Board index ‹ Welcome to RLFANS ‹ The Sin Bin ‹ General Election 8th June

Sal Paradise wrote:

IMO productivity is low for three reasons: General resistance to change, zero Kaizen culture and a lack of capital investment.

1. explain?
2. Someone's read a management book
3. correct - large corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves, and not investing them back into their businesses - one factor used to explain that is their fears over the economic cliff edge that is Brexit

I know you don't like experts who don't agree with you, but this is quite balanced and informative. It's the Guardian, so you may need to wash your hands afterwards.

bren2k wrote:

1. explain?
2. Someone's read a management book
3. correct - large corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves, and not investing them back into their businesses - one factor used to explain that is their fears over the economic cliff edge that is Brexit

I know you don't like experts who don't agree with you, but this is quite balanced and informative. It's the Guardian, so you may need to wash your hands afterwards.

In this country we appear to have an inability to embrace change an example would be the NHS - I was in hospital earlier in the year for an operation - all my notes were still on bits of paper - that's inefficient most commercial businesses would have abandoned that for digital technology.

Why was Brailsford thought of so highly - because he used a Kaizen culture of micro improvements (marginal gains) to gain competitive advantage on his rivals. You may not agree with his treatment of people - although Steve Redgrave defended it on 5 live on Sunday - but his methods of better suits, better bikes better training has proved incredibly successful. If this were the norm in the UK nobody would have batted an eyelid. How many companies outside of those owned by the Japanese actually have Kaizen programs or programs of continual improvement.?

Brexit only happened a year ago - lack of investment has been going on since the crash - that is because its very difficult to borrow money from the bank - they don't want to sell money

Sal Paradise wrote:

In this country we appear to have an inability to embrace change an example would be the NHS - I was in hospital earlier in the year for an operation - all my notes were still on bits of paper - that's inefficient most commercial businesses would have abandoned that for digital technology.

A little bit confusing. You say as a country we don't embrace change, but then say that most business have indeed embraced change? Ideally of course the NHS would be adopting any technology that would enable it to perform more efficiently (providing they have the funding and expertise available to deliver it). Also, in the commercial world you have competition as a factor driving such decisions, you have the movement of labour between companies taking with it new ideas & ways of thinking.

Regardless, there are extensive transformation projects going on in the NHS currently. Also, there are examples where technology has been embraced. I can book GP appointments online, I can check in at the GP surgery using the tablet they have there, things like that. Certainly room for improvement I accept, but I don't think it's as old fashioned as some might think.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Why was Brailsford thought of so highly - because he used a Kaizen culture of micro improvements (marginal gains) to gain competitive advantage on his rivals. You may not agree with his treatment of people - although Steve Redgrave defended it on 5 live on Sunday - but his methods of better suits, better bikes better training has proved incredibly successful. If this were the norm in the UK nobody would have batted an eyelid. How many companies outside of those owned by the Japanese actually have Kaizen programs or programs of continual improvement.?

I suppose the answer would be how many don't? Most large companies have their own transformation departments that drive an increase in efficiency and reduce cost. There's no doubting Brailsford's methods achieved results, but now easily can this be rolled out en-masse, and what are the negative impacts?

Sal Paradise wrote:

Brexit only happened a year ago - lack of investment has been going on since the crash - that is because its very difficult to borrow money from the bank - they don't want to sell money

It's a bit of both. Bren is right in that there is a fear of what will happen during & post-Brexit and companies are keeping their powder dry to an extent, but there is a reluctance to lend. I have a business that relies predominantly on the ability to secure finance to be able to make further capital investments. A year or so ago (post crash), you're right, it wasn't easy to borrow, but in the past year or so it has gone to the next level. Lenders are being extremely careful, and the level of risk they're willing to take very very low.

Sal Paradise wrote:

He also blames the low productivity on a our inability to get rid of the deficit - so what do you suggest is done about that. CEO's driving profit will actually increase CT take so should help the reduction of the deficit - you can't have it both ways?

As I have always said on here if you look hard enough you will always find an article to support your stance - is it fact no its just opinion and should be treated as such.

You wholly miss the point. If CEOs had invested in their company's futures rather than their own those companies would be MORE profitable and paying more CT, thus reducing the deficit.

Dally wrote:

You wholly miss the point. If CEOs had invested in their company's futures rather than their own those companies would be MORE profitable and paying more CT, thus reducing the deficit.

No you miss the point - they didn't invest because it would hit profits in the short term until the ROI kicked so reducing the CT paid.

didnt take long for pledges in the manifesto's to get dropped

lied too again

no wonder some people dont vote, might join them till manifesto pledges are made law. wont happen like.

all bent

DGM wrote:

A little bit confusing. You say as a country we don't embrace change, but then say that most business have indeed embraced change? Ideally of course the NHS would be adopting any technology that would enable it to perform more efficiently (providing they have the funding and expertise available to deliver it). Also, in the commercial world you have competition as a factor driving such decisions, you have the movement of labour between companies taking with it new ideas & ways of thinking.

Regardless, there are extensive transformation projects going on in the NHS currently. Also, there are examples where technology has been embraced. I can book GP appointments online, I can check in at the GP surgery using the tablet they have there, things like that. Certainly room for improvement I accept, but I don't think it's as old fashioned as some might think.

I suppose the answer would be how many don't? Most large companies have their own transformation departments that drive an increase in efficiency and reduce cost. There's no doubting Brailsford's methods achieved results, but now easily can this be rolled out en-masse, and what are the negative impacts?

It's a bit of both. Bren is right in that there is a fear of what will happen during & post-Brexit and companies are keeping their powder dry to an extent, but there is a reluctance to lend. I have a business that relies predominantly on the ability to secure finance to be able to make further capital investments. A year or so ago (post crash), you're right, it wasn't easy to borrow, but in the past year or so it has gone to the next level. Lenders are being extremely careful, and the level of risk they're willing to take very very low.

Brailsford's methods e.g. Kaizen will work in any environment it mostly common sense and having a desire to change outdated practises. Most businesses should have identified low hanging fruit but a 1% improvement in 10 elements in a process is a 10% improvement in the process as a whole. When put like that its appears more achievable.

On borrowing it depends how much you want and what you want it for - however getting them to give you an overdraft is a whole different ball game

brearley84 wrote:

didnt take long for pledges in the manifesto's to get dropped

lied too again

no wonder some people dont vote, might join them till manifesto pledges are made law. wont happen like.

all bent

I dont think you were necessarily lied to this time.
Mrs May, when she set out her manifesto, probably intended to use her huge majority to push through further cuts and reduce the tax burden for the better off.
Unfortunately, the "expected" "huge" victory turned into a hung parliament, possibly with the DUP helping, although, their help is not yet assured.
If you propose contentious policies, you need a hefty parliamentary majority to push through those policies, if not, you are politically impotent, full of intent but, not able to perform.
Mind you, Mrs May cant make her mid up about very much these days so, perhaps we have all been saved.
Our influence with the EU has already disappeared and Mrs May is like the teenager who has misbehaved and has to see the headmaster after school and other EU leaders will only see her later on today, when they have sorted their own affairs.

wrencat1873 wrote:

Mrs May is like the teenager who has misbehaved and has to see the headmaster after school

By running through a field of wheat for example?