I am a management consultant and have been consulting for many companies. Recently, I had a client who was not accepting the need for system documentation. To convince him, I used the jargon: "The faintest ink is more powerful than the strongest memory." I would like to know your opinion on whether the statement quoted was right. Specifically, I would like to know if, in today's era, companies are controlled by people or by systems.
From India
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Imran,
I must say that this is a very unique thread of discussion. An organization is undoubtedly controlled by a human, but the systems are there to facilitate the process, minimize bugs and errors, curtail efforts on repetitive work, and also minimize issues like nepotism or internal politics, which are human errors.
In this era where paperwork is becoming computerized, there is always a risk of losing valuable data if the computer fails due to a virus attack or any technical issue. However, intending to keep a backup of physical data, i.e., papers, to prevent this situation would be challenging because we would essentially be saving the same data twice: once in the computer and once on paper. To avoid this scenario, we can have a backup of the data on another machine. Therefore, I do not entirely agree with the jargon.
I hope this explanation makes sense to you. Keep posting.
Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I must say that this is a very unique thread of discussion. An organization is undoubtedly controlled by a human, but the systems are there to facilitate the process, minimize bugs and errors, curtail efforts on repetitive work, and also minimize issues like nepotism or internal politics, which are human errors.
In this era where paperwork is becoming computerized, there is always a risk of losing valuable data if the computer fails due to a virus attack or any technical issue. However, intending to keep a backup of physical data, i.e., papers, to prevent this situation would be challenging because we would essentially be saving the same data twice: once in the computer and once on paper. To avoid this scenario, we can have a backup of the data on another machine. Therefore, I do not entirely agree with the jargon.
I hope this explanation makes sense to you. Keep posting.
Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Well said,
My intention was not spelled out clearly, I suppose. When I said documentation, then I intended it may be in any form, hard or soft. Even if I have an ERP, we address that as documentation.
I fully agree with your thought that these days, the cost of documentation and the effort required for upkeep are less when we have documentation in soft form. However, the major concern is in manufacturing where the primary documentation used is on the floor. In this case, it is difficult to convert it to soft form. Do you have any better advice on this?
Imran Khan
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My intention was not spelled out clearly, I suppose. When I said documentation, then I intended it may be in any form, hard or soft. Even if I have an ERP, we address that as documentation.
I fully agree with your thought that these days, the cost of documentation and the effort required for upkeep are less when we have documentation in soft form. However, the major concern is in manufacturing where the primary documentation used is on the floor. In this case, it is difficult to convert it to soft form. Do you have any better advice on this?
Imran Khan
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Imran,
I absolutely agree with you that it is difficult to maintain a soft copy record on the shop floor, as most of the employees are not that aware of computers who are working on the shop floor. In this case, we have little or no option than to have a data entry operator in place who can convert the physical data into a soft copy. However, there should be a system in place, like an ERP perhaps, which can analyze and sort this data in such a manner so that the end result is comprehensive and serves as easy reference for the management.
I hope this makes sense.
Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I absolutely agree with you that it is difficult to maintain a soft copy record on the shop floor, as most of the employees are not that aware of computers who are working on the shop floor. In this case, we have little or no option than to have a data entry operator in place who can convert the physical data into a soft copy. However, there should be a system in place, like an ERP perhaps, which can analyze and sort this data in such a manner so that the end result is comprehensive and serves as easy reference for the management.
I hope this makes sense.
Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Imran and Indu!
While going through the first couple of posts, I felt that the original point put up by Imran was getting sidelined. The more I read, the more convinced I became :)
Well, what I understand from Imran's post is that he wants to discuss System-Oriented working and Individual-Oriented working. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Systems we design must be documented. In fact, if it is not documented, it does not exist.
Documented systems are meant for smooth, consistent working. A documented system is independent of individuals.
Actually, in traditional Indian organizations that were run by family members lacked professionalism and resisted systems and documentation. "Sahab ne bol diya to ho jayega!" was the mantra. Gone are the days where a verbal permission by the MD or GM was enough. I have asked my MD to put on paper things/changes he wanted to implement.
Systems demand more and more decentralization/delegation of authority and decision-making. This attracts resistance from individuals who want to run the show based on their charisma, individual obligations, and personal favors.
A system makes it easy to replace individuals even in key positions. A good design considers all possibilities and, most importantly, a good system is open for updating and changes to cope with future needs and changes in the environment.
The quote by Imran was very correct, and it applies to all organizations. Even on the social front, the Supreme Court has made it mandatory to register all marriages!
Small organizations can afford to avoid system orientation for some time, but if the organization has to grow big, it has to adopt system orientation which involves documentation.
I hope my views are in line with what Imran was trying to suggest.
- Hiten
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
While going through the first couple of posts, I felt that the original point put up by Imran was getting sidelined. The more I read, the more convinced I became :)
Well, what I understand from Imran's post is that he wants to discuss System-Oriented working and Individual-Oriented working. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Systems we design must be documented. In fact, if it is not documented, it does not exist.
Documented systems are meant for smooth, consistent working. A documented system is independent of individuals.
Actually, in traditional Indian organizations that were run by family members lacked professionalism and resisted systems and documentation. "Sahab ne bol diya to ho jayega!" was the mantra. Gone are the days where a verbal permission by the MD or GM was enough. I have asked my MD to put on paper things/changes he wanted to implement.
Systems demand more and more decentralization/delegation of authority and decision-making. This attracts resistance from individuals who want to run the show based on their charisma, individual obligations, and personal favors.
A system makes it easy to replace individuals even in key positions. A good design considers all possibilities and, most importantly, a good system is open for updating and changes to cope with future needs and changes in the environment.
The quote by Imran was very correct, and it applies to all organizations. Even on the social front, the Supreme Court has made it mandatory to register all marriages!
Small organizations can afford to avoid system orientation for some time, but if the organization has to grow big, it has to adopt system orientation which involves documentation.
I hope my views are in line with what Imran was trying to suggest.
- Hiten
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
To add to my above-mentioned post, I have experienced that people coming from a system-oriented organization to an individual-oriented organization feel very uncomfortable and can't sustain for long. They mostly quit.
However, a person coming from an individual-oriented organization to a system-oriented organization also feels discomfort initially. They feel isolated, not trusted, and find the word 'trust' missing. But if he/she sticks and tries to adapt, the process of settling in the organization becomes easier with every day spent.
- Hiten
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
However, a person coming from an individual-oriented organization to a system-oriented organization also feels discomfort initially. They feel isolated, not trusted, and find the word 'trust' missing. But if he/she sticks and tries to adapt, the process of settling in the organization becomes easier with every day spent.
- Hiten
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Well, I fully agree with the comment stated. To extend this, I would like to use a few words which are in sequence to be followed when any system is established:
1. Roles (definition of what to be done)
2. Responsibility (ownership)
3. Authority (empowerment)
4. Accountability (making people answerable)
Generally, the first three elements are documented and known to people, but the fourth is neither documented nor understood. This area we need to concentrate on how to document accountability for better results.
Give me your opinion.
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1. Roles (definition of what to be done)
2. Responsibility (ownership)
3. Authority (empowerment)
4. Accountability (making people answerable)
Generally, the first three elements are documented and known to people, but the fourth is neither documented nor understood. This area we need to concentrate on how to document accountability for better results.
Give me your opinion.
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Parekh,
I agree with you that I have not been able to understand the post completely. Taking a thread from your comments, I would just like to add a few things. I don't know about implementing systems other than Human Resources, so I won't comment on that. When it comes to designing or implementing an HRMS, documentation is absolutely important; I agree, but a Human touch from the HR side is always appreciated by the employees.
I know it becomes difficult for the HR to add this Human touch as the workforce multiplies with the passage of time, but nevertheless, the importance of "a human touch" doesn't depreciate.
For example, I used to work for an MNC prior to my post-graduation as a Team Leader (sales). We used to have a very senior person, Head of Assets, who used to take team meetings once a month. It was quite amazing to see that he could remember the names of all the people, and every time he used to call somebody by his/her name, his/her face used to light up with the feeling "see, sir remembers my name."
The same thing I have seen in one of the big IT companies where the HR person remembers the names of some 500 odd employees. Every time someone used to send an application through the HRMS system, he used to make it a point that he individually talks to that employee to find out what is the matter, even if it is a brief chat of 2 mins.
I don't know whether this time also I have deviated from the topic or not, all I wanted to say is we should implement systems for the smooth functioning of the organization, but we shouldn't become robots in the process.
I hope this makes sense.
Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with you that I have not been able to understand the post completely. Taking a thread from your comments, I would just like to add a few things. I don't know about implementing systems other than Human Resources, so I won't comment on that. When it comes to designing or implementing an HRMS, documentation is absolutely important; I agree, but a Human touch from the HR side is always appreciated by the employees.
I know it becomes difficult for the HR to add this Human touch as the workforce multiplies with the passage of time, but nevertheless, the importance of "a human touch" doesn't depreciate.
For example, I used to work for an MNC prior to my post-graduation as a Team Leader (sales). We used to have a very senior person, Head of Assets, who used to take team meetings once a month. It was quite amazing to see that he could remember the names of all the people, and every time he used to call somebody by his/her name, his/her face used to light up with the feeling "see, sir remembers my name."
The same thing I have seen in one of the big IT companies where the HR person remembers the names of some 500 odd employees. Every time someone used to send an application through the HRMS system, he used to make it a point that he individually talks to that employee to find out what is the matter, even if it is a brief chat of 2 mins.
I don't know whether this time also I have deviated from the topic or not, all I wanted to say is we should implement systems for the smooth functioning of the organization, but we shouldn't become robots in the process.
I hope this makes sense.
Thanks and Regards,
Indrani Chakraborty
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Imram ! Can we discuss about difference between Responsibility and Accountability. I am not clear about the difference between these two. - Hiten
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Hiten,
The difference between Accountability and Responsibility is as follows:
Accountability refers to the obligation to demonstrate and take responsibility for performance in light of agreed expectations.
Responsibility, on the other hand, is the obligation to act, whereas accountability is the obligation to answer for an action (Responsabilisation).
For more information, you may visit the link: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/eval/pubs/R...afcgrr05_e.asp
Balaji - Hyd
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The difference between Accountability and Responsibility is as follows:
Accountability refers to the obligation to demonstrate and take responsibility for performance in light of agreed expectations.
Responsibility, on the other hand, is the obligation to act, whereas accountability is the obligation to answer for an action (Responsabilisation).
For more information, you may visit the link: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/eval/pubs/R...afcgrr05_e.asp
Balaji - Hyd
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.