Cost of the census doubled in ten years

[Magox]

Fixed.

 

Manufacturing and logistics organizations can achieve economies of scale as they get larger. Bureaucracies, just the opposite.

Gotta agree with you. It isn't the size and scope of any entity that creates less efficiency it is Bureaucracratic policies that breed inefficiency.

[Chef Jim]

The larger any organization (public or private) becomes, the more inefficient it tends to become.

 

So you're shooting for an ineficient government??

[Gary M]

The larger any organization (public or private) becomes, the more inefficient it tends to become.

 

Which is all the more reason we don't need the government running health insurance. The fact that the healthcare bill added IRS agents instead of heathcare workers should scare the hell out of anyone.

[Gene Frenkle]

Fixed.

 

Manufacturing and logistics organizations can achieve economies of scale as they get larger. Bureaucracies, just the opposite.

That doesn't contradict my original statement and there is certainly a need for bureaucracy. Of course, maybe I'm trying to sell that last part to the wrong person.

[DC Tom]

That doesn't contradict my original statement and there is certainly a need for bureaucracy. Of course, maybe I'm trying to sell that last part to the wrong person.

 

It doesn't...your original statement was just too broad.

 

There's a need for bureaucracy...but the tendency of bureaucracies is to grow and become self-justifying. Perfect example: I had to go somewhere to get a federal ID badge yesterday. That involved approvals from five different people, two different physical escorts into a building (each of which had to be scheduled), three forms (one of which had to be filled out twice - not once and copied, but actually filled out), and three different data entry people...one of which screwed up the data entry, meaning I have to go back next week and start all over again. Half those people and half the forms, easily, could be eliminated from the process.

 

A better example, though, of the nightmare of bureaucracy run amok is Nazi Germany (and I mean "nightmare" in the metaphorical, non-Holocaust sense). Read up on the history and structure of that government if you want to see how wasteful bloated bureaucracy is.

[Gene Frenkle]

It doesn't...your original statement was just too broad.

 

There's a need for bureaucracy...but the tendency of bureaucracies is to grow and become self-justifying. Perfect example: I had to go somewhere to get a federal ID badge yesterday. That involved approvals from five different people, two different physical escorts into a building (each of which had to be scheduled), three forms (one of which had to be filled out twice - not once and copied, but actually filled out), and three different data entry people...one of which screwed up the data entry, meaning I have to go back next week and start all over again. Half those people and half the forms, easily, could be eliminated from the process.

 

A better example, though, of the nightmare of bureaucracy run amok is Nazi Germany (and I mean "nightmare" in the metaphorical, non-Holocaust sense). Read up on the history and structure of that government if you want to see how wasteful bloated bureaucracy is.

So I assume that bureaucracies are more likely to become bloated because they are not driven by profit margins?

[DC Tom]

So I assume that bureaucracies are more likely to become bloated because they are not driven by profit margins?

 

"More likely" than what?

 

Don't assume that by "bureacracy" I meant "government". Bureacracy isn't strictly a government feature (I can think of a few companies that are truly byzantine).

[Rob's House]

So I assume that bureaucracies are more likely to become bloated because they are not driven by profit margins?

When driven by profits and competition there is a great deal of motivation in streamlining processes and eliminating inefficiencies. When you're a government agency there is no such motivation, but rather the opposite. Inefficiency is usually rewarded with a bigger budget the following year.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Depends on why. If half your cost is tracking down people who don't turn in their census forms, and the number of people who don't turn in their census forms doubles...then no, not really. Or if government regulations created in the past ten years means you have to change a whole bunch of stuff all at once (whereas other government organizations spread that cost out over a number of years).

 

I won't judge until know what the source of the stupidity actually is.

Maybe 20 different "recognized" languages.

[Gene Frenkle]

Inefficiency is usually rewarded with a bigger budget the following year.

 

That's a bit trite, care to back it up with some numbers?

[/dev/null]

That's a bit trite, care to back it up with some numbers?

 

I know quite a few military and federal workers. If they do not spend all of their FY11 budget, the amount that they saved is cut from FY12 budget. They also have a budget range where they might not spend the exact amount, they might spend a little less or a little more it's no big deal. But if they fall outside the range by spending too much or not enough, they get in trouble.

 

My favorite was a former IT on a Carrier. Their IT shop was way under budget in September (end of FY) so they bought batting cages for the hangar bay. Played ball for awhile, then donated it to a park in England.

[OCinBuffalo]

It doesn't...your original statement was just too broad.

 

There's a need for bureaucracy...but the tendency of bureaucracies is to grow and become self-justifying. Perfect example: I had to go somewhere to get a federal ID badge yesterday. That involved approvals from five different people, two different physical escorts into a building (each of which had to be scheduled), three forms (one of which had to be filled out twice - not once and copied, but actually filled out), and three different data entry people...one of which screwed up the data entry, meaning I have to go back next week and start all over again. Half those people and half the forms, easily, could be eliminated from the process.

 

A better example, though, of the nightmare of bureaucracy run amok is Nazi Germany (and I mean "nightmare" in the metaphorical, non-Holocaust sense). Read up on the history and structure of that government if you want to see how wasteful bloated bureaucracy is.

I have spent my entire working life destroying bureaucracy. In governments, corporations, and utilities.

 

I have found all sorts of organizational buffoonery, but it usually centers on:

a.) somebody had an ulterior motive for creating the organizational unit ->

in government, it is usually a payoff in jobs for supporters,

in corporations, it is usually a VP's attempt at gaining power = "the more people I have working for me, the more power I can say I have, and the more power I have over the other VPs",

in utilities, and I am sure it's the same in schools, it's about budget, you'd rather create more and more "work", a sort of buffer, so you can justify more and more budget, so that if you have to cut back, you get to be in control of what is cut, rather than facing arbitrary cuts you can't control.

 

b.) laziness/weakness. It's far easier to create new resources to throw at a problem than it is to retool and gain additional productivity from your existing ones. This has the added benefit of allowing executive level managers more places to promote people, rather than having to make tough decisions.

 

c.) non-thinking/bad managers. Most of the organizational problems and massive waste I find could have been easily avoided, had the suit who created them not been an idiot, or was willing to take on and own the problem, or had put in the effort to do their jobs properly, for whatever reason. I think most of the dumb managers I find probably used their brains way back when, but, over time, they settle in and just look to do the bare minimum. IF they actually put in the effort, they would make their work life easier, not harder, and the fact that they don't get that fascinates me.

 

In actuality the whole thing fascinates me, which is why I do it.

 

Disclaimer: just because I usually find these things doesn't mean I always do, or that I go looking for these things. Honesty, the discipline of doing the analysis properly every time, and true objectivity is what makes a consultant worth the title.

 

In any event, you want to know why bureaucracy gets out of control? More often than not, a-c is present someplace.

[....lybob]

I have spent my entire working life destroying bureaucracy. In governments, corporations, and utilities.

 

I have found all sorts of organizational buffoonery, but it usually centers on:

a.) somebody had an ulterior motive for creating the organizational unit ->

in government, it is usually a payoff in jobs for supporters,

in corporations, it is usually a VP's attempt at gaining power = "the more people I have working for me, the more power I can say I have, and the more power I have over the other VPs",

in utilities, and I am sure it's the same in schools, it's about budget, you'd rather create more and more "work", a sort of buffer, so you can justify more and more budget, so that if you have to cut back, you get to be in control of what is cut, rather than facing arbitrary cuts you can't control.

 

b.) laziness/weakness. It's far easier to create new resources to throw at a problem than it is to retool and gain additional productivity from your existing ones. This has the added benefit of allowing executive level managers more places to promote people, rather than having to make tough decisions.

 

c.) non-thinking/bad managers. Most of the organizational problems and massive waste I find could have been easily avoided, had the suit who created them not been an idiot, or was willing to take on and own the problem, or had put in the effort to do their jobs properly, for whatever reason. I think most of the dumb managers I find probably used their brains way back when, but, over time, they settle in and just look to do the bare minimum. IF they actually put in the effort, they would make their work life easier, not harder, and the fact that they don't get that fascinates me.

 

In actuality the whole thing fascinates me, which is why I do it.

 

Disclaimer: just because I usually find these things doesn't mean I always do, or that I go looking for these things. Honesty, the discipline of doing the analysis properly every time, and true objectivity is what makes a consultant worth the title.

 

In any event, you want to know why bureaucracy gets out of control? More often than not, a-c is present someplace.

[Gene Frenkle]

I have spent my entire working life destroying bureaucracy. In governments, corporations, and utilities.

 

I have found all sorts of organizational buffoonery, but it usually centers on:

a.) somebody had an ulterior motive for creating the organizational unit ->

in government, it is usually a payoff in jobs for supporters,

in corporations, it is usually a VP's attempt at gaining power = "the more people I have working for me, the more power I can say I have, and the more power I have over the other VPs",

in utilities, and I am sure it's the same in schools, it's about budget, you'd rather create more and more "work", a sort of buffer, so you can justify more and more budget, so that if you have to cut back, you get to be in control of what is cut, rather than facing arbitrary cuts you can't control.

 

b.) laziness/weakness. It's far easier to create new resources to throw at a problem than it is to retool and gain additional productivity from your existing ones. This has the added benefit of allowing executive level managers more places to promote people, rather than having to make tough decisions.

 

c.) non-thinking/bad managers. Most of the organizational problems and massive waste I find could have been easily avoided, had the suit who created them not been an idiot, or was willing to take on and own the problem, or had put in the effort to do their jobs properly, for whatever reason. I think most of the dumb managers I find probably used their brains way back when, but, over time, they settle in and just look to do the bare minimum. IF they actually put in the effort, they would make their work life easier, not harder, and the fact that they don't get that fascinates me.

 

In actuality the whole thing fascinates me, which is why I do it.

 

Disclaimer: just because I usually find these things doesn't mean I always do, or that I go looking for these things. Honesty, the discipline of doing the analysis properly every time, and true objectivity is what makes a consultant worth the title.

 

In any event, you want to know why bureaucracy gets out of control? More often than not, a-c is present someplace.

I love me some me!

[Rob's House]

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your responses, but are you guys actually trying to defend bureaucracy on the grounds of efficiency?

[Peace]

"I love some me."

 

Gene, I knew I'd agree with you eventually.

[....lybob]

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your responses, but are you guys actually trying to defend bureaucracy on the grounds of efficiency?

yes

[OCinBuffalo]

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your responses, but are you guys actually trying to defend bureaucracy on the grounds of efficiency?

Nah, they just have no reply at all. The only thing they can do is try to attack me for knowing what I know, doing what I do, etc. Emphasis on try

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and Fail. Again.