One thing I can't get my head around is the obsession of government, both national and local, with change. Virtually every management course you see advertised has a section within it called "Managing Change" or something very similar. What the courses obviously don't explain is that this is how to manage change if you have to, but that change is not compulsory.
The age-old proverb, which I agree with wholeheartedly, says "If it ain't broke don't try and fix it". If things are running well don't mess them up. But these new would-be managers come back from their courses determined to put what they have learnt into practice. If they can't actually find something that needs improving they take something that is working well and experiment with that. They seem to think that if they can make something good even better they will be able to bask in the glory of a job well done. But in the majority of cases they just end up with a total disaster and a huge bill.
The National Audit Office has just reported that since May 2005 the Government has reorganized 91 departments at an annual cost of £200 million. Since 1980 25 new central government departments have been created and this was so successful that 13 of them no longer exist! Departments have been "re-branded" with huge amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on designing new logos and reprinting stationery. Departments have been moved, on a whim, from London to the far ends of the country, with most of the staff refusing to go. This means not only huge relocation costs but also significant recruitment costs of new staff and the loss of all the years of accumulated wisdom and experience which gets left behind. And for what???
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7066201.ece
In my own local authority of Follyville consultants recently spent over a year holding meetings and workshops with staff with a view to restructuring a department to improve efficiency and capability. They came up with a plan which was then debated and approved. But then the "powers that be" decided there was not enough money in the budget to put the plan into effect. Of course there wasn't ...... they had spent all the money on the consultants! What a gross waste of everybody's time and taxpayer's money.
When the Government points out the size of the National Debt, as though it is somehow the fault of the people at large, they should stop for a moment and consider the fact that a large part of that debt is not caused by providing extra services to the public but on buggering up the perfectly good services that were in place already.
Saturday, 27 March 2010
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Material Chaos
You would think that in this material world of ours, retailers would make it as easy as possible for people to buy things. Apparently not. The latest trend is to make it as difficult as possible for people to buy things.
On returning home from a weekend in London, Mrs Journeyman and I stopped in at Lakeside. (It was pouring with rain and that was the only place we could think of to walk a bit without getting wet). On passing through House of Fraser (as you have to do to get from the covered car-park) we noticed a display of the latest (and last) Michael Jackson DVD. Our daughter is music-mad and had a birthday coming up the next weekend so Mrs Journeyman went to buy a copy.
First she had to swear an oath that she was over 21 and then give her name and address (? so they could come chasing after her if she had committed perjury).
What is that all about? We are talking about a DVD, not alcohol or drugs, and a PG rated DVD at that. This is advisory guidance that it may not be suitable for children under 12. It is not mandatory - but even if it was, where does the 21 come in? Although Mrs Journeyman looks young for her age, it is quite obvious that she is over 21 and well over 12. And why do they want her address?? To pass on to "Big Brother" who keeps a list of anyone purchasing a Michael Jackson DVD in case they might be seditious agitators?
On questionning the sales girl, she admitted that she thought this was completely over the top but, after having gone to check with the manager, returned to tell us that this was now "policy".
Once more I have to ask the question I am renowned for ...... Why? Luckily, at the time we were the only customers at that counter but in the run up to Christmas this "policy" is going to cause absolute mayhem ....... and for what benefit? Perhaps, if any senior management from the House of Fraser are reading this, they would care to enlighten me.
On returning home from a weekend in London, Mrs Journeyman and I stopped in at Lakeside. (It was pouring with rain and that was the only place we could think of to walk a bit without getting wet). On passing through House of Fraser (as you have to do to get from the covered car-park) we noticed a display of the latest (and last) Michael Jackson DVD. Our daughter is music-mad and had a birthday coming up the next weekend so Mrs Journeyman went to buy a copy.
First she had to swear an oath that she was over 21 and then give her name and address (? so they could come chasing after her if she had committed perjury).
What is that all about? We are talking about a DVD, not alcohol or drugs, and a PG rated DVD at that. This is advisory guidance that it may not be suitable for children under 12. It is not mandatory - but even if it was, where does the 21 come in? Although Mrs Journeyman looks young for her age, it is quite obvious that she is over 21 and well over 12. And why do they want her address?? To pass on to "Big Brother" who keeps a list of anyone purchasing a Michael Jackson DVD in case they might be seditious agitators?
On questionning the sales girl, she admitted that she thought this was completely over the top but, after having gone to check with the manager, returned to tell us that this was now "policy".
Once more I have to ask the question I am renowned for ...... Why? Luckily, at the time we were the only customers at that counter but in the run up to Christmas this "policy" is going to cause absolute mayhem ....... and for what benefit? Perhaps, if any senior management from the House of Fraser are reading this, they would care to enlighten me.
Friday, 26 February 2010
Marriage - Civil Partnership - Is there a difference?
Much in the press recently about marriage and civil partnerships. Lord Alli is proposing an amendment to the Equality Bill, currently being debated, to allow civil partnerships to be registered in churches, synagogues etc. Apparently this is legally prohibited at the moment but certain smaller denominations want to venture into this area. The amendment will make it clear that this activity is permissable not mandatory. Fair enough.
What I don't understand is the strange editorial in the Times on 24 February, written by a gay man, running down the whole idea of marriage and suggesting a further amendment to the Equality Bill allowing civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. Doesn't he realize we've had these for many years ........ they are known as Registry Office Weddings! And many people use them. They give the option of a religious (in a church) or a non-religious (in a Registry Office or one of the new civil venues) (civil) wedding.
According to the writer of the editorial the institution of marriage is in steep decline and heterosexual couples would jump at the chance of a civil partnership along the lines of the French model. Now I know absolutely nothing about the French model for civil partnerships but, according to the journalist, following the French model could "result in hundreds of thousands of couples, many with children, entering into legally protected partnerships that otherwise they would not". Apparently, the difference between this civil partnership and a civil wedding is that the former can be ended by a letter from either partner. Excuse me! ............. He's only just stated this is a legally protected partnership. Where exactly is the protection if the arrangement ceases on the receipt of a letter? If this is what they want, they might just as well just live together in the first place as many seem to do anyway. We don't need a strange grade of existence that is neither one thing nor the other. What we need is marriage (whether hetero- or homo- sexual couples) and not-marriage. Simple.
What I don't understand is the strange editorial in the Times on 24 February, written by a gay man, running down the whole idea of marriage and suggesting a further amendment to the Equality Bill allowing civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. Doesn't he realize we've had these for many years ........ they are known as Registry Office Weddings! And many people use them. They give the option of a religious (in a church) or a non-religious (in a Registry Office or one of the new civil venues) (civil) wedding.
According to the writer of the editorial the institution of marriage is in steep decline and heterosexual couples would jump at the chance of a civil partnership along the lines of the French model. Now I know absolutely nothing about the French model for civil partnerships but, according to the journalist, following the French model could "result in hundreds of thousands of couples, many with children, entering into legally protected partnerships that otherwise they would not". Apparently, the difference between this civil partnership and a civil wedding is that the former can be ended by a letter from either partner. Excuse me! ............. He's only just stated this is a legally protected partnership. Where exactly is the protection if the arrangement ceases on the receipt of a letter? If this is what they want, they might just as well just live together in the first place as many seem to do anyway. We don't need a strange grade of existence that is neither one thing nor the other. What we need is marriage (whether hetero- or homo- sexual couples) and not-marriage. Simple.
Monday, 11 January 2010
More Stupid Policy - Insurance
I've just tried to renew our house and contents insurance policy. The guff accompanying the renewal notice says this can be done very simply by phoning the number stated. So I do ....... and give my name and details of the address and policy number....only to be told that the policy is in my wife's name and despite the fact that I am also listed on the policy I cannot renew the policy without confirmation from her. Of course she is out, as this is the only time I get to get any serious matters dealt with. The fact that I am also listed on the policy apparently does not make it a joint policy (so what is it then??).
The reason they cannot renew on my say-so is apparently due to the Data Protection Act (that iniquitous instrument which prevents anyone being in the slightest bit helpful over the phone despite the government's pressure for everyone to transact business by phone or online). I politely point out that this is complete rubbish as I am giving him the information, not the other way round. I am not covered by the Data Protection Act and I'll tell him anything he needs to know. As usual with these brainwashed automatons, he refuses to see logic. The best he can offer is to convert the policy to a "joint" one ........ but that will involve talking to Mrs Journeyman ........ who, of course, is not in!!
So we have to phone back later and, of course that particular gentleman won't be there and we'll have to start all over again...... thus wasting our time, his time, and extra phone calls. And the government really can't see why the country is going down the tubes. It beggars belief.
The reason they cannot renew on my say-so is apparently due to the Data Protection Act (that iniquitous instrument which prevents anyone being in the slightest bit helpful over the phone despite the government's pressure for everyone to transact business by phone or online). I politely point out that this is complete rubbish as I am giving him the information, not the other way round. I am not covered by the Data Protection Act and I'll tell him anything he needs to know. As usual with these brainwashed automatons, he refuses to see logic. The best he can offer is to convert the policy to a "joint" one ........ but that will involve talking to Mrs Journeyman ........ who, of course, is not in!!
So we have to phone back later and, of course that particular gentleman won't be there and we'll have to start all over again...... thus wasting our time, his time, and extra phone calls. And the government really can't see why the country is going down the tubes. It beggars belief.
A Follyville Christmas
Thursday 7 January
Slightly quieter today ..... but still like a chicken shed. Thank goodness I have not had to come in for the past two days. Change my voicemail message to inform callers that as we are now "hot desking" I won't be in the office much to pick up any voicemail messages, so they are better off sending me an e-mail. Survive till lunchtime and then go home. Conclude that four hours is about as much as anybody can reasonably be expected to take of this. Pity the poor buggers who have to be here all day!
Friday 8 January
Snowed in at home.
Monday 11 January
Can't face it - take a flexiday!
Slightly quieter today ..... but still like a chicken shed. Thank goodness I have not had to come in for the past two days. Change my voicemail message to inform callers that as we are now "hot desking" I won't be in the office much to pick up any voicemail messages, so they are better off sending me an e-mail. Survive till lunchtime and then go home. Conclude that four hours is about as much as anybody can reasonably be expected to take of this. Pity the poor buggers who have to be here all day!
Friday 8 January
Snowed in at home.
Monday 11 January
Can't face it - take a flexiday!
A Follyville Christmas
Monday 4 January
First day back after Christmas so everyone is in the office. Luckily I get in early and bag a desk. Pleased to see that our manager comes in later and doesn't get either a desk or a seat. Serves him right for casually going along with such a stupid idea.
One of the executive directors comes past and asks him how everything is going. "Fine," he says, "it's all going smoothly". I shake my head sadly from side to side. "What's the problem?" says executive director. "Everything!" I say. "Oh that's just Tim", says manager, "he's negative about most things". The latter statement is, of course, total slander. I usually like to take a positive stance on life, but it's very difficult to be optimistic about a total disaster!
I survive until lunchtime and then go home. The noise is intolerable. From now on the new office will be referred to as "The Chicken Shed".
First day back after Christmas so everyone is in the office. Luckily I get in early and bag a desk. Pleased to see that our manager comes in later and doesn't get either a desk or a seat. Serves him right for casually going along with such a stupid idea.
One of the executive directors comes past and asks him how everything is going. "Fine," he says, "it's all going smoothly". I shake my head sadly from side to side. "What's the problem?" says executive director. "Everything!" I say. "Oh that's just Tim", says manager, "he's negative about most things". The latter statement is, of course, total slander. I usually like to take a positive stance on life, but it's very difficult to be optimistic about a total disaster!
I survive until lunchtime and then go home. The noise is intolerable. From now on the new office will be referred to as "The Chicken Shed".
A Follyville Christmas
Wednesday 23 December
Unpacking day. Arrive at new office to total chaos. A few computers were up and running ....... but that was all that resembled an office. Lots of loaded crates were lying around waiting to be unpacked. My personal crate, of course, wasn't among them, so I couldn't unload that yet. Our communal team crates were standing there but ..... nowhere to unpack them to. We couldn't put anything at all onto the desks as these have to be used for "hot desking", and the few shelves next to our team area appeared to have been reserved for Building Control. As the computer is the only thing working, I get on and write my blog! I reckon the sinking of the Titanic was better organised than a simple office move.
Receive first e-mail in the new office. Apparently the workmen are in today converting the gents toilets into ladies toilets! - Net result ...... no-one can actually go today. I suggest we all use the car-park which is heavily iced up and could do with a bit of de-icing treatment. This doesn't find much favour with the ladies. The good news - the drinks machine is set to "free vend". The bad news - if you want to take advantage of it you will need the bladder of a camel.
Unpacking day. Arrive at new office to total chaos. A few computers were up and running ....... but that was all that resembled an office. Lots of loaded crates were lying around waiting to be unpacked. My personal crate, of course, wasn't among them, so I couldn't unload that yet. Our communal team crates were standing there but ..... nowhere to unpack them to. We couldn't put anything at all onto the desks as these have to be used for "hot desking", and the few shelves next to our team area appeared to have been reserved for Building Control. As the computer is the only thing working, I get on and write my blog! I reckon the sinking of the Titanic was better organised than a simple office move.
Receive first e-mail in the new office. Apparently the workmen are in today converting the gents toilets into ladies toilets! - Net result ...... no-one can actually go today. I suggest we all use the car-park which is heavily iced up and could do with a bit of de-icing treatment. This doesn't find much favour with the ladies. The good news - the drinks machine is set to "free vend". The bad news - if you want to take advantage of it you will need the bladder of a camel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)