I have a very similar story. In the late 60's when IBM was still
basking in the glow of the System 360 and making money hand over fist I
became extraordinarily frustrated one day after being on the job only
several months. I was a very young whippersnapper working in production
planning and trying to apply some basic techniques of operations
research that I had learned in school.
But it didn't take long for me to learn that the leading light in data
processing couldn't even keep an accurate count of its own parts
inventories. Trying to apply scientific methods to the control of
sometimes grossly inaccurate numbers was useless. I remember lamenting
to a couple of "old timers" (guys who were probably 40 at the time)
with: "How can we possibly make so much money when we're so totally
screwed up?" The immediate response was a simple "We're just less
screwed up than the other guys."
I abandoned operations research methods forever and became a campaigner
for accurate records... something also championed by the Stanley Tool
Works. I do hope it's better today.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> I remember a long ago discussion with a very bright and ambitious young
> woman who had been working there a few months. As she got the lay of the
> land, she was more and more confused. She asked me how a bunch of dodos
> like the ones running that place (at that time, we met regularly with
> the CEO, CFO, president, etc. in meetings where they made decisions
> about the spending of multi millions of $) could possibly stay in
> business, let alone thrive, for so long. I gave the logical and truthful
> answer, because the competition is roughly equally incompetent. She soon
> left to work in a city planning office, where she became the boss rather
> quickly and very young.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|