The newest joke: reconnecting IT

[Anonymous]

Just like IT never was one under Laverne (and is not now), the reconnect initiative is basically a bla bla tour, without serious actions making a real difference.
The only way to make IT relevant again in J&J is to reorganize it, from the fragmented organization Laverne created, into a unified one, that focuses on project outcomes instead of on meaningless processes and procedures that do not work anyway.
Saying there is a culture of fear, finger pointing, etc. but continuing tinkering at the edges all the same won't solve anything.
After all, the same LT that is still in place that was cobbled together by Laverne, and which was only apt at licking her heels and not giving a peep while / when many capable, experienced people who had the guts to speak up were fired, retired or belittled.
How can you trust such people ever again?

 

[Anonymous]

AMEN! AMEN! and I'll say it again...AMEN! Are they Morally Debased A-Holes who supported the actions of that moron or just the few who "held on" for a better day? Even if they ARE the latter....they sold a piece of themselves to "hold on" & may not be able to in the "post LC" world....poetic....isn't it? Certainly don't have MY respect. Hey...Maddie....go sell your *stuff* elsewhere....none of us are buyin'.....

 

[Anonymous]

I challenge you to read the article, "Why do we believe in economy of scale?" by John Seddon, managing director, Vanguard.

Teaser: "The argument is as follows: we all do HR, IT, and finance, so why don't we share them? ... To get a measure of the consequences, consider some of the fantastically expensive failures of shared services projects ..."

 

[Anonymous]

To get a measure of the consequences, consider some of the fantastically expensive failures of shared services projects ..."

I didn't read it, but gotta ask if they're talking about GSC, Verizon, IBM, Iris 2010, Iris 2011?

 

[Anonymous]

I didn't read it, but gotta ask if they're talking about GSC, Verizon, IBM, Iris 2010, Iris 2011?

Not directly, but it is worth reading. And it does explain why routing customer calls to service desks in India or South Africa does not work and never will.

Here is one of many links to the paper:
http://www.thesystemsthinkingreview.co.uk/index.php?pg=18&utwkstoryid=266

 

[Anonymous]

Not directly, but it is worth reading. And it does explain why routing customer calls to service desks in India or South Africa does not work and never will.

Here is one of many links to the paper:
http://www.thesystemsthinkingreview.co.uk/index.php?pg=18&utwkstoryid=266

If the measure of success is how quickly a call is answered, then centralized call centers MIGHT have an advantage. But, if the measure of success is the quality of service the customer receives, then remote service desks do not make as much sense.

How many times have you had to say either "What was that, can you repeat?" or "No, what I said was ..."

Prompt, correct service should always trump prompt call pickup.

 

[Anonymous]

If the measure of success is how quickly a call is answered, then centralized call centers MIGHT have an advantage. But, if the measure of success is the quality of service the customer receives, then remote service desks do not make as much sense.

How many times have you had to say either "What was that, can you repeat?" or "No, what I said was ..."

Prompt, correct service should always trump prompt call pickup.

The metric that can be measured 100% of the time is how quickly a call was answered. The level of service received is sporadically measured by the follow up surveys that few people bother to answer.

The measure most consistently chosen will drive the behaviors.
scenario 1 - Call pickup times are important but declining? Hire more people to pickup the phone handset more quickly.

scenario 2 - Service is important but below standard? Hire and train more qualified people to quickly and correctly handle calls.

Which is easier? Which is less expensive without looking at the big picture? That will be the one chosen.