All 44 entries tagged Mbe
May 05, 2012
Coming from MBE, I was looking forward to MoC as being another interesting learning experience where I would also get an opportunity to add to my knowledge for the purpose of my dissertation. But then again, I was not at all expecting an exhaustive module the way Paul’s modules are. The Simulation in MoC has been by far the most stimulating self awareness experience of my time here at Warwick.
“Dee, the MD has certain responsibilities like all managers and they all need to focus on them”, “I am just a shop-floor worker, I have no power.” Such were my questions during the first day of the simulation, I thought that senior management had objectives to follow and that the failure of the organization to deliver was due to their utter recklessness. I considered I had many brilliant ideas but I needed; by all means, some measure of power or control to initiate these ideas.
After realizing that I myself needed to makes a conscious effort, I began contributing towards to the bigger picture, to do more than just remain at the shop-floor and manufacture the products. I considered that I could contribute more to the company; I thought that my abilities were not being fully exploited. Believe me I have felt this before during my previous modules and in my under-graduate and this need to contribute more to the group/team/company, has always been in me maybe because of my debating experiences where I have had to gain general knowledge. I have always felt that my contribution; the one which Paul considers ‘voluntary engagement over and above compliance’, has always been geared towards increasing the effectiveness of the group. What I learned after applying this conscious effort was that I was rather disrupting the situation at hand, I was barging into the responsibilities of others. While I considered increasing the efficiency I was reducing it and conclusively not assisting the change which was to take place. I learned that I wanted to ‘do’ while I also wanted to provide direction and be a major part of the process. This ‘doing’ of processes whilst also providing direction is something I consider as my special skill but I believe I should thank Dee for making it clear to me, that it could also be considered as a fear. A fear that I do not trust others with the work at hand and want to become a part of the ‘doing’ process in order to obtain that credibility of the work that is being done.
This urge of mine to be a major part of the process is something I discovered during my under-graduate years, I knew I was good at it and that is not because I eventually; by hook or crook, became a major part of the process but because I lead in groups and became a wanted leader in groups and teams for academic and extra curricular purposes. But even in those times, I was always directing the group towards the vision whilst also ‘doing’ things by myself so that I could become a contributing person and not just somebody who likes to boss around. What I found during this simulation was that my skills towards creating strategy and providing direction to the colleagues within my department is an attribute of mine which was working, it could be seen to be understood by others and implemented by others with a sense of ownership as well. Coming to the point of having a fear, I have been thinking a lot it and I think it can very well be structured in that sense that I do not find credibility in the work that is being done by my team/group/company department etc. the only probably way to improve this fear is to give in, to let go of the trust issues that I have inside and trust the team with the responsibility which is theirs. I believe this is something I need to think about seriously and then implement it in my next simulation, group project or in my professional life. And after all, being responsible managers does not mean to be engaged and doing the work like others but rather keeping a distance from the people who are working and assessing their work from a distance. Provide direction and clarify their problems (if any).
MoC in its entirety has been a learning experience, a reflection of my personality and skills and how others view certain abilities of mine in their own justified perceptions. Perceptions matter a lot to a leader because that is the first person impression of his followers and it needs to be such so that the vision can be achieved. Change leaders are within the specific time frame, more able persons than leaders and they need to have a more influential power so that the followers come out of their comfort zone. Change leaders also need to be looking at the bigger picture and also carefully handle the responsibility to their subordinates. I believe that in order to become a successful change leader, I need to incorporate these traits in my skill cap. I know that my approach regarding providing direction and clarification is not as bad but I need to move away from my subordinates so that I can give them space to act and change their mind-set so that they can incorporate the change which they are going through. After all, the question comes down to the effectiveness of the team/group/company as a whole and not just my individual effectiveness and thus I need to look further into myself in order to find areas where improvement will make me more effective as a change leader.
April 30, 2012
1st day at MOC and should i say there was chaos!!!
it was chaotic!!!
i could see that the sales manager, the MD, the R&D, the dispatcher, almost everyone was coming to our area and asking about the products while we kept saying that we don't have the batteries to work with!!!
we lost our 1st 3 orders because of that.
and although the supplier issue was eliminated afterwards there were a lot of managerial issues that were not working properly for the organization to perform to it's optimum capacity.
we highlighted many issues and i realized that theses issues are realistic in nature.
communication issues exist everywhere and need to be sorted out.
Not by everyone and not by the MD at all times.
the MD at times needs his juniors to direct the vision and strategy in a fashion that can be taken with positive note and acted upon. Further more the managers need to work in collaboration with other parties since it is all linked.
an issue which was raised today that if we work on our roles we will resolve all issues.
I see this differently because the roles of everybody are linked together.
there is an input, a process and an output.
This is the basic function required by every manager/employee.
they have to recieve something, process it and then further the process to the other dept.
If we all can understand the layout or routing the process and respect it in the manner following orders from our direct superiors then things can work.
But then again, this is the minimum compliance level which is expected of us and as change managers we are supposed to go far beyond this as we have to maintain the current situation, plan for a new direction and also lead the company and all members of the company in that direction, assisting them and resolving their concerns in all ways.
Now, a manager/senior does not neccessarily have to resolve the issues by hand, just provide a direction and clarify what is wanted of them...the actual work needs to be done by the people responsible.
i have put many ideas today, including division of dept's geographically.
Direct orders according to the hierarchy level explained in the organizational structure.
R&D to put forth questions infront of the customers in order to recieve info about potential products that can be brought.
Resolve issues with our suppliers because, we are one team for the customer.
So, we need to consider our suppliers as a one team and work with them, use one of the KM strategies to share knowledge with suppliers in order to release the tensions and also focus on more important issues like having JIT concept work in reality (although this is not possible for the simulation).
Let's hope if these are correct measures to be used and are implemented.
I do take complete responsibility for my ideas and will appreciate if ppl consider taking risks and playing safe.
change management requires one to take risks, calculated risks but at times they have to take a leap of faith.
April 29, 2012
i received a mail the other day for a module that i have to attend starting tomorrow.
It says something like this.
So, in essence from the introductory para, i should firmly believe that the instructor will be explaining everything in such a manner that we will all understand and (if) by chance a colleague or myself for some coincidence do not realize the potential or value of this module, it is totally to be blamed on the student, who by the way is also paying.
Now i believe i should bring in the point of view of Paul here as well.
Isn't it obvious that as we are working in a team, we would want to be giving voluntary commitment and engagement over and above the compliance level?
Then why structure something the obvious and common into a "Contract". A contract saying, 'if i am absent on my part at (any time) during this module week, the 2 mentioned breach of contract terms are liable on me.
Please someone make me understand, i am already fearing what the instructor might say if i end up asking him/her.
April 27, 2012
so I recalled a discussion we had during the CBE module regarding management systems. I recall correctly that at certain stages I was blindly supporting ISO and could not accept that EFQM could be a better system than this.
I remember we also had a presentation/seminar regarding this and I still did not believe so.
this was only after the module had ended that during the post module period I found the comprehensive details about EFQM and that it involves quite more than what I gave it credit for.
I realize today, that ISO is merealy a small tool infront of a management system with such a level of magnitude, EFQM is a system which involves a range of strategies, theories in order to make an excellent organization in all levels of the organization.
April 26, 2012
although we have left out the People Management in KM & AM.
I believed, found throuh research that it is indeed the People Management which leads to the maximum utilization of Knowledge management.
Further than that, i believe now what one colleague of mine said earlier during the LE module that Leaders are those who have followers. Although there is certain degree to which i agree now, i firmly believe that a leader cannot achieve the vision he so professes without a dedicated management team which is there to follow, a leader needs support as he cannot at times (generally most of the times) carry out all individual minute details of the process.
I currently am experiencing this concern once again, the same issue i dealt with during my under-grad.
A leader not being able to provide a strategy, and followers not assisting in the development of a strategy.
Furthermore, followers not following for no particular reason.
Followers requiring extensive time to understand the problem at hand.
Followers not coming with solutions but rather more problems which they foresee.
It is more important to choose a team which supports and follows than it is to pursue an idea all alone
April 23, 2012
i have always admired what my father taught me, may it be informal discussions where we bring about our own point of views or when he would transfer a lesson from his life.
this was waay back, when i was child that my father inculcated this habit in my personality of noticing things. it's the way he mentioned that you should observe everything around you, question how things are and evaluate why they are the way.
Later as i grew up, he gave me another lesson.
"be alive, throughout your life"
Little did i know that this was all a part of a bigger lesson which he let me dissolve in my personality through years of practice and that too when i was still a child.
Today, while Paul introduced us to the workshop the headline caught my eye "Unclear and present danger".
it quickly brought me to think about the dangers we are not expecting, anticipating while following the daily routine of our lives. That our observation leads to create a model inside our mind about the daily dangers which can be anticipated unconsciously if we integrate them in our model.
And although the workshop dealt in identifying and labelling a few processes with duly given names, stages, errors and factors etc. i consider that observation on a routine basis and an innate habit can lead to fully utilizing the mind in identifying the dangers.
an example of which can simply be that managers observe and question their sub ordinates on the maintenance procedures, they don't miss out on inquiring about all the necessary points and also regarding a few of those which are not in the maintenance schedule list but have been observed by the team.
April 19, 2012
it has been quite a while since i read more about the ISO standards and i would say without doubt that it was Paul who introduced us to the EFQM model, the MBNQA and the Deming Prize as well. Managements systems far more powerful and complete that it felt as if my eyes had been shut for a long time. But then, this certain lack of general knowledge was due to the region i belong to.
Going through the introductory stages of Knowledge Management and asset based KM i seem to create a similarity between the procedures and the standardization process of the ISO 9001:2008 and KM.
During the stages of the ISO 9001:2008 implementation, processes, techniques are to be created (or written as they are being followed) and then furthermore maintained in order to share knowledge which has been created. At certain instances, the knowledge is evaluated and procedures are reduced to increase efficiency (this does not happen in a minute but involves the management and quality department, follows a number of stages before such a thing can happen).
Does ISO standards implementation emcompass a certain degree of Knowledge management?
April 18, 2012
my apologies, firstly to myself and secondly to the leader which resides within me.
I was unable to make it to the KBAM introduction lecture which i missed due to health issues...
but i had to justify myself that i would still make it to the discussion and indeed did with some reading from the webnotes provided. To my surprise what seemed to be an interesting module turned out to be one where immense research would need to be carried out in order to come to some mature discussion stage.
i have noticed and so have a few other colleagues of mine that there is a certain lazyness in the air, colleagues are in that stage of 'getting it done now' and not following the appropriate process which is required by every individual module in it's individualistic manner.
KBAM requires a lot of background study and it is pertinent for all the members of the group or a group to mutually understand the basics underlying the concept. one should remember despite dozens of books, journals and articles there hasn't been a definite agreeable definiton of Knowledge Management. This fact means there will be further detailed, different and distinctive concepts which will we all will come to know of.
April 17, 2012
Looking at the academic sources to find the advantages and the situations where decision tools were used begs to think that we as students did quite a job in taking our decision making tools.
i soo much found an article which supported the coalition of Decision Tree and AHP, this was our decision regarding the selection of the location for wave riders production plant. Could this be that our mental awareness has increased during the past few months and that we have begun to analyze situations in a better and more analytical manner?
March 27, 2012
it was quite an insightful first day at the International Joint Ventures module.
Oliver quite dominantly explained his analogy that collaborations are entities which are equal and that an urge to control does come into force. he considered that collaborations are like marriages and that there comes a point where it is 'also' about control, although this was his light side to this discussion it really did put me off! but i'm glad he gave me comfort by saying, the 1st year will be a gudd year :)
regarding his argument i had something to say myself as well.
this is along the lines that not all the companies or corporations are equal and especially not in the case when firms are trying to collaborate. they are not equal in size, structure, financial wealth, technology, factors of production/service, economies of scale etc
in a case where they are equal, which is a realistic picture and does take place, they will economically seem as competitors but they would in most cases belong to different markets and would be divided...
In the case, where they are not equal.
The companies expect different things during the collaborative period, some go for brand support, otherws want economies of scale in production purposes by outsourcing their components or complete products to reduce costs. It may be in the case in order to support their CSR policy.
Some companies are big and others are small or comparatively small,at such instances obviously the shark wants to have control over the fish (collaborative process/period/task/objective/goal) but then for the fish isn't looking for control. It's objective for the collaboration was never control and neither could it be.
they are looking for things which under their grasp and which are achievable, knowledge, management practices, job training methods, professionalism, insight to shared data, brand support, growth, recognition, firm credibility etc