On Fri, 9 Jun 1995 pcapper@actrix.gen.nz wrote:
> Replying to LO1562 -- (Was: Proper Rate of Learning)
>
> Eric wrote:
>
> "I'm not sure I can endorse this approach without some reservations. The
> first problem is that treating functional areas within a company as
> separate businesses often ignores the interdepencies between the areas.
> This can create situations in which departments can engage in "cost
> cutting" that's really cost shifting."
>
> (snip)
>
> "The second problem is that often the internal department is hamstrung in
> its ability to compete with outsources because corporate management is
> still telling them exactly what to do in every little detail."
>
>
> I agree with your reservations, Eric. In the case I described the company
> had not satisfactorily dealt with your first reservation - but knew that
> it was a problem. In the case of your second reservation the company HAD
> 'set free' the units in the way you describe as necessary.
>
> I guess the point we are both making here is that such radical
> restructuring is only possible if also attended by radical 'reculturing'.
>
> --
> Phillip Capper
One other issue that I keep running into with this "intrapreneuring"
approach is that internal services or departments are internal for a
purpose (at least originally, we hope). When they are shifted into the
competitive role with external services, they are being asked to compete
with all of those who have a much larger "marketplace" in which to play.
If we are really saying that we want our "internal" groups to compete
equally with external options, they often _must_ begin to look outwardly
for sufficient customers to supply so that they can create competitive
services. In such cases, the more appropriate response I would think is to
simply "outsource" (I marvel at the creativity of the corporate
wordsmiths!) whatever is possible.
Are we ready for our internal departments and other institutional services
to be dividing their attention and "their" resources between internal and
external customers? Will they not be tempted to serve the customers with
the willingness to "pay" at the highest rate of return? Are we providing
our internal "customers" with sufficient capital to "pay" at market rates
and keep the attention of the newly directed service "provider?"
I am not opposed to a movement in the direction being considered, but I
think we must keep the smaller _and_ the larger systems in mind as we do.
In addition to these concerns, such a model is not as readily applied to
educational institutions (where I work), for example, and others which are
regulated by outside agencies and bodies requiring specific accrediting or
procedural standards and capabilities. We cannot just opt for the
competitive marketplace entirely--do away with personnel, for example.
There is no doubt in my mind that we have _plenty_ of room to improve our
institutional practices in higher education as well as the K-12 systems.
In what ways can we create some of the "freedom" we are seeking without
abdicating from our "responsibilities" to our community and
customers/partners/students???
-- Tobin Quereau quereau@austin.cc.tx.us