Saturday, 16 April 2011
Golf Logic
I went to a wedding yesterday. The reception wasa at the "Three Rivers Golf and Country Club". During a lull in the proceedings I took a stroll to the first tee where I found a large sign-board with the rules of the club painted up for all to see. They must have been devised by a professor of logic because, apart from all the expected ones about not using buggies in wet conditions or in certain areas, there was this interesting request. "Maintain your position on the course by keeping your place directly behind the game in front of you, NOT directly in front of the game behind you." Unless you happen to be the last game of the day, I can't see how you can do one without the other being an automatic corollary. Maths much have changed since I did it at school! - or perhaps I've just never understood the rules of golf (which must obviously supercede the normal rules of logic for those concerned).
Sunday, 13 February 2011
Negative Management
I have never been much of a follower of management jargon. To me, good management is a matter of common sense but with the increasing rarity of that commodity I have turned to thinking about the theory of management - Journeyman style!
I have come to the conclusion that there are three basic types of management:
(1) Positive management - actions taken by managers which improve the situation.
(2) "Laissez Faire" - basically "do nothing and let the workers sort themselves out". Depending on the calibre of the workers, this may actually result in better results than (1).
(3) Negative management - actions taken by managers to interfere with the normal working of the organisation which results in worse results than if they had done nothing.
Sadly, I have to report that Follyville, which has so far generally exercised option 2 with reasonable success has now descended to Option 3 - Negative Management. I don't suppose it is intentional but it comes from not considering the outcomes or consulting the workers before decisions are made. The management and burghers of Follyville have always had a very blinkered "one issue" approach and the latest developments follow in this trend. The issue at the moment is saving money. It's the same everywhere in Local Government - Follyville is no different. But instead of asking the question "how can we sensibly save money", the word "sensibly" is left out. Result - negative management. Let me illustrate with a recent example.
Two officers of Follyville had been booked on a course in London. It was assumed that admin. would order them train tickets (as pre-ordering results in a saving on the full price). However, the day before they were due to go they were informed by management that there was no money in the training budget. There was, however, money in the mileage budget. Rather than going by train Officer 1 should therefore drive to Officer 2's house and then drive the two of them to Newbury Park underground station. From there they could get the underground train to their course.
Let's analyse this scenario:
Cost under normal arrangements -
2 x Train fare (including Travelcard) @ £50.20 = £100.40 (N.B. this would have been cheaper if tickets ordered in advance).
Cost under Negative Management arrangements -
97 miles mileage reimbursement @ £0.40 £38.80
Car Parking at Newbury Park £ 4.50
2 x Tube fare to Holborn £20.00
2 x 1.5 hours extra journey time @ £17.76 £53.28
______
Total cost £116.58
So a misguided attempt to save Follyville some money actually resulted in spending £16 extra plus considerable increased aggravation for the officers concerned in having to drive back in the rush hour, in the dark, in the pouring rain with all the hazards of road water and spray. Not a nice journey at all.
I have come to the conclusion that there are three basic types of management:
(1) Positive management - actions taken by managers which improve the situation.
(2) "Laissez Faire" - basically "do nothing and let the workers sort themselves out". Depending on the calibre of the workers, this may actually result in better results than (1).
(3) Negative management - actions taken by managers to interfere with the normal working of the organisation which results in worse results than if they had done nothing.
Sadly, I have to report that Follyville, which has so far generally exercised option 2 with reasonable success has now descended to Option 3 - Negative Management. I don't suppose it is intentional but it comes from not considering the outcomes or consulting the workers before decisions are made. The management and burghers of Follyville have always had a very blinkered "one issue" approach and the latest developments follow in this trend. The issue at the moment is saving money. It's the same everywhere in Local Government - Follyville is no different. But instead of asking the question "how can we sensibly save money", the word "sensibly" is left out. Result - negative management. Let me illustrate with a recent example.
Two officers of Follyville had been booked on a course in London. It was assumed that admin. would order them train tickets (as pre-ordering results in a saving on the full price). However, the day before they were due to go they were informed by management that there was no money in the training budget. There was, however, money in the mileage budget. Rather than going by train Officer 1 should therefore drive to Officer 2's house and then drive the two of them to Newbury Park underground station. From there they could get the underground train to their course.
Let's analyse this scenario:
Cost under normal arrangements -
2 x Train fare (including Travelcard) @ £50.20 = £100.40 (N.B. this would have been cheaper if tickets ordered in advance).
Cost under Negative Management arrangements -
97 miles mileage reimbursement @ £0.40 £38.80
Car Parking at Newbury Park £ 4.50
2 x Tube fare to Holborn £20.00
2 x 1.5 hours extra journey time @ £17.76 £53.28
______
Total cost £116.58
So a misguided attempt to save Follyville some money actually resulted in spending £16 extra plus considerable increased aggravation for the officers concerned in having to drive back in the rush hour, in the dark, in the pouring rain with all the hazards of road water and spray. Not a nice journey at all.
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Americans are mad too!
Just to demonstrate that it is not just the British that are quite mad and that Americans too seem to have abdicated all responsibility for common sense, I attach the following snippet, gleaned from an E-newsletter.
A mother of two in Sacramento, California has filed a class action lawsuit against McDonalds because they use toys to unfairly market their Happy Meals to under 8's. It is stated that "Children eight years old and younger do not have the cognitive skills and the developmental maturity to understand the persuasive intent of marketing and advertising."
Quite so - but unless things are significantly different on the other side of the pond, how often is a child of eight or less going to be going into McDonald's on their own and ordering a Happy Meal? It doesn't happen here. If a child that young is in Mcdonald's they will be with an adult or older sibling who will understand the point of marketing and advertising and should have the necessary willpower to say "No" if they don't consider the Happy Meal to be appropriate.
Clearly American women either have no willpower at all or are negligent in allowing their young children to go roaming unaccompanied. To blame McDonalds for this scenario is quite ridiculous. It would be like someone here taking legal action against a car manufacturer for advertising the fact that their car goes from 0 - 90 in 10 seconds, knowing full well that you are not allowed to drive more than 70 mph. The individual is expected to excercise a bit of common sense and responsibility.
Unfortunately - being America - there is a reasonable prospect that she will win her case. I look forward to the result with bated breath. If I hear the result I will report back in this blog. If she wins, that will probably be my last entry before I go off and slit my wrists!
A mother of two in Sacramento, California has filed a class action lawsuit against McDonalds because they use toys to unfairly market their Happy Meals to under 8's. It is stated that "Children eight years old and younger do not have the cognitive skills and the developmental maturity to understand the persuasive intent of marketing and advertising."
Quite so - but unless things are significantly different on the other side of the pond, how often is a child of eight or less going to be going into McDonald's on their own and ordering a Happy Meal? It doesn't happen here. If a child that young is in Mcdonald's they will be with an adult or older sibling who will understand the point of marketing and advertising and should have the necessary willpower to say "No" if they don't consider the Happy Meal to be appropriate.
Clearly American women either have no willpower at all or are negligent in allowing their young children to go roaming unaccompanied. To blame McDonalds for this scenario is quite ridiculous. It would be like someone here taking legal action against a car manufacturer for advertising the fact that their car goes from 0 - 90 in 10 seconds, knowing full well that you are not allowed to drive more than 70 mph. The individual is expected to excercise a bit of common sense and responsibility.
Unfortunately - being America - there is a reasonable prospect that she will win her case. I look forward to the result with bated breath. If I hear the result I will report back in this blog. If she wins, that will probably be my last entry before I go off and slit my wrists!
Tuesday, 28 December 2010
More Government Madness
"Heathrow faces fines for chaos" was the headline in the Sunday Times 26.12.10. Apparently the government is to bring in new legislation that will allow airports to be fined tens of millions of pounds for disrupting passengers' travel.
Has the government gone completely off it's trolley? Does it think that the airport operators have any control whatsoever on the amount of snow dumped on their runways or the weight of ice forming on their planes? Of course they don't. And you can bet your life that none of these "fines" will find their way back to the passengers who have been disrupted. The government has just come up with one more creative wheeze to get more money for nothing and increase costs for everybody else. If the airports are fined large amounts they will obviously have to pass on the costs to the travelling public, thus reducing the numbers who can afford to fly and increasing the dissatisfaction of those who are trying to fly but cannot because of the snow.
The government is supposed to represent the people - and I can't see many of the thinking public supporting this idea. But if they are daft enough to bring in this legislation, it is only fair (in line with their "equality" agenda) to bring in similar legislation granting tax rebates to everyone who has their travel disrupted by their failure to keep the roads clear. Or is it a cardinal sin if you can't swan off on holiday abroad but not if you can't manage to get to the shops to buy food? This government has a very weird sense of priorities!
Has the government gone completely off it's trolley? Does it think that the airport operators have any control whatsoever on the amount of snow dumped on their runways or the weight of ice forming on their planes? Of course they don't. And you can bet your life that none of these "fines" will find their way back to the passengers who have been disrupted. The government has just come up with one more creative wheeze to get more money for nothing and increase costs for everybody else. If the airports are fined large amounts they will obviously have to pass on the costs to the travelling public, thus reducing the numbers who can afford to fly and increasing the dissatisfaction of those who are trying to fly but cannot because of the snow.
The government is supposed to represent the people - and I can't see many of the thinking public supporting this idea. But if they are daft enough to bring in this legislation, it is only fair (in line with their "equality" agenda) to bring in similar legislation granting tax rebates to everyone who has their travel disrupted by their failure to keep the roads clear. Or is it a cardinal sin if you can't swan off on holiday abroad but not if you can't manage to get to the shops to buy food? This government has a very weird sense of priorities!
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
Creative Accountancy
Many years ago I met my friend for the first time after leaving school. I had gone to university and he had gone straight out to find a job. I asked him what he was doing now and he replied "Creative Accountancy". An ordinary accountant, it seemed, did the more mundane monetary tasks, while a Creative Accountant was ....... well ...... more creative. It seemed to me just like a new or more polite term for "fiddling the figures".
Well those currently in office at the Treasury must be well qualified in Creative Accountancy. They have invented a new term to make a large reduction in grant sound like a reduction of less than half the real amount! The trouble is, as no one has heard of this term before, they have to explain it, and once they have done that it becomes obvious to all what a devious brood they all are.
The executives of Follyville have just been told what their government grant will be next year. It would appear that the grant for 2011-12 has been reduced by 6% (as a percentage of "Revenue Spending Power"). On enquiry, this new term is explained as "the government grant + the amount of Council Tax they are expected to collect". You don't need to be very qualified in maths to realise that they are "fiddling the figures" on a massive scale to try and hide the fact that the real reduction in grant is actually 15.5%. No wonder politicians get a bad name!
Well those currently in office at the Treasury must be well qualified in Creative Accountancy. They have invented a new term to make a large reduction in grant sound like a reduction of less than half the real amount! The trouble is, as no one has heard of this term before, they have to explain it, and once they have done that it becomes obvious to all what a devious brood they all are.
The executives of Follyville have just been told what their government grant will be next year. It would appear that the grant for 2011-12 has been reduced by 6% (as a percentage of "Revenue Spending Power"). On enquiry, this new term is explained as "the government grant + the amount of Council Tax they are expected to collect". You don't need to be very qualified in maths to realise that they are "fiddling the figures" on a massive scale to try and hide the fact that the real reduction in grant is actually 15.5%. No wonder politicians get a bad name!
Friday, 9 July 2010
Unacceptable Bishops
I have just discovered that Jeffrey John has been kicked off the shortlist for the new Bishop of Southwark due to public opposition - the second time this indignity has befallen him (first after being shortlisted as Bishop of Reading).
They find him unacceptable because he is gay. They seem to overlook the well known biblical passage (Galatians 3:28) that states that in Christ there is "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Just acceptable bishops and unacceptable bishops apparently. Those making all the noise should stop worrying about Jeffrey John's credentials and start worrying about their own credentials as Christians.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is worried about precipitating a split in the church but if these people left, it seems it would not be too much of a loss as, it seems, they are not real members anyway!
They find him unacceptable because he is gay. They seem to overlook the well known biblical passage (Galatians 3:28) that states that in Christ there is "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Just acceptable bishops and unacceptable bishops apparently. Those making all the noise should stop worrying about Jeffrey John's credentials and start worrying about their own credentials as Christians.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is worried about precipitating a split in the church but if these people left, it seems it would not be too much of a loss as, it seems, they are not real members anyway!
Friday, 2 July 2010
Student Finance - the ongoing saga
See my post of 11 May 2010.
I thought that was the end of it. Wrong!.
About three weeks after submitting the photocopied forms my wife and I both received a proper printed form (in separate envelopes despite the fact that they know we both live at the same address) with a letter explaining that our daughter had now submitted her details online and could we both please complete these forms and return them. For those of you who don't know these are multipage booklets requiring much information to be looked up in order to complete them. Having done this already I was somewhat reluctant to do it all again. So I phoned the student finance hotline. I suppose I shouldn't really be all that surprised to find myself having a very one-sided conversation with a machine. "Press 1 for xxxx ; press 2 for xxxx" - I'm sure you all know the routine. However, one of the options said "If you have been requested to submit information which you have already submitted, you need do nothing." Fair enough - so I did nothing.
My daughter has just received an e-mail message from Student Finance acknowledging receipt of her online details and stating that they would be sending out forms to her parents in the near future for them to complete their details!
How on earth can we allow the country to be run on organization like this? If all the information could have been submitted online at the same time on a single application form with a single reference number Alice might have been told by now how much she was getting. As it is, I can see a repeat of last year when many students didn't get any finance at all until at least the end of the first term. Alice has already had a request from her university to pay the first term's accommodation rent up front now. Where is that money supposed to come from?
If the "burning of the quangos" we have been promised is a reality, then I suggest Student Finance should be one of those to go. Its organisation seems at least as bad, if not worse, than the infamous Child Support Agency. The job could easily be carried out much more efficiently by any self-respecting payroll department.
I thought that was the end of it. Wrong!.
About three weeks after submitting the photocopied forms my wife and I both received a proper printed form (in separate envelopes despite the fact that they know we both live at the same address) with a letter explaining that our daughter had now submitted her details online and could we both please complete these forms and return them. For those of you who don't know these are multipage booklets requiring much information to be looked up in order to complete them. Having done this already I was somewhat reluctant to do it all again. So I phoned the student finance hotline. I suppose I shouldn't really be all that surprised to find myself having a very one-sided conversation with a machine. "Press 1 for xxxx ; press 2 for xxxx" - I'm sure you all know the routine. However, one of the options said "If you have been requested to submit information which you have already submitted, you need do nothing." Fair enough - so I did nothing.
My daughter has just received an e-mail message from Student Finance acknowledging receipt of her online details and stating that they would be sending out forms to her parents in the near future for them to complete their details!
How on earth can we allow the country to be run on organization like this? If all the information could have been submitted online at the same time on a single application form with a single reference number Alice might have been told by now how much she was getting. As it is, I can see a repeat of last year when many students didn't get any finance at all until at least the end of the first term. Alice has already had a request from her university to pay the first term's accommodation rent up front now. Where is that money supposed to come from?
If the "burning of the quangos" we have been promised is a reality, then I suggest Student Finance should be one of those to go. Its organisation seems at least as bad, if not worse, than the infamous Child Support Agency. The job could easily be carried out much more efficiently by any self-respecting payroll department.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)