Corporate Hypocrisy

[tieguy]

To continue the analogy........It doesn't matter how solid your house is when someone on the top floor is telling you to remove blocks from the foundation.

in this context a more accurate analogy may be that someone is asking you to build the house quicker then what you think you can build it.

So you build it by fixing the things you can control and maybe get 85 to 90 percent complete, then explain the problems you have getting to a 100 percent complete.

 

[Bubblehead]

the problem i see with your argument is its too easy for us to throw our hands up and say "the report is screwed up"

Its frustrating dealing with and explaining the errors on a screwed up report.
But they can be explained on a conference call and otherwise.
you don't get on the call and say the report is screwed up.
you give them the details until they realize the report is screwed up.

Moving past that frustration at some time you as a leader have to make a decision as to whether you're just going to give up because you don't like report
or whether you will fix what you can fix.

sig has done a great job of explaining the frustrations of a bad report.

Pman has done a great job of explaining the mindset you need to have to deal with that report.

I don't think either one is necessarily wrong here.

As usual you have either missed the point or are trying to spin the attention away from the intended target. This thread was to address a flaw in an individual report. It has since went in several directions, which is typical and fine with me. Were I take exception is when someone tries to justify or dismiss a problem or shortcoming by pointing to another problem. I see it alot in the hourly ranks as well, and it's weak. Somebody gets called on the carpet for an obvious violation and the first thing out of their mouth is that so and so does it. You don't try to bring yourself up by bringing someone else down. Man up and take what you have coming.

 

[tieguy]

As usual you have either missed the point or are trying to spin the attention away from the intended target. This thread was to address a flaw in an individual report. It has since went in several directions, which is typical and fine with me. Were I take exception is when someone tries to justify or dismiss a problem or shortcoming by pointing to another problem. I see it alot in the hourly ranks as well, and it's weak. Somebody gets called on the carpet for an obvious violation and the first thing out of their mouth is that so and so does it. You don't try to bring yourself up by bringing someone else down. Man up and take what you have coming.

I think I'm hurt by your aggregious accusations. I recognized the discussion of the reports flaws and then commented how PMans coments on how to deal with it were also valid. Nothing more. No spin, no missed points just an acknowledgment that all points may have been valid.

 

[pretzel_man]

I don't speak the acronyms used in the post I was referring to.
It just sounded alot like what I imagined those infamous conference calls would sound like.
You know the ones where a Center Manager would get dressed down for making a suggestion like they fix an inaccurate report.
Good point you say?
I say cop out from a so called leader.
I'll fix ours when you fix yours?
Reminds me of that old grade school standby again.
"I know you are, but what am I".

I certainly didn't mind your analogy. In fact I appreciated it. Yes, my intent was to act as I would on a conference call, but I only do this as a last resort.

The issues he mentioned are all accurate. Out of a huge system, there are flaws. Many people (both management and hourly) use flaws as an excuse to not getting a job done. Its a way to deflect and after a while I get tired of it. After enough explaining, its time for direction, even if harsh.

I think I know those systems very, very well. I know the size of the flaws and they are not a deterrent to getting results. Pointing out flaws is just fine. Its important to do. Dwelling on them is inappropriate.

If I can use those same systems to get results, I expect others to as well. I don't ask from other management more than I would do myself. I don't accept those excuses from my people and I think it makes them better.

P-Man

 

[SignificantOwner]

When you have fixed every other issue in your operation, then we can talk about hidden yellows and the DMS forecast.
P-Man

I have to throw a penalty flag on that line. Since there's no perfect operation you've just attempted to absolve yourself of fixing your system problems (which aren't very very minor as portrayed). Why wait for me before you get started on fixing this stuff? This is the hypocrisy of which I speak.

 

[pretzel_man]

I have to throw a penalty flag on that line. Since there's no perfect operation you've just attempted to absolve yourself of fixing your system problems (which aren't very very minor as portrayed). Why wait for me before you get started on fixing this stuff? This is the hypocrisy of which I speak.

I use the exact same system that you do. I will bet that few know it better than I do. I think you are going to have a hard time convincing me that the flaws are not minor and have reasonable work arounds. If that were not the case, why am I able to get results using it?

I fixt loop boundries, fix the trace, fix the dispatch, double check the shelf assignments, work on eliminating preload missorts.

After I have done that, the drivers can now trust their EDD. I do this with the existing system flaws.

If you want to have another discussion as to why flaws have existed in the system for many years, I think that's easy to answer. I've asked that myself of the corporate people. They have a budget. Do they use the budget to fix the nuisances, or do they use it to create new enhancements that support the business and the customer? They chose the latter, and I agree with them.

I'm giving you facts and tell you how I use the system to fix real issues. You imply that you cannot fix dispatch problems because of system flaws. Now, who is really hipocritical?

P-Man

 

[RoyalFlush]

There are very few, if any, perfect systems within the UPS system. Every one that I am aware of has flaws, some very minor and some quite significant. The problem is that the standards or measurements don't take these flaws into consideration. I agree that pointing out the flaws does not make a system useless and many of the systems have an overall good purpose. The systems are just not a productive or useful as it's touted and the expected results are usually impossible to achieve. This is where the conflict originates.

 

[pretzel_man]

There are very few, if any, perfect systems within the UPS system. Every one that I am aware of has flaws, some very minor and some quite significant. The problem is that the standards or measurements don't take these flaws into consideration. I agree that pointing out the flaws does not make a system useless and many of the systems have an overall good purpose. The systems are just not a productive or useful as it's touted and the expected results are usually impossible to achieve. This is where the conflict originates.

Web:

I could not agree with you more. I hope you would agree that there is a big difference between relatively minor nuisances in an imperfect system and the conflicts caused by unreasonable expectations.

For instance, DPS / PAS / EDD was touted to improve performance by one and a half stops per on road hour. That was a joke and a pipe dream. That expectation caused many issues and impacted many people's careers. The reality was that overall improvement was about 1/2 SPORH. A more reasonable goal.

Another distinction that is harder to see is the difference between a poor system and poor management using a reasonable system. Using the DPS / PAS / EDD example, the same system works well in some operations and very poorly in others. Generally the difference is the management.

P-Man