Comments on: New software, old process, big mistake

By: Scot Mcphee

Scot Mcphee — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 02:56:50 +0000

But sending your letters through the typing pool (if you have a typing pool the letter itself would be typed there), IS a different process to using a ‘mail-merge’ program – presumably the marketing directory can upload to that program a word file that contains the letter and the addresses are selected from the company CRM.

Eliminating the typing pool isn’t exactly a micro-optimisation. They’ve replaced the typists and a part-time typewriter mechanic with an entire IT infrastructure and department, so it’s not necessarily cheaper, either. It has enabled the business to do new things they could not do before – like access their entire customer database at once, and keep a history of all interactions will each customer too.

By: Robert Watkins

Robert Watkins — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:29:38 +0000

Actually, software _can_ be used to do micro-optimisation of inefficient processes. E.g. using a mail merge from a customer database to send out form letters is more efficient than printing off 10 customer details at a time and giving them to the stenographers in the typing pool to fill out on the pre-printed stationary.

These micro-optimisations have, in the past, produced considerable cost savings. It’s obvious why they are popular – they are simple to identify, simple to implement, and simple to prove they worked. Management loves them.

The problem is – in any organisation even remotely serious about improving, they’ve already all been done.

By: Scot Mcphee

Scot Mcphee — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:26:59 +0000

Ben, a business process that is inefficient, needs to improve, i.e.change the process. No amount of software, in absence of process improvement, will achieve this. IMHO.

By: Ben Ihle

Ben Ihle — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:09:16 +0000

“I don’t hold that software makes an existing business process ‘efficient’ at all”

I Don’t know about that… have you seen some business processes? Software is all about automating manual or inefficient processes. I do agree however that if it isn’t broken, it shouldn’t be fixed unless it allows for new growth (which I believe is the thrust of what you are saying).

BTW, I don’t think you are allowed to use ‘IMHO’