Conference 7.286::digital

re: .0

I guess I don't understand your local bureaucracy.  No Capital Appropriation
Request I've ever filled out called out exact part numbers.  The only times
I've ever had to go back through the signature loop was if I didn't have
enough money on the CAR.  Changing the IEG order only required me to give 
them a call (confirming the change with electronic mail).

I've changed orders many times in order to improve delivery because my 
first choice wasn't currently available.

Since you aren't going to overspend your CAR, why don't you just phone up 
IEG and make the change?  (The IEG folks will tell you the availability of 
the parts you want to substitute, and the scheduling impact of your 
proposed change.)

Ray

    Hi Ray,
    
        I have been told by an individual at a much higher level than mine
    that this action would violate the CAR approval process. I suppose it
    would be much easier to say nothing and make the change, but I would 
    then be forced to ask myself why there is an approval loop in the first 
    place. I believe we have one so that the people involved know what is 
    going on in their organizations. 
        If everyone in the corporation were to make changes to CARs due to 
    time constraints aren't we then appeasing the system and not getting 
    what we need on time as advertised ? I think that if we are adamant 
    about what we need and when we need it we will help manufacturing,
    finance, shipping, purchasing, service delivery, sales, engineering,
    business planning......etc. work together more fluently. For this 
    reason I applaud this individual for making a solid case and hopefully
    uncovering a problem to which there is an absolute solution.
    
    I think all of our organizations need to work together as a team and 
    identify problems such as this that exist. 

    Please take this in the context that it is intended....but a 65K
    savings in five years simply isn't worth pursueing.  65 Million
    maybe.
    
    Our corporate administrative tail (or head...or whatever) is that it
    costs us more than 65K to not do anything.

    RE: .3
    
     Understood. What happened to a penny saved is a penny earned ? My
     intention in starting this note was to try and spark some thought 
     when developing and implementing projects not to just suggest this 
     particular case. If 100 project managers were able to save 65K over
     5 years each that would be a hefty chunk (6.5M) and a boon to the
     corporation. 
     For the purposes of this note I am looking at the matrix as a bunch
     of small streams that converge in a mighty rush whose only goal is 
     to get to the ocean. Once the convergence takes place, it is not 
     possible to alter the thundering waters without a lot of effort. We 
     need to find a way to combine the streams at their starting points
     in order to ensure a smooth course that benefits all of the
     inhabitants that otherwise would not be able to survive.
     Also, the level of rushing water is not ever constant. It is
     controlled by the amount of supply from the source. Therefore if
     you can achieve control points for supply the balance at convergence
     is much easier to attain during dry spells. This in a like manner
     to business helps to alleviate the possibility of dry spells from
     occuring. 
    
     I say to go with the small wins as often as possible and let the bean
     counters tally the score. The big ones don't happen every day.  
         
     Please say more...............DQ
    

   I tend to agree with the author of .3 (Cookie::lennard) While we need to be
   cautious with spending, I think there is a current state where we are being
   "Penny wise, pound foolish" and are nickel and dime-ing our selves down a
   hole.
   
   I think that reaction that the field has shown to the expressed necessity
   for a minor downsizing of the corporation, during a short period of
   economic quiescence, has been over-reacted to, and this is being observed
   by our customers who perceive it as a state of panic, not sound business
   controls...
   
   q
   

re .3

>   Please take this in the context that it is intended....but a 65K
>   savings in five years simply isn't worth pursueing.  65 Million
>   maybe.
>   
>   Our corporate administrative tail (or head...or whatever) is that it
>   costs us more than 65K to not do anything.

On the other hand, even $10 saved per employee (apologies for U.S. currency
provincialism here) is $1,250,000 per year. $100 per employee is $12,500,000.
Economics of scale is a two-edged sword.

/Peters