First reaction was a worried concern at the news that HMRC records were to be used for the first time to track defaulting fathers failing to supporting a child. The more I thought the more rational it became. We are all required, on penalty of imprisonment, to submit all sort of our personal details to various branches of government. Income Tax is one obvious, but passports, car tax, bm&d certificates, various benefits, the list just goes on. Previously each of these records would be been laboriously penned by clerks into the respective department ledgers and then closely guarded by them. However the information you were legally required to lodge was and still is accessible to any other department with a legitimate right to know. You as a citizen had and have no rights on the use the government makes on any data that they require you to submit. Better, much more efficient, then to have one central source of government held data about each of us, rather than duplicate entries and an increased scope for them to get it wrong or have to justify the same issue multiple times.
It is just a matter of trust. And there is the rub. None of us trust the government any longer. The skilled, experienced pragmatic clerk with discretion to waive or redefine rules occasionally lapsing into the bumbling buffoon has been swept aside by uniform absurdities. Rules to be adhered to without reason, without sense, keeping to a strict interpretation, no matter how inappropriate, thus, keeping the nose clean, without the least risk of criticism, has become the mantra. That is the new wave of inexperienced, mind-numbed data bashers who cannot see the tree, let alone the wood, for the chance of a canker on the leaf. Civil service declining standards and ineptitude is not the only point. Government are on record for abusing the data they gather about us. Selling them on for commercial gain, taking too relaxed a view of our need for privacy about our close personal details and affairs all the way to being too incompetent to guard the data they have either by preventing hacker access or 'leaving' data files for others to pick up.
Paranoia? No, the key details that enable your access to this electronic world and which are the summation of you as a electronic identity are very few. Add a few choice pieces of additional data, either a PAYE number, or employer, or NHS number, or benefit category and it becomes incredibly valuable to large numbers of commercial interests. Which is why they are keen to entice the government to give away our private data with irresistible largess.
If only the government could act responsibly, safeguard our data and be frugal with who has the right to access specific tiers of information with challenging accountability then a joined up government data bank would be the most sensible and logical step. No longer having to prove your identity to Revenue, Housing Benefit, NHS and so on each time. A one-stop shop makes practical sense on this C21. If only. In the meantime a pseudo identity for government purposes but keeping your real electronic self invisible. I dream.
Tuesday 31 January 2012
Friday 27 January 2012
Managing Waste
Once, not so long ago, your local authority was obliged to weekly collect, free of charge, all your rubbish, baring just large items of furniture. Now what rubbish you can put out and when is limited, often subject to challenge and other categories of waste are not collected at all and have to be taken, by you, to your local re-cycling tip where it may not or may be accepted or is subject to a charge.
This issue of re-cycling of our waste has somehow got itself aligned with saving our planet and the climate change agenda. Apart from, a proportionally small, discharge of methane, re-cycling has nothing to do with climate change but has to do with an entirely different issue. Landfill as the only option for getting rid of our waste will run out not too far ahead, we have to change tack. No problem. We all have to re-evaluate what we put out for disposal. No problem. With some two thirds of the world still just surviving hand to mouth and yet to benefit from our assured consumer society. The World's resources cannot furnish ever increasing demands. We have to re-cycle what we have already taken out and not just bury it away, un-useably. No problem. We, the producers of these mountains of rubbish need to be schooled in new ways of sorting it into various materials which can be re-cycled. No problem.
Having spent time in a third world country I am only too aware of how someone there can make an existence from finding a second use from the most unlikely rubbish we discard here without a thought. Old paper cement bags, bent nails, old beans tins, nothing is discarded, in the third world there is always another secondary use. Back home I am shocked, each time I go to the 're-cycling centre', at the enormous quantity, on a daily basis, of quality rubbish we deem only fit for burying underground. Truly shocked at our profligacy. So really I am all in favour of re-cycling. I do get the message, loud and clear. What then is my beef?
Every time I go to take my sorted waste to the re-cycle centre I feel intimidated, harassed, insecure, almost threatened by the men on guard duty. Clearly there has to be monitoring of what actually goes into the various separated wastes so the easy option of landfill is not the first choice. Not a nice task standing there all day, all weathers poking into other peoples rubbish. No surprise then that it is largely a male role for those short on academic achievement. Nor that they come to rely on a macho display to enforce their presence. They do of course have to respond to their managers and their managers have to achieve the targets set by their Councils. This is where my problem begins. My Council, but not just mine, you hear stories from around the country, where Councils, taking different tacks, are similarly antagonising their ratepayers. Councils seem to have totally lost sight of the need to encourage and re-educate. Instead their eyes gleam on the huge savings made possible by this government change in policy and the chance to generate even more money. Forgetting the basic principle you have to take your willing users along with you all the way or risk a backlash. Which is right where we are now.
I really want to co-operate and want to be compliant. I believe in sorting my waste and get a boost when I manage to re-cycle something that previously would be buried. But I also get confused. Why is a bulk oil tin, yes regular valuable tin, with plastic removed and washed out, rejected? Why is paper separate to cardboard and why is this paper ok but not that. Do I really have to remove all the plastic envelope windows, but then what about staples and tapes? That is before we get onto the subject of all the various types and forms of plastics. Some which are, some which are not regardless of whether they are claimed to be recyclable. Why oh why is that paving slab unacceptable and either I have to pay to re-cycle it or put it in with the landfill waste. That is just not right. Then the necessary regular trips the the re-cycle centre to dispose of all that product now deemed to be non-collectable at the kerbside. All those extra car journeys willingly undertaken only to discover the Site is closed. Shut to save money. That really does engender goodwill and co-operation! Fly-tipping in the backwaters of our life is the entirely foreseeable and predictable outcome to all. Apart from those selfsame Councils who maintain the party line. Fly-tipping is routinely monitored and there is no evidence of any increase. How is that for officalise horseshit. Encouragement, information, education and listening are the only routes to succeed in reducing our landfill burden.
This issue of re-cycling of our waste has somehow got itself aligned with saving our planet and the climate change agenda. Apart from, a proportionally small, discharge of methane, re-cycling has nothing to do with climate change but has to do with an entirely different issue. Landfill as the only option for getting rid of our waste will run out not too far ahead, we have to change tack. No problem. We all have to re-evaluate what we put out for disposal. No problem. With some two thirds of the world still just surviving hand to mouth and yet to benefit from our assured consumer society. The World's resources cannot furnish ever increasing demands. We have to re-cycle what we have already taken out and not just bury it away, un-useably. No problem. We, the producers of these mountains of rubbish need to be schooled in new ways of sorting it into various materials which can be re-cycled. No problem.
Having spent time in a third world country I am only too aware of how someone there can make an existence from finding a second use from the most unlikely rubbish we discard here without a thought. Old paper cement bags, bent nails, old beans tins, nothing is discarded, in the third world there is always another secondary use. Back home I am shocked, each time I go to the 're-cycling centre', at the enormous quantity, on a daily basis, of quality rubbish we deem only fit for burying underground. Truly shocked at our profligacy. So really I am all in favour of re-cycling. I do get the message, loud and clear. What then is my beef?
Every time I go to take my sorted waste to the re-cycle centre I feel intimidated, harassed, insecure, almost threatened by the men on guard duty. Clearly there has to be monitoring of what actually goes into the various separated wastes so the easy option of landfill is not the first choice. Not a nice task standing there all day, all weathers poking into other peoples rubbish. No surprise then that it is largely a male role for those short on academic achievement. Nor that they come to rely on a macho display to enforce their presence. They do of course have to respond to their managers and their managers have to achieve the targets set by their Councils. This is where my problem begins. My Council, but not just mine, you hear stories from around the country, where Councils, taking different tacks, are similarly antagonising their ratepayers. Councils seem to have totally lost sight of the need to encourage and re-educate. Instead their eyes gleam on the huge savings made possible by this government change in policy and the chance to generate even more money. Forgetting the basic principle you have to take your willing users along with you all the way or risk a backlash. Which is right where we are now.
I really want to co-operate and want to be compliant. I believe in sorting my waste and get a boost when I manage to re-cycle something that previously would be buried. But I also get confused. Why is a bulk oil tin, yes regular valuable tin, with plastic removed and washed out, rejected? Why is paper separate to cardboard and why is this paper ok but not that. Do I really have to remove all the plastic envelope windows, but then what about staples and tapes? That is before we get onto the subject of all the various types and forms of plastics. Some which are, some which are not regardless of whether they are claimed to be recyclable. Why oh why is that paving slab unacceptable and either I have to pay to re-cycle it or put it in with the landfill waste. That is just not right. Then the necessary regular trips the the re-cycle centre to dispose of all that product now deemed to be non-collectable at the kerbside. All those extra car journeys willingly undertaken only to discover the Site is closed. Shut to save money. That really does engender goodwill and co-operation! Fly-tipping in the backwaters of our life is the entirely foreseeable and predictable outcome to all. Apart from those selfsame Councils who maintain the party line. Fly-tipping is routinely monitored and there is no evidence of any increase. How is that for officalise horseshit. Encouragement, information, education and listening are the only routes to succeed in reducing our landfill burden.
Tuesday 3 January 2012
Finding a New Way
On reflection, there are perhaps three major areas of interest in these posts, the community, the political voice and how we value people. I circle around trying to hone in on the core issues but it all changes depending on where you start from and which direction you look in. Bear with me. My current pre-occupation is with how we value people. Looking back at Tax, Salaries & Reward, Raising Revenue, That Extra Mile, even Unemployed, I have touched on several interrelated aspects. Now it is time to dig a little deeper.
There are no absolutes controlling this world. The financial systems we have served their purposes for their time, those systems that worked well, for us, carry us forward. But they are not immutable. They may not even be the best or may have undesirable consequences. That they work is not sufficient reason to stand off and not look at them and ask, is there a better way? We are at the cusp of a new era, IT is changing every parameter of the society we used to know. The future is unmapped, beyond our ken but we do have tools in our hand that we can choose to use to help shift it one way or another. My other posts mentioned at the start gives some indications. Time for another.
The cost of labour. As an accounting unit it is simple to define and therefore simple to totalise, build that into the equation and then calculate your profit or loss. Reduce labour costs, increase profit. Ergo, simple. Except of course life is not simple and the implications and consequences of reducing labour costs are far from simple and have radical society wide impact. Yet if you cannot produce a profit, you cannot continue to produce. Without 'production' there is no call for labour. But life is not simple. We do have to find another way of looking at labour other than just as a cost.
I have touched on it before. Human interactions are best carried out between humans, machine or automated processes just cannot cope with the complexity that a human persons life introduces into the proceedings. Deskilling is a current economic vogue. Break complicated task down into simpler routines, write out the controlling parameters and then teach junior grade staff to perform these simpler routines. Job done and money saved. If only. As an illustration a NHS Staff Nurse when they sit by the bedside of a patient are monitoring the patient for health signs, for verbal indications of well-being and sensory evaluating that all things are in place. Their training but most of all their experience enable them carry out this complex appraisal quickly before passing onto the next patient. Not so the ward assistant charged with serving food, or changing bedclothes, issuing medicines or washing the patient. Simple narrowly focussed tasks that tick the task boxes but misses that experienced overview. How is the Staff Nurse trapped in the office appraising reports of task completed by junior staff ever going to get the time to overview the patient behind these individuals tasks done? The junior staff do not have the training nor experience to understand when something is wrong that can be changed. The boxes are ticked but we are left in a bad place. How does that feel when you complete an automated call process? Wouldn't a voice call to an operator have been faster, more efficient and most of all felt a better experience. Even granting a low calibre operator!
We have to change the way people are valued in the work place. The cost of labour is not the be and end all. Some companies are beginning to respond to this issue, reverting back to human intervention. A "I see what you say" defuses the potential for conflict but unless to drives on to a resolution is only a feel good panacea. The underlying satisfaction surveys have too get a lot smarter. Is not how good we rate the experience but the ease and efficiency by which the problem is resolved that should count. Let us reward problem identification and resolution.
A machine can outperform a tennis player in predetermined shots but can never be a match for the instant anticipation, response and calculated unplayable reply in reaction to a random challenging serve or return. The human mind is fine tuned to compute all those thousands of measurements calculations and positional changes required, unmatched by any foreseeable machine. Let us reward the learnt and adaptable exercise of fine motor controls in novel situations.
We are surrounded and swamped with examples of creative thinking. Machines can be brilliant at producing and searching for viable permutations from selected factors and we are beginning to discover techniques where by 'machine' can learn to optimise a response to a predetermined problem. We humans have been doing it for thousands of years, seeing a problem and coming up with a solution that has no precedent and is not dependant on the starting out position. Lets us reward the outcome of creative thinking.
Today a man was celebrated because his last expression of anger was more than twentyfive years ago, all put down to the benefits of meditation. Whatever route taken some people are able to offer a calming restorative good humoured response to others dealing with life's problems. Lets us reward those that help us back to good humour.
Lets us reward all those intrinsically human attributes that enrich our lives together, based not on the hours of time spent but on the outcomes. Outcomes that contribute to all our better well-beings. Rewards for a job well-done and not for the time spent doing it well or otherwise. Job well-done measured by the human satisfaction with the outcome and not some abstract rule or measure or specification of acceptability. We must relearn how to use humans to their achieve their optimum and then reward them proportionately for those achievements. Let machines do the donkey work they are best suited to. In the end only a human can finally decide whether that fact, trawled from zillions of possibles, is actually relevant to the question in hand.
There are no absolutes controlling this world. The financial systems we have served their purposes for their time, those systems that worked well, for us, carry us forward. But they are not immutable. They may not even be the best or may have undesirable consequences. That they work is not sufficient reason to stand off and not look at them and ask, is there a better way? We are at the cusp of a new era, IT is changing every parameter of the society we used to know. The future is unmapped, beyond our ken but we do have tools in our hand that we can choose to use to help shift it one way or another. My other posts mentioned at the start gives some indications. Time for another.
The cost of labour. As an accounting unit it is simple to define and therefore simple to totalise, build that into the equation and then calculate your profit or loss. Reduce labour costs, increase profit. Ergo, simple. Except of course life is not simple and the implications and consequences of reducing labour costs are far from simple and have radical society wide impact. Yet if you cannot produce a profit, you cannot continue to produce. Without 'production' there is no call for labour. But life is not simple. We do have to find another way of looking at labour other than just as a cost.
I have touched on it before. Human interactions are best carried out between humans, machine or automated processes just cannot cope with the complexity that a human persons life introduces into the proceedings. Deskilling is a current economic vogue. Break complicated task down into simpler routines, write out the controlling parameters and then teach junior grade staff to perform these simpler routines. Job done and money saved. If only. As an illustration a NHS Staff Nurse when they sit by the bedside of a patient are monitoring the patient for health signs, for verbal indications of well-being and sensory evaluating that all things are in place. Their training but most of all their experience enable them carry out this complex appraisal quickly before passing onto the next patient. Not so the ward assistant charged with serving food, or changing bedclothes, issuing medicines or washing the patient. Simple narrowly focussed tasks that tick the task boxes but misses that experienced overview. How is the Staff Nurse trapped in the office appraising reports of task completed by junior staff ever going to get the time to overview the patient behind these individuals tasks done? The junior staff do not have the training nor experience to understand when something is wrong that can be changed. The boxes are ticked but we are left in a bad place. How does that feel when you complete an automated call process? Wouldn't a voice call to an operator have been faster, more efficient and most of all felt a better experience. Even granting a low calibre operator!
We have to change the way people are valued in the work place. The cost of labour is not the be and end all. Some companies are beginning to respond to this issue, reverting back to human intervention. A "I see what you say" defuses the potential for conflict but unless to drives on to a resolution is only a feel good panacea. The underlying satisfaction surveys have too get a lot smarter. Is not how good we rate the experience but the ease and efficiency by which the problem is resolved that should count. Let us reward problem identification and resolution.
A machine can outperform a tennis player in predetermined shots but can never be a match for the instant anticipation, response and calculated unplayable reply in reaction to a random challenging serve or return. The human mind is fine tuned to compute all those thousands of measurements calculations and positional changes required, unmatched by any foreseeable machine. Let us reward the learnt and adaptable exercise of fine motor controls in novel situations.
We are surrounded and swamped with examples of creative thinking. Machines can be brilliant at producing and searching for viable permutations from selected factors and we are beginning to discover techniques where by 'machine' can learn to optimise a response to a predetermined problem. We humans have been doing it for thousands of years, seeing a problem and coming up with a solution that has no precedent and is not dependant on the starting out position. Lets us reward the outcome of creative thinking.
Today a man was celebrated because his last expression of anger was more than twentyfive years ago, all put down to the benefits of meditation. Whatever route taken some people are able to offer a calming restorative good humoured response to others dealing with life's problems. Lets us reward those that help us back to good humour.
Lets us reward all those intrinsically human attributes that enrich our lives together, based not on the hours of time spent but on the outcomes. Outcomes that contribute to all our better well-beings. Rewards for a job well-done and not for the time spent doing it well or otherwise. Job well-done measured by the human satisfaction with the outcome and not some abstract rule or measure or specification of acceptability. We must relearn how to use humans to their achieve their optimum and then reward them proportionately for those achievements. Let machines do the donkey work they are best suited to. In the end only a human can finally decide whether that fact, trawled from zillions of possibles, is actually relevant to the question in hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)