Fight Bureaucracy With Personal Responsibility

After the reading too many articles concerning the need for eliminating from the cumbersome processes in industry I found thinking of the roots of the bureaucracy. Processes are made to guide the execution of the action, and invariably include points of control of approval to ensure these actions were carried out. While processes must be simplified and automated thereafter, the points of control are truths killers of productivity. On the lack of confidence and inefficienciesSome are offended by what they consider a lack of confidence, others are afflicted by acquisition thwarted with the equipment which could make their work more effective. I was on the two camps, but I obtained thereafter above the two feelings. Reason? To show me that a person with a certain good direction and me will show you four other people which cannot say of what they have need for what they want. With the root of the bureaucracy one will often find the need for ordering the use of the common resourc! es, if it is approval for the construction of a wall or the acquisition of a new router of network. In an interminable loop, people "I need the resource in the manners of lucky find of camp to do my work" around the processes and the bureaucracy answers with more points of order. The bureaucracy thrives of the intersection of the resources limited with the inventive people. The executives and the purchasesRemove of keyboard all points of order, and you soon my have a tragedy of the communal grounds on your hands. Naturally, the extreme case of a senior staff approving a purchase US$200 should be avoided. On the one hand, US$200 can be the cost of that together supplied with keyboard, mouse, and loudspeakers which seem large with the working station of replacement that you received last week. The personal liability with the rescueIn the tragedy for the communal grounds, the only known solution is to eliminate or reduce the "communal grounds" in favour of the personal propert! y, that which this resource can be. Karl Marx would not be pro! ud. Scot t Adams once suggested, in the serious part of its excellent "principle of Dilbert", that the companies really gave the money to the employees for the purchase of the office accessories instead of the traditional racks of provisioning drew aside by the building. It would be up to the employees individually to buy the provisioning which they had need or keep of the money. The real quantity is of no importance - the bean which the meters have all numbers they must calculate that quantity - but the company should not any more charge the personnel of support of those charges. Could true question, one east test and stretch this approach with the portable computers or the personal office computers? In much of geographies, the cost of these machines can compete the monthly wages their users. What occurs when you will distribute the money for the equipment which should last 3 years and the person leaves the company before the period more? To confiscate that that they did buy or to r! equire a refunding? To solve this enigma and the end of the bureaucracy can be current. Denilson Nastacio is a Engineer Software at a large company. During years of experiment observing the interactions between his colleagues, directors, and frameworks, it observed several models of repetition drawn from science, the religion, and the policy. It maintains a blog, called the rollers of RTP, where it writes about the cyclic influence between the individuals and the organizations help to explain how and why each side reacts to the actions on other side. Source of article: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Denilson_Nastacio
loan personals