationally. In the lowerstatus service occupations, one simply obeys. In neither is independent thinking presumed to be a requisite of holding a job. The most that can therefore be expected from service improvements is that, like Avis, a person will try harder. He will just exert more animal effort to do better what he is already doing.

        So it was in ancient times, and so it is today. The only difference is that where ancient masters invoked the will of God or the whip of the foreman to spur perfomance, modern industry uses training programs in either our methods or our results.

Read More

Promise of Manufacturing

Promies of Manufacturing 

          Now consider manufact, nuring. Here the orientation is toward the efficient production of resultot toward attendance on other. Relationship are strictly businesslike, devoid of invidious connotations of rank or self.
          When we think about how to improve manufacturing, we seldom focus on ways to improve our presonal performance or present tasks; rather, it is axiomatic that we try to find entirely new ways of performing present tasks and, better yet, of actually changing the tasks themselves. We  don not think of greater exertion of our animal energies (working physically harder, as the slave), of greater expansion of our commitment (being more devout or loyal, as the priest), or of greater assertion of our dependence (being more obsequious, as the butler). Instead, we apply the greater exertion of our minds to learn how to look at a problem differently. More particulary, we ask what kinds of tools, old or new, and what kinds of skills, processes, organiztional rearrangements, inecentives, control, and audits might be enlisted to greatly improve the intended outcomes. In short, manufacturing thinks technocratically, and that explains its successes. Service thinks humanistically, and that explains its failure.
        Manufacturing looks for solutions inside the very tas to be done. The solution to building a low-priced automobile, for example, dervis largely from the nature and composition of the automobile itself. (If the automobile were not an assembly of parts, it could not be manufactured on an assembly line.) By contrast, service looks for solutions in the perfomer of the tasks. This is the paralyzing legacy of our inherited attitudes: The solution to improve service is viewed as being dependent on improvements in the skills and attitudes of the prformers of that service.
        While it may pain and offend us to say so, thinking in humanistic rather than techocratic terms ensures that the service sector of the modern economy will be forever inefficient and that the service sector of the modern economy will be forever inefficient and that our satisfactions will be forever marginal. We see service as invariably and undeviatingly personal, as something performed by individuals directly for other individuals.
        This humanistic conception of service diverts us from seeking alternatives to the use people, especially to large, organized groups of people. It does not allow us to reach out for new solutions and new difinitions. It obstruct us from redesigning the task themselves; from eliminating the conditions that created the problem.
        In sum, to improve the quality and efficiency of service, companies must apply the kind of technocratic thinking which in other fieldsnhas replaced the high-cost and erratic elegance of the artisan with the los-cost, predictable munificence of the manufacturer.

Read More

Field versus Factory

Field versus Factory

       People think of service as quite differnt from manufacturing. Service is presumed to be performed by individuals for other individuals, generally on a one-to-one basis. Manufacturing is presumed to be performed by machines, generally tended by cluster of individuals whose sizes and configurations are themselves dictated by the machines' requirements. Service (whether customer service or the service of service industries) is performed "out there in the field" by distant and lossely supervised pople working under highly variable, and often volatile, conditions. Manufacturing occurs "here in the factory'' under highly centralized, carefully organized, tightly controlled, and elaboratelyenginerred conditions.
       People assume, and rightly so, that these differences largely explain why product produced in the factory are generally more uniform in features and quality than the services produced (e.g., life insurance policies, machine repairs) or delivered (e.g., spare parts, milk) in the field. One cannot as easily control one's agents or their performance out there in the field. Besides, different customers want different things. The result is that service and service industries, in comparison with manufacturing industries, are widely and correctly viewed as being primitive, sluggish, and inefficient.
      Yet it is doubtful that things need be all that bad. Once conditions in the field get the same kind of attention that conditions inside the factory generally get, a lot of new opportunities become possible. But first management will have to revise its thinking about what service is and what it implies.

Read More