So is your business or organization “too small” to worry about compliance? Perhaps the better question is: “How can we ensure (or regain) compliance with a reasonable effort and expense?”
Compliance does not have to be expensive or onerous. Many times, it is a matter of taking care of compliance as you go about your daily work. Let it pile up until the deadline is near and it will seem impossible, cost more and distract you from your primary mission. Like the journey of a thousand miles, take it one small step at a time throughout the year and you will make remarkable progress.
Compliance can be a smooth part of your normal routines if you incorporate it carefully and then communicate to all staff not only the value in terms of risk-management but also the benefits of ensuring accurate, incremental accomplishments throughout the year. Make it easy to do daily, without too much fanfare or extra attention to it.
Start with your compliance reports. Can you collect the data along the way? If so, where and how? You do it with payroll taxes, for example. Why not with your other types of compliance?
Look at the forms and database fields that your staff uses throughout the year. Can you add a few fields to capture the data you want to aggregate at year-end? If you have applied for a job at a large corporation or government agency in the past couple of years, you have seen this concept at work. Most now ask every online applicant demographic questions that the HR department needs to keep for its EEOC reports on applicant profiles. They collect the data throughout the year, aggregate it anonymously and keep it available for any reports (or litigation) later. If the business waits until it needs the data, it may have a very difficult time even gathering accurate data to defend its hiring practices. With a little effort along the way, compliance documentation is painless.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Traps For The Unwary: CSR Laws Can Turn Savings into Expenses
In tough economic times, many businesses turn to “commission only” sales staff in order to keep sales activity without permanent salaries. When it works, this can work well for both the CSR (Commissioned Sales Representative) and the company. When the relationship gets off track, however, small business owners can be surprised with litigation and extra expenses that exceed the savings they expected.
Over half of states have special statutes that apply to disputes between CSRs and the companies who hire them. Some require a written agreement; others do not. Most provide for multiplication of damages plus an award of attorneys fees and costs of suit to the CSR who prevails.
Prevention is Prudent
Both the CSR and the company should heed the same advice in most cases to reduce the likelihood of litigation later.
1. Know the law.
2. Have a written contract that includes:
a. Definite payment deadlines
b. Clear conditions for payment
c. Specific term and scope
3. Live by the contract
Begin by understanding the law that applies. Most will apply based on the residence of the CSR, not the company. Companies with CSRs in multiple states must know the law in each.
Then make sure the written representation agreement is thorough and signed by both parties. In some cases, statutes will fill in terms that neither party intended unless you expressly address those topics in the written agreement. At the very least, make sure the terms and conditions for performance pass the “grandmother test:” they are so clear your grandmother could understand them.
From that point, it is important that both parties follow the terms of the contract. Acting inconsistently with the agreement, even with the best of intentions, can establish a course of dealing argument that the actions of the CSR and the company replaced the written agreement. It is better to revise the agreement to fit the changing needs of your relationship.
Disputes Happen
If disagreements arise, the contract is the place to start looking for answers. If the situation is not addressed in the contract, then other writings may fill in the picture. Emails, policy manuals or general procedures can be used by a judge to determine what the “rules” are and how to resolve the dispute. Many disagreements can be resolved with an amendment to the contract that both resolves the present issue and prevents disagreement in the future.
The party seeking to enforce an agreement must first prove the agreement then his entitlement to a remedy. If he has not done his part, then the other party may not be obligated to perform. Likewise, any confusing terms in the contract will be generally interpreted against the interests of the party who drafted it, because courts assume the drafter was looking out for her own best interests. This is where the “grandmother test” comes in.
Over half of states have special statutes that apply to disputes between CSRs and the companies who hire them. Some require a written agreement; others do not. Most provide for multiplication of damages plus an award of attorneys fees and costs of suit to the CSR who prevails.
Prevention is Prudent
Both the CSR and the company should heed the same advice in most cases to reduce the likelihood of litigation later.
1. Know the law.
2. Have a written contract that includes:
a. Definite payment deadlines
b. Clear conditions for payment
c. Specific term and scope
3. Live by the contract
Begin by understanding the law that applies. Most will apply based on the residence of the CSR, not the company. Companies with CSRs in multiple states must know the law in each.
Then make sure the written representation agreement is thorough and signed by both parties. In some cases, statutes will fill in terms that neither party intended unless you expressly address those topics in the written agreement. At the very least, make sure the terms and conditions for performance pass the “grandmother test:” they are so clear your grandmother could understand them.
From that point, it is important that both parties follow the terms of the contract. Acting inconsistently with the agreement, even with the best of intentions, can establish a course of dealing argument that the actions of the CSR and the company replaced the written agreement. It is better to revise the agreement to fit the changing needs of your relationship.
Disputes Happen
If disagreements arise, the contract is the place to start looking for answers. If the situation is not addressed in the contract, then other writings may fill in the picture. Emails, policy manuals or general procedures can be used by a judge to determine what the “rules” are and how to resolve the dispute. Many disagreements can be resolved with an amendment to the contract that both resolves the present issue and prevents disagreement in the future.
The party seeking to enforce an agreement must first prove the agreement then his entitlement to a remedy. If he has not done his part, then the other party may not be obligated to perform. Likewise, any confusing terms in the contract will be generally interpreted against the interests of the party who drafted it, because courts assume the drafter was looking out for her own best interests. This is where the “grandmother test” comes in.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
C-DROMO: Where it fits - When it is needed
Here is a statement on the Volunteer.gov website from late 2008 that helps illustrate the point I am making:
By the time various organizations inventory what they need, post those on their web sites so they are indexed by the Network for Good system, many local volunteers (who may not even have web access) could have already been working. And some people prefer to give with their hands, rather than money from tight budgets.
We should have trained resources already in place who can work with "self-deploying" volunteers--many of whom may not think to look on some obscure website before heading out to lend a hand--so the volunteers can be organized and assigned rapidly.
Network for Good and Volunteer.gov also have a piece of this solution in place. The C-DROMO program could easily fit under the Corporation for National and Community Service.
Let’s get these pieces in place before the next hurricane strikes the U.S. There is no need to expand government staff for this program, as we can use the structures in place to provide the semi-permanent support for the public volunteers.
"It is also important for potential volunteers to not self-deploy to the coast of Texas, but instead to wait until there is a clear understanding of what volunteer resources will be needed and where. We are currently urging those who want to help people affected by Hurricane Ike to make cash donations to nonprofit organizations that are active in disaster work."
By the time various organizations inventory what they need, post those on their web sites so they are indexed by the Network for Good system, many local volunteers (who may not even have web access) could have already been working. And some people prefer to give with their hands, rather than money from tight budgets.
We should have trained resources already in place who can work with "self-deploying" volunteers--many of whom may not think to look on some obscure website before heading out to lend a hand--so the volunteers can be organized and assigned rapidly.
Network for Good and Volunteer.gov also have a piece of this solution in place. The C-DROMO program could easily fit under the Corporation for National and Community Service.
Let’s get these pieces in place before the next hurricane strikes the U.S. There is no need to expand government staff for this program, as we can use the structures in place to provide the semi-permanent support for the public volunteers.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Process Improvement for Nonprofits – Part 3: “Aha! Moments”
Step 3: Identify Options for Improvement: “Where can we work differently?”
When consulting once with a government employee, I asked if he thought there were any tasks that did not make sense to him in his work. He told me a story. “See, we had this form...” he began.
The form was a compliance checklist designed to walk the staff through marking off each compliance point. OK, I thought. Seems logical. The employees mark off each item, initial and date the form to confirm the check has been performed. I looked back at him somewhat puzzled. “The very last check box was the one that made me question my supervisor. 'Why are we even doing this?'”
The final check-off point on the form read:
“[] This form has been completed then shredded. Date:______ By:______”
Hopefully, none of your processes, checklists or tasks are so inane, but do not assume that is the case. I am sure that compliance checklist item made sense to someone at some point, but no one could identify its source.
Look for ways to eliminate unnecessary tasks. Can more work be done by a person while they are already working on another step? Just because it has always been done a certain way by people in certain job descriptions does not mean it still makes the most sense. A lot of lawyers and business executives now type their own documents, for example, without feeling they have been demoted. They prefer the efficiency of getting the letter completed and mailed in one process rather than several back-and-forth sessions with their support staff (who are now freed up to do other tasks).
When you work through this analysis, pay particular attention to those moments when you feel like saying “aha! So THAT’S why we do it that way!” If the reason is not clear to you, it probably is not clear to others. Once you identify why a task is performed a certain way, you can then evaluate whether the reason still exists and, if so, whether the solution still makes sense.
When consulting once with a government employee, I asked if he thought there were any tasks that did not make sense to him in his work. He told me a story. “See, we had this form...” he began.
The form was a compliance checklist designed to walk the staff through marking off each compliance point. OK, I thought. Seems logical. The employees mark off each item, initial and date the form to confirm the check has been performed. I looked back at him somewhat puzzled. “The very last check box was the one that made me question my supervisor. 'Why are we even doing this?'”
The final check-off point on the form read:
“[] This form has been completed then shredded. Date:______ By:______”
Hopefully, none of your processes, checklists or tasks are so inane, but do not assume that is the case. I am sure that compliance checklist item made sense to someone at some point, but no one could identify its source.
Look for ways to eliminate unnecessary tasks. Can more work be done by a person while they are already working on another step? Just because it has always been done a certain way by people in certain job descriptions does not mean it still makes the most sense. A lot of lawyers and business executives now type their own documents, for example, without feeling they have been demoted. They prefer the efficiency of getting the letter completed and mailed in one process rather than several back-and-forth sessions with their support staff (who are now freed up to do other tasks).
When you work through this analysis, pay particular attention to those moments when you feel like saying “aha! So THAT’S why we do it that way!” If the reason is not clear to you, it probably is not clear to others. Once you identify why a task is performed a certain way, you can then evaluate whether the reason still exists and, if so, whether the solution still makes sense.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
While we are tinkering with labor laws...
There is a lot of talk currently about the “Employee Free Choice Act” introduced in this Congress*. Some opponents see it as little more than a boost to unions trying to organize workers at companies like Walmart and Southwest Airlines. Some supporters think union organizers need help to reach employees at non-union companies.
If there are going to be changes, then let’s make the changes for both sides fair and with one central theme: helping American businesses of all sizes compete better in the world marketplace. If Congress is truly interested in fairness, there should be some accommodation in any new legislation for after a bargaining unit is in place.
Many industries have embraced work teams as a way to improve quality, raise productivity and support employee morale. But some businesses have faced opposition from union leadership and even threats to pursue claims at the National Labor Relations Board when they seek to include front-line employees in their efforts to improve business processes.
It is time to plainly overrule the Electromation and DuPont rulings that joint employer-employee committees are illegal when a union has been recognized. Times have changed since the Wagner Act. Employees are more sophisticated and the workplace is more challenging. We are no longer simply facing unsafe machinery or inhumane hours. Now there is competition from places with no limitations on how management and labor can cooperate as well as places where there are no employee protections. Both sides want to win that competition, so let’s put a new structure in place:
Who says we have to keep a system where one side’s gains are necessarily the other side’s losses. Without the employers, there is little need to have unions, so driving them out of business is hardly a worthwhile effort. Without the productive, skilled employees, there is little management can do to improvise, respond to international competition and succeed in the long term. Not all labor advocates are “power-hungry disgruntled slackers.”
A lot has changed since the 1930s and 1940s. Our labor laws need to be updated as much as the attitudes of union and business leaders do. I challenge both sides to abandon the Marxist us-versus-them attitudes and seek innovative, progressive changes that are both pro-employee and pro-business. This is an important opportunity to plan far into the future, rather than try to improve the past.
For a great summary of the history of this struggle, see the article by Steven Thomas and Judy Best in the Summer-Fall 2001 issue of Entrepreneur Magazine “Work Teams and Unions: Keeping Employee Involvement Legal.”
* The AFL-CIO is clearly in favor of this act; while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and most state Chambers of Commerce are definitely against it.
If there are going to be changes, then let’s make the changes for both sides fair and with one central theme: helping American businesses of all sizes compete better in the world marketplace. If Congress is truly interested in fairness, there should be some accommodation in any new legislation for after a bargaining unit is in place.
Many industries have embraced work teams as a way to improve quality, raise productivity and support employee morale. But some businesses have faced opposition from union leadership and even threats to pursue claims at the National Labor Relations Board when they seek to include front-line employees in their efforts to improve business processes.
It is time to plainly overrule the Electromation and DuPont rulings that joint employer-employee committees are illegal when a union has been recognized. Times have changed since the Wagner Act. Employees are more sophisticated and the workplace is more challenging. We are no longer simply facing unsafe machinery or inhumane hours. Now there is competition from places with no limitations on how management and labor can cooperate as well as places where there are no employee protections. Both sides want to win that competition, so let’s put a new structure in place:
a. Expressly exempt employee teams and committees organized and tasked with improving operational efficiency from the scope of the Wagner Act even if they sometimes address working conditions. If “working conditions” can be used to block these teams, then they are almost pointless because evaluating the way work is assigned, monitored, graded and performed will to some extent bring into question an aspect of the environment in which the work is carried out.
b. Expressly encourage employer-employee cooperation and collaboration in areas of quality assurance, operational efficiency, process optimization and workplace innovation (and exempt such efforts from the Wagner Act) in the interests of helping bolster American competitiveness in all work places. We have to move past the historical animosities that were present and codified in the labor movements and resulting legislation dating back to the 1930s. Manufacturing industry unions would do well to understand information industry workers and how nimble, innovative and collaborative teams of workers from multiple disciplines and perspectives can drive success in the marketplace.
c. Expressly permit communications from management to the bargaining unit members in general that explain its rationale for positions and actions when there is a good faith reason to believe the local union leadership is not accurately conveying such information to the members. There are too many situations where an employer is forced to negotiate with those who pretend to represent their bargaining units, but only serve their own personal interests in reality. When an employer has a good faith reason to believe the local leadership is not acting in good faith as a representative of its membership, the employer should be able to require evidence of support of the leadership’s position on the matter.
d. Clearly codify which types of votes must be by secret ballot and continue protection for those most important votes: whether to organize and whether to disband. Secrecy and anonymity are quintessential to the American notion of balloting. If unions want to vote with a show of hands on business in a meeting, that is one thing, but voting on whether or not to organize or disband a union should always be by secret written ballot that is subject audit by the NLRB if there are questions of integrity of the vote.
e. If we are making unionization easier, we need to also make de-certification of the local union easier. There are too many situations where an employer is forced to negotiate with those who pretend to represent their bargaining units, but only serve their own personal interests in reality. When an employer has a good faith reason to believe the local leadership is not acting in good faith as a representative of its membership, the employer should be able to require evidence of support of the leadership’s position on the matter. We must discard the old practice of allowing tyranny by a minority of employees. Let’s supersede state laws permitting mandatory union membership. If employees want to unionize, they can; but if they do not want to become union members, it is un-American to force them to do so.
Who says we have to keep a system where one side’s gains are necessarily the other side’s losses. Without the employers, there is little need to have unions, so driving them out of business is hardly a worthwhile effort. Without the productive, skilled employees, there is little management can do to improvise, respond to international competition and succeed in the long term. Not all labor advocates are “power-hungry disgruntled slackers.”
A lot has changed since the 1930s and 1940s. Our labor laws need to be updated as much as the attitudes of union and business leaders do. I challenge both sides to abandon the Marxist us-versus-them attitudes and seek innovative, progressive changes that are both pro-employee and pro-business. This is an important opportunity to plan far into the future, rather than try to improve the past.
For a great summary of the history of this struggle, see the article by Steven Thomas and Judy Best in the Summer-Fall 2001 issue of Entrepreneur Magazine “Work Teams and Unions: Keeping Employee Involvement Legal.”
* The AFL-CIO is clearly in favor of this act; while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and most state Chambers of Commerce are definitely against it.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Develop a Twittering For Your Causes - UPDATED
Take Online Social Media to New Heights in Promoting Your Cause
This article in Entrepreneur Magazine – March 2009 by Guy Kawasaki discusses ways to develop a following on Twitter. Kawasaki’s story about needing something that was provided after a “tweet” is a great example.
Online social media is one way to generate buzz, certainly, but what if you need more? You have a cause (or a product). You have a strategy. You want attention. Your goal is action. You have to let people know what you need.
Consider these options the next time you are building an advocacy strategy:
1. Facebook. Create a Facebook page that functions as you public relations media center. Set up the page with your motive for action, add information about the key players in your cause and post updates on your activities. Look at the Anderson Cooper 360 page for an idea of where you can go with video, events, photos and more. Invite people to contribute ideas and accolades on your “wall,” and—most importantly—tell your followers how they can help. Keep in mind that your adversaries may be watching closely, but you might use that to your advantage, too. A relatively new feature on Facebook is Causes. Causes lets you start and join causes you care about. (It also has a donation-sharing system.) Set up your page, then link it to the Causes Home. Your "friends" can then feature your cause on their own Facebook pages.
2. Newsible. Forget the old, expensive and unpredictable “fax blast” press releases. Has anyone ever found them effective in advocacy campaigns? Newsible is just coming onto the scene but has the benefits of pulling together into one place your YouTube video, text, still pics and images. It is like a dynamic, multimedia press release but with easy linkage to nearly every social media system known. Check out this PR about AutismSpot.com. The PR page welcomes comments, too, so you can find supporters and get feedback easily. Most importantly, Newsible is hooked deeply into GoogleNews, providing a boost to your visibility instantly. (And I hear they have a fantastic rate for nonprofits!)
3. Twitter. Forget what you ate for breakfast and where you went sightseeing. Rally support with up-to-date musings, strategies and actions. Show people where you are and tell them where you are going—in a figurative sense as well as literal. Use your mobile phone’s SMS (text) feature to “tweet” from anywhere you get a signal. This can be very handy when the action picks up and you have a lot of followers to keep informed. The CNN Political Ticker page is one example of updates (notice the "tinyurl" trick!). Twitter is not a replacement for Facebook and Newsible, but it can serve a valuable role in keeping your followers interested with small updates along the path to victory for your cause.
4. Blog. Pick a blogging tool and just get started. Set a schedule for your posts and ideally post contributions from several people in your group. If you can only get a post published once per month, don’t waste the effort. If you can get one published at least once per week—ideally no farther apart than 2-3 days—then this is where you can give more information than your “tweets.”
Now put it all together. Find a good base camp site like Facebook that fits your cause and has the features you will need in the long run. Spend the time to set it up well, then maintain it even when you are “too busy.” Once you are off the ground, use one or more of the press release and quick-update tools like Newsible and Twitter to develop your following and guide them to your site. Tweet when you post a blog entry or a new photo of your activities. Reference your blog and Twitter links on your Facebook page. Put it all in your press releases in addition to new material that has not even been on your blog. No matter which one of these someone bumps into, they should easily be able to find the others.
UPDATE: Thanks to a friend of mine for this suggestion: a new web site, HelloTXT, allows a user to send and receive status updates simultaneously to Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and about 40 other social media systems. Now that's convenience!
So raise the profile of your activities. Ask people to follow your cause and pitch in. Let them know what you need when you lead. (And come back to let me know when you succeed!)
This article in Entrepreneur Magazine – March 2009 by Guy Kawasaki discusses ways to develop a following on Twitter. Kawasaki’s story about needing something that was provided after a “tweet” is a great example.
Online social media is one way to generate buzz, certainly, but what if you need more? You have a cause (or a product). You have a strategy. You want attention. Your goal is action. You have to let people know what you need.
Consider these options the next time you are building an advocacy strategy:
1. Facebook. Create a Facebook page that functions as you public relations media center. Set up the page with your motive for action, add information about the key players in your cause and post updates on your activities. Look at the Anderson Cooper 360 page for an idea of where you can go with video, events, photos and more. Invite people to contribute ideas and accolades on your “wall,” and—most importantly—tell your followers how they can help. Keep in mind that your adversaries may be watching closely, but you might use that to your advantage, too. A relatively new feature on Facebook is Causes. Causes lets you start and join causes you care about. (It also has a donation-sharing system.) Set up your page, then link it to the Causes Home. Your "friends" can then feature your cause on their own Facebook pages.
2. Newsible. Forget the old, expensive and unpredictable “fax blast” press releases. Has anyone ever found them effective in advocacy campaigns? Newsible is just coming onto the scene but has the benefits of pulling together into one place your YouTube video, text, still pics and images. It is like a dynamic, multimedia press release but with easy linkage to nearly every social media system known. Check out this PR about AutismSpot.com. The PR page welcomes comments, too, so you can find supporters and get feedback easily. Most importantly, Newsible is hooked deeply into GoogleNews, providing a boost to your visibility instantly. (And I hear they have a fantastic rate for nonprofits!)
3. Twitter. Forget what you ate for breakfast and where you went sightseeing. Rally support with up-to-date musings, strategies and actions. Show people where you are and tell them where you are going—in a figurative sense as well as literal. Use your mobile phone’s SMS (text) feature to “tweet” from anywhere you get a signal. This can be very handy when the action picks up and you have a lot of followers to keep informed. The CNN Political Ticker page is one example of updates (notice the "tinyurl" trick!). Twitter is not a replacement for Facebook and Newsible, but it can serve a valuable role in keeping your followers interested with small updates along the path to victory for your cause.4. Blog. Pick a blogging tool and just get started. Set a schedule for your posts and ideally post contributions from several people in your group. If you can only get a post published once per month, don’t waste the effort. If you can get one published at least once per week—ideally no farther apart than 2-3 days—then this is where you can give more information than your “tweets.”
Now put it all together. Find a good base camp site like Facebook that fits your cause and has the features you will need in the long run. Spend the time to set it up well, then maintain it even when you are “too busy.” Once you are off the ground, use one or more of the press release and quick-update tools like Newsible and Twitter to develop your following and guide them to your site. Tweet when you post a blog entry or a new photo of your activities. Reference your blog and Twitter links on your Facebook page. Put it all in your press releases in addition to new material that has not even been on your blog. No matter which one of these someone bumps into, they should easily be able to find the others.
UPDATE: Thanks to a friend of mine for this suggestion: a new web site, HelloTXT, allows a user to send and receive status updates simultaneously to Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and about 40 other social media systems. Now that's convenience!
So raise the profile of your activities. Ask people to follow your cause and pitch in. Let them know what you need when you lead. (And come back to let me know when you succeed!)
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Process Improvement for Nonprofits - Part 2: Ask the Right Questions
Step 2: Analyze the Workflow and Ask a Lot of Questions
Once you chart out the way work flows in your department or organization, study the outline. Does it make sense to you? If it does—especially if you helped design the flow—have someone outside the department review it.
If it does not, carefully go through the outline or flow chart, asking questions such as: “Is this the best way we can operate?” “Do we need to do our work better/cheaper/faster/with fewer people?” "Why does this take so many steps/hand-offs/documents?"
Your goal should be to get the work done with the fewest number of hand-offs, fewest number of errors and omissions, and simplest procedures possible to still accomplish your end goals. Have you done that?
You cannot answer that question unless you truly understand your end goals. If the goal is simple and limited to your department, then your processes may make more sense to your staff. If there are hidden goals that show up elsewhere, such as a data set of historical information created by the daily work of your staff, then make sure everyone conducting this review understands those goals as well. (And do not assume that the outputs from your department are necessarily required to be what they presently are for the other department—they may be happy to see some improvements or changes, in fact.)
Also pay attention to work that is not required by your central mission. Are there tasks that were added to accommodate the short-comings of a single staff person (who may not even work there anymore)? Or to make life easier for a manager without consideration of the cumulative drag on your total work?
For information workers, ask questions like these:
>>>How many times does a single piece of paper change hands?
>>>How many times does someone need information from a paper over the life of that paper?
>>>How often does someone repeat a step that another has done in a prior step in the flow?
>>>Do we have tasks grouped logically so that they are done with the fewest total steps?
>>>Are there better ways to communicate information obtained within the work flow than we are doing?
>>>Is there sufficient accountability and security to ensure information is accurate and not lost?
>>>Are there too many procedures designed to ensure accountability and security?
>>>Does the work flow smoothly?
Interview the front-line staff. Ask the people who do the work all day every day what they think about the processes. They are most often the best sources of ideas on how to work smarter. Your objective is “efficient effectiveness,” meaning you want the staff to be as effective as possible with the most efficiency practicable.
Once you chart out the way work flows in your department or organization, study the outline. Does it make sense to you? If it does—especially if you helped design the flow—have someone outside the department review it.
If it does not, carefully go through the outline or flow chart, asking questions such as: “Is this the best way we can operate?” “Do we need to do our work better/cheaper/faster/with fewer people?” "Why does this take so many steps/hand-offs/documents?"
Your goal should be to get the work done with the fewest number of hand-offs, fewest number of errors and omissions, and simplest procedures possible to still accomplish your end goals. Have you done that?
You cannot answer that question unless you truly understand your end goals. If the goal is simple and limited to your department, then your processes may make more sense to your staff. If there are hidden goals that show up elsewhere, such as a data set of historical information created by the daily work of your staff, then make sure everyone conducting this review understands those goals as well. (And do not assume that the outputs from your department are necessarily required to be what they presently are for the other department—they may be happy to see some improvements or changes, in fact.)
Also pay attention to work that is not required by your central mission. Are there tasks that were added to accommodate the short-comings of a single staff person (who may not even work there anymore)? Or to make life easier for a manager without consideration of the cumulative drag on your total work?
For information workers, ask questions like these:
>>>How many times does a single piece of paper change hands?
>>>How many times does someone need information from a paper over the life of that paper?
>>>How often does someone repeat a step that another has done in a prior step in the flow?
>>>Do we have tasks grouped logically so that they are done with the fewest total steps?
>>>Are there better ways to communicate information obtained within the work flow than we are doing?
>>>Is there sufficient accountability and security to ensure information is accurate and not lost?
>>>Are there too many procedures designed to ensure accountability and security?
>>>Does the work flow smoothly?
Interview the front-line staff. Ask the people who do the work all day every day what they think about the processes. They are most often the best sources of ideas on how to work smarter. Your objective is “efficient effectiveness,” meaning you want the staff to be as effective as possible with the most efficiency practicable.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
C-DROMO: Helping Volunteers Help Others
I have been blogging about the need for a program that anticipates and plans for a surge of "irregulars" after a large disaster. Tentatively dubbed C-DROMO--Citizens Disaster Response Operations Management Organization--the federal agency would be primarily volunteer lead and driven, with little taxpayer support.
There is, in fact, a program in Texas that has SOME of the answer in place. The Texas Citizen Corps (http://www.texascitizencorps.org/) facilitates volunteers who want to be trained to help emergency first responders.This is PART of the solution, but misses the larger aspect: those who want to volunteer, not as assistants to police and medical teams, directing traffic in parking lots and dumping trash, but using the skills they have as tree trimmers, carpenters, cooks, electricians, welders, truck drivers, plumbers, painters, equipment operators, accountants, inventory clerks, switchboard operators, child care workers, and so forth.
There is, in fact, a program in Texas that has SOME of the answer in place. The Texas Citizen Corps (http://www.texascitizencorps.org/) facilitates volunteers who want to be trained to help emergency first responders.This is PART of the solution, but misses the larger aspect: those who want to volunteer, not as assistants to police and medical teams, directing traffic in parking lots and dumping trash, but using the skills they have as tree trimmers, carpenters, cooks, electricians, welders, truck drivers, plumbers, painters, equipment operators, accountants, inventory clerks, switchboard operators, child care workers, and so forth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
