Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 09:33 In article <ek7g2j$hv4$10(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ek4cee$8qk_008(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>In article <ek37ho$2pn$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[...] >>>The money spent on paying people to push needless paper >> >> >>The paper is needed. > >No, *some* paper may be needed. You are not understanding what I'm talking about. Each piece of paper was created to solve a problem. Each step and check of that step was created to solve a problem. All processes, bit flows, work flows, and knowledge flows change over time. Most of processes that change require a piece of paper to make sure the step was accomplished. Over time, the reason for some these steps may disappear. However, the step and its paper will never disappear until somebody vigourously weeds it out. The fact that not many get weeded out is due to the dynamics and psychology of people. They will protect their territory. > If there is any that is being pushed that >is in fact not needed (ie: needless), it would be the subject of my >statement. I see some needless paper from my insurance company so I know >for a fact there there is at least a little bit of needless paper. I >extrapolate based on the idea that I'm not special and thus am not the >only person seeing this needless paper to the suggestion that there is a >meaningful quantity of it. What you do is investigate the history of that step. Learn how it was implemented. Learn what problem it was to supposed to solve. You may be surprised that the problem is still there but caged by the paperwork delay. > >> It is the physical representation of >>which step the process is at. > >I think you missed the meaning of my post. It's possible. > I hope the above makes it >clearer for you. If I haven't understood, it's due to my thinking with 7/8 of my brain dealing with fever. I am trying to see your POVs. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 09:44 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > > >>>The money spent on paying people to push needless paper > >> > >>The paper is needed. > > > >No, *some* paper may be needed. > > You are not understanding what I'm talking about. Each piece of > paper was created to solve a problem. Each step and check of that > step was created to solve a problem. All processes, bit flows, > work flows, and knowledge flows change over time. Most of > processes that change require a piece of paper to make sure > the step was accomplished. Over time, the reason for some > these steps may disappear. However, the step and its paper > will never disappear until somebody vigourously weeds it out. Over here my GP now types his notes straight into a PC. No paper is needed. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 09:43 In article <phineaspuddleduck-9CD347.14112925112006(a)free.teranews.com>, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >In article <ek9ig1$8qk_005(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >This doesn't affect the patient in any significant way.. >> >> You are blind. >> > >It doesn't. > I wish you hadn't snipped what "this" referred to. /BAH
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 25 Nov 2006 09:47 In article <456854AD.9A3C62D5(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > "Quite" - barking towards the end. There is no love for Thatcher in > > Wales, for example. Less then for Beeching, in faact. > > Her idea of running the economy using 'corner shop' economics was a total > disaster. Although one could argue that the coal mining industry in Wales was reaching the end of the line in the 70's and 80's, due to cheap EU imports of coal - what was more galling was the fact that there were no contingency plans set up by government. Her government simply shut up shop in Wales without any investment in replacement/alternatives. I saw communities here turn to ghost towns nearly overnight. They're recovering, but slowly. Its my firm believe that that one act alone was the major factor that the devolution vote in Wales (particularly here in the South) went from near unanimous opposition to it in 1979 (which I remember well) to a grudging acceptance in 1997. It was the ability to decouple from a Westminster Government that often seemed indifferent to Wales (whether it was true indifference or a focus on the bigger picture I leave as an exercise for the reader) that pushed it. We're persuing different health and education policies for a start. Even her own party in Wales has had to accept it, particularly since the growth trend continues. The last survey I saw said 60% wanted more powers, and around 28% for the status quo. The no vote has collapsed, and even more telling is a rough 15-20% support for independence - Wales (although it has always had such a movement since Llewellyn) has never been the hotbed that Scotland has. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 25 Nov 2006 09:50
In article <ek9kq1$8qk_003(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > I wish you hadn't snipped what "this" referred to. > > /BAH Brevity. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |