HRM - Assignment no. 10 (Part II)

Personnel Management

Source: Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Personnel Management, part of management concerned with people at work and their relations within a firm. The main functions of the personnel manager usually include staff recruitment, training, and welfare. The term personnel management is somewhat misleading in that it is usually line managers who manage the work force, while personnel managers provide a mainly supportive and advisory service.

Source : BusinessDictionary.com

Administrative discipline of hiring and developing employees so that they become more valuable to the organization. It includes (1) conducting job analyses, (2) planning personnel needs, and recruitment, (3) selecting the right people for the job, (4) orienting and training, (5) determining and managing wages and salaries, (6) providing benefits and incentives, (7) appraising performance, (8) resolving disputes, (9) communicating with all employees at all levels.

HRM vs. PM???

In all organizations, there should be someone concerned with the welfare and performance of persons who are a part of the operation. When an individual or a team of individuals takes on this task of seeing to programs and setting policies that impact everyone associated with the company, they are engaged in the process of personnel management, sometimes referred to as human resources (HR) management.

The function of a personnel manager usually begins with the staffing process. The manager may be focused on screening and interviewing applicants, with an eye to placing individuals with the right skill sets in the right position within the company. Along with placement, the HR manager may also oversee, or at least be involved in, the creation of entry level training programs, as well as continuing education opportunities for existing employees.

Determining company policies and procedures as they relate to personnel is another important aspect of the personnel management process. HR functions often include drafting vacation, sick leave, and bereavement policies that apply to all employees. The personnel management team is also often responsible for managing any healthcare program provided to the employees as well.

One aspect of company organization that needs the input of effective personnel management is the drafting of a company handbook. Establishing operation policies and procedures, requirements for employment, commendation and disciplinary procedures, and even something as simple as a dress code has to be compared with state and federal guidelines before the handbook is ready for release to the company at large. Personnel managers and the HR staff are ideal for drafting and reviewing the company handbook.

Sometimes overlooked in the course of personnel management is the emotional welfare of the employees. Increasingly, more personnel managers understand that a well-adjusted employee is an asset to the company. To this end, many people in charge of personnel management try to provide opportunities for employees who are in need of counseling to receive support from the company.

This support often involves scheduling time during working hours for the counseling sessions, and perhaps picking up the cost if insurance does not cover counseling. As with continuing educational programs, counseling is seen as another way that the company invests in the future relationship between the employee and the employer. A good HR manager understands this and will strive to make sure this sort of support is available.

Depending on the size of the organization, it may be possible for one person to handle all personnel management functions. As a company grows, it may be necessary to expand from a single personnel manager to a full-fledged personnel management, or Human Resources team. By understanding the needs of the company at each point in its growth, management can readily see to the addition to the Human Resources team over time. 

Source: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-personnel-management.html

HRM - Assignment no. 10 (Part I)

Look for various definitions of personnel management and human resource management and their authors and sources (minimum of 5). Critique each.

Human Resource Management

Source: Cherrington, David J. (1995). The Management of Human Resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Human Resource Management is responsible for how people are treated in organizations. It is responsible for bringin people in the organization, helping them perform their work, compensating them for their labors, and solving problems that arise.

The definition above is agreeable. It define HRM's responsibilities to the organization and to its people working for the organization.

Definition by: Dr. Tahir Javed

Human Resource Management is a strategic approach to managing employment relations which emphasizes that leveraging people's capabilities is critical to achieving competitive edge and advantages, this being achieved and furnished through a distinctive set of integrated employments policies, programs and practices.

Human Resource Management as defined by Dr. T. Javed, for me, concentrates primarily in human development, probably mentally, physically, socially and spiritually to achieve competitive edge and advantage by the set of rules it is imposing. I would like to comment that a certain person is not only meant to work in an organization for the organization's benefit but also to acquire new learning to develop his skills and broaden his knowledge. This is his own advantage to make him more competitive, skilled and knowledgeable. I mean this would be a give and take process.

As Assembled by Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD

The Human Resources Management (HRM) function includes a variety of activities, and key among them is deciding what staffing needs you have and whether to use independent contractors or hire employees to fill these needs, recruiting and training the best employees, ensuring they are high performers, dealing with performance issues, and ensuring your personnel and management practices conform to various regulations. Activities also include managing your approach to employee benefits and compensation, employee records and personnel policies. Usually small businesses (for-profit or nonprofit) have to carry out these activities themselves because they can't yet afford part- or full-time help. However, they should always ensure that employees have -- and are aware of -- personnel policies which conform to current regulations. These policies are often in the form of employee manuals, which all employees have.

Human Resource Management keeps the personnel policies in an organization. Its functions were briefly stated in definition above. A Human Resource Manager has a very tedious work, from the decision making process for the organization's personnel need, hiring, recruiting, training and dealing with performance issues.

From an unknown source...

The role of Human Resource management is being increasingly affected and reshaped by the growing diversity of the workforce, global and domestic compensation, and complex legal and ethical issues. In short, the Human Resource department of an organization is faced with balancing its responsibilities towards the organization it serves as well as the society in which it operates.

Businesses rely on effective human resource management (HRM) to ensure that they hire and keep good employees, and that they are able to respond to conflicts between workers and management. HRM specialists initially determine the number and type of employees that a business will need over its first few years of operation. They are then responsible for recruiting new employees to replace those who leave and for filling newly created positions. A business’s HRM division also trains or arranges for the training of its staff to encourage worker productivity, efficiency, and satisfaction, and to promote the overall success of the business. Finally, human resource managers create workers’ compensation plans and benefit packages for employees.

Role of HR Department in the Company

I just stumbled upon this article.... This is not mine though but I think this article is worth sharing for. I do not claim that I am the one who wrote this...


How important do you think and value a HR department in a company? Give your reasons. Will the computer and internet-age be replacing HR department in the future?

Add on question: Since computer and internet-age will take over and simplify the job-scope of HR. How should HR reform itself? Therefore transforming itself into a stronger department. For e.g., do more research on employee of both internal and competitors. Communicating more with the employee of the company. etc etc.

1. HR has a purpose, and your company absolutely needs one, no matter what its size. Whether it’s an internal position or not is subject to discussion. HR is a function that could be outsourced. Smaller companies don’t need expensive HR managers, but they do need a clearing house for documentation, safety audits, hiring/firing, payroll, time clocks, etc. That’s a great service business just WAITING for someone to do it. For it to work though the HR company needs to be on site with some frequency (based on a needs assessment of the business), and has to have tight processes that can be replicated easily at businesses while still being flexible enough to adapt to differing markets.

The computer, while a useful tool, is no replacement for HR. Never will be.

2. When HR allows itself to be categorized as a record-keeper, benefits manager and compliance auditor, then it can indeed be outsourced, or largely replaced by IT systems that are managed by data processing experts. HOWEVER, the greatest value that HR provides is not in these functions, although they are critical to the business; the value that HR provides is in helping companies add value through strategic management of the workforce. Recruitment, selection, on boarding, creating an engaged and aligned workforce, succession planning--these are some of the things that create value, and they are delivered by strategic thinkers who understand the tools that human resource professionals have at hand. These core capabilities will never be replaced by automated functions, any more than strategic financial management can be replaced by software--even though most financial data is managed and tracked by computerized means.

3. The HR department SHOULD be there to get the best out of the organizations’ workforce.

However, my experience of them in the various engineering companies is that they tend to be staffed by lightweight and inexperienced people who have an inflated idea of their value. The typical shop floor/factory floor worker will see HR twice: at engagement and then at dismissal. Between these points, the worker is just seen as a 'human resource' to be switched on and off like a machine (in accordance with the principles of Scientific Management).

I would rather that my manager (who is now me as I'm self employed and staying that way!) was someone who I built a mutually beneficial working relationship with. A third party like the traditional HR dept. adds no value that can't be replaced by outsourcing or a simple machine.

However, I have worked with the HR dept of one company and they were excellent at getting the best out of people. That all depended on the no nonsense, enthusiastic leadership of a great manager who was not just interested in preserving the status quo and painting her nails. So HR can work - but it's rare in my view.

4. There are three parts to HR: Administrative work, consulting with operations managers and Strategic planning and oversight. Outsourcing of HR admin functions is doable because of technology and any HR departments that does not use outsourcing to its advantage is preparing itself to be outsourced. The other 2 parts of HR are not so easy to outsource but require a much higher skill level than the admin work. Finding and keeping the right HR people will be the challenge as we move forward. There is also an educational component; most organizations are not used to HR acting as a consultant, or, for that matter, being helpful in any way. So, we need to develop trust and commitment from the operations people and that, again, takes a different skill than the admin work.

Things are changing and some of the evidence of that is that there are fewer HR jobs than 10 years ago, most of the attrition coming among admin specialists.

5. Because our company is still developing, we outsource it. There is no way you can do without some type of an HR department because of all of the legal issues you face as a company. The internet is only as good as what is put into it. I see HR using computers and the internet as tools, rather than it replacing the department altogether.

6. The HR department is one of the most value departments there is an any organization. Unfortunately, companies rarely see the value because many HR departments have limited themselves to reactive hiring forces and paperwork mills for new hires.

7. There are many HR functions that could be automated or outsourced. However every company should serve three constituencies; shareholders, clients and employees. HR should be there to ensure that senior management always considers all 3 constituencies with every decision. The other role is to continuously ensure that the company makes progress in developing employees to their full potential.

HRM - Assignment no. 7

"Human beings are the most important, potent and critical, resource of any organization, and yet the least understood and the worst managed of its resources"

REFLECTION:

The church would say Human Beings are created in the image and likeness of God. And as he is created in a world of goodness, he is opted to live and be given into goodness.

But in the field of society, human beings are rational being. The midst of reasoning and comprehension.

Therefore in the field of corporate endeavors, the human beings are with great and ample importance as his first characteristic, due to its capability and technical prowess his field, his craft is inevitable to the success of any corporate undertakings.

Secondly, human beings potentials must be considered with possible acknowledgment due to its creative factors.

Thirdly, critical thinking is very important aspect of human beings, for their ability to think makes them understands both intuitive and deductive assimilation.

And as a resource or strength of any corporate activities, the human beings become a prime mover to development, progress and success. Humans are an organization's greatest assets; without them, everyday business functions such as managing cash flow, making business transactions, communicating through all forms of media, and dealing with customers could not be completed. Humans and the potential they possess drive an organization. Today's organizations are continuously changing. Organizational change impacts not only the business but also its employees. In order to maximize organizational effectiveness, human potential—individuals' capabilities, time, and talents—must be managed. Human resource management works to ensure that employees are able to meet the organization's goals.
And yet this human beings are should not be should seen and opted to be looked upon as utilities or instruments of gains. They are not machines which one can operate and when it is not functioning thrown to the garbage. They are PERSONS whose dignity and free will must be given due process and consideration.

Therefore, they must be given what is due, the right to learn and develop in their field and right and fair wage of working and earning.

HRM - Assignment no. 6

What do you think will the 21st -century corporations look like? (1000words)

Modernization have been the keyword of every corporation. But as 80's and 90's enter, computerization has its dominance. As we enter the new millennium, the basis of every developmental, progressive and soar high corporations is cybernization. But as the corporation grows and bloom in the context of modernization, computerization and cybernization, it must understand the importance of the world of order and the world of person.

The new millennium was ushered in by a dramatic technological revolution. We now live in increasingly diversed, globalized, and complex media-saturated society.

In this assignment, we are to take what corporations look like in the 21st century, but it is not enough to say that we are already living there. Technically, it is the 21st century, but corporations are not there, and the challenge now is to reinvent corporations for the 21st century. And making such a paradigm shift is not easy.

So what does 21st century Corporation looks like? For me, it is bold. It breaks the mold. It is flexible, creative, challenging and complex. It addresses a rapidly changing world filled with fantastic new problems as well as exciting new possibilities.

“Sparked by new technologies, particularly the Internet, the corporation is undergoing a radical transformation that is nothing less than a new Industrial Revolution. This time around, the revolution is reaching every corner of the globe and in the process, rewriting the rules laid down by Sloan, Henry Ford, and other Industrial Age giants. The 21st century corporation that emerges will in many ways be the polar opposite of the organizations they helped shape.”

Many factors, from the need to expand beyond national borders to the inexorable shift toward intellectual capital, are driving change, but none is more important than the rise of Internet technologies. Like the steam engine or the assembly line, the Net has already become an advance with revolutionary consequences, most of which we have only begun to feel.

The Net gives everyone in the organization, from the lowliest clerk to the chairman of the board, the ability to access a mind-boggling array of information--instantaneously, from anywhere. Instead of seeping out over months or years, ideas can be zapped around the globe in the blink of an eye. That means that the 21st century corporation must adapt itself to management via the Web. It must be predicated on constant change, not stability, organized around networks, not rigid hierarchies, built on shifting partnerships and alliances, not self-sufficiency, and constructed on technological advantages, not bricks and mortar. Already, old business models that emphasized fixed assets, working capital, and economies of scale have become increasingly vulnerable to nimbler organizations that employ new technologies to reduce costs.

“Leading-edge technology will enable workers on the bottom rungs of the organization to seize opportunity as it arises. Employees will increasingly feel the pressure to get breakthrough ideas to market first. Thus, the corporation will need to nurture an array of formal and informal networks to ensure that these ideas can speed into development. In the near future, companies will call on outside contractors to assemble teams of designers, prototype producers, manufacturers, and distributors to get the job done. Emerging technologies will allow employees and freelancers anywhere in the world to converse in numerous languages online without the need for a translator. ''The gap between what we can imagine and what we can achieve has never been smaller,'' says Gary Hamel, a consultant and author of Leading the Revolution.”

“That rapid flow of information will permeate the organization. Orders will be fulfilled electronically without a single phone call or piece of paper. The ''virtual financial close'' will put real-time sales and profit figures at every manager's fingertips via the click of a wireless phone or a spoken command to a computer. ''We don't have science-fiction writers who have seen and written this future,'' says Lowell Bryan, a consultant who leads McKinsey & Co.'s Global New Economy practice. ''Everything we see leads to greater diversity, greater choice, a far more integrative economy, yet more individualism.''”

What, exactly, does 21st century corporation look like? The organizations that flourish will have several defining features.

To thrive in this new century, companies are going to need a whole new set of rules

“EPHEMERAL. To survive and thrive in this century, managers will need to hard-wire a new set of rules and guideposts into their brains. Not so long ago, for example, leaders believed that building assets over the long haul guaranteed competitive advantage. In this new century, success will go to the companies that partner their way to a new future, not those that put heavy assets onto their balance sheets. Leaders once thought that creating intense rivalries among competitors motivated their employees and assured success. But in the days to come, a company's fiercest competitor might also be its most important collaborator. Since the dawn of trade, every business leader has wanted to build an enduring enterprise. In the new century, though, many companies will be intentionally ephemeral, formed to create new technologies or products only to be absorbed by sponsor companies when their missions are accomplished.”

-- It's management by Web. That means not just Web as in Internet but the web-like shape of successful organizations in the future. If there are a pair of images that symbolize the vast changes at work, they are the pyramid and the web. The organizational chart of large-scale enterprise had long been defined as a pyramid of ever-shrinking layers leading to an omnipotent CEO at its apex. The 21st century corporation, in contrast, is far more likely to look like a web: a flat, intricately woven form that links partners, employees, external contractors, suppliers, and customers in various collaborations. The players will grow more and more interdependent. Fewer companies will try to master all the disciplines necessary to produce and market their goods but will instead outsource skills--from research and development to manufacturing--to outsiders who can perform those functions with greater efficiency.

Managing this intricate network of partners, spin-off enterprises, contractors, and freelancers will be as important as managing internal operations. Indeed, it will be hard to tell the difference. All of these constituents will be directly linked in ways that will make it nearly impossible for outsiders to know where an individual firm begins and where it ends. ''Companies will be much more molecular and fluid,'' predicts Don Tapscott, co-author of Digital Capital. ''They will be autonomous business units connected not necessarily by a big building but across geographies all based on networks. The boundaries of the firm will be not only fluid or blurred but in some cases hard to define.''

-- It's more about bits, less about atoms. The most profitable enterprises will manage bits, or information, instead of focusing solely on managing atoms (the corporation's physical assets). Sheer size will no longer be the hallmark of success; instead, the market will prize the ability to efficiently deploy assets. Good bit management can allow an upstart to beat an established player; it can also give an incumbent vast advantages. By using information to manage themselves and better serve their customers, companies will be able to do things cheaper, faster, and with far less waste.

-- It's mass customization. The previous 100 years were marked by mass production and mass consumption. Companies sought economies of scale to build large factories that produced cookie-cutter products, which they then sold to the largest numbers of people in as many markets as possible. The company of the future will tailor its products to each individual by turning customers into partners and giving them the technology to design and demand exactly what they want. Mass customization will result in waves of individualized products and services, as well as huge savings for companies, which will no longer have to guess what and how much customers want.

-- It's dependent on intellectual capital. The advantage of bringing breakthrough products to market first will be shorter-lived than ever, because technology will let competitors match or exceed them almost instantly. To keep ahead of the steep new-product curve, it will be crucial for businesses to attract and retain the best thinkers. Companies will need to build a deep reservoir of talent--including both employees and free agents--to succeed in this new era. But attracting and retaining an elite workforce will require more than huge paychecks. Corporations will need to create the kind of cultures and reward systems that keep the best minds engaged. The old command-and-control hierarchies, with their civil-service-like wages, are fast crumbling in favor of organizations that empower vast numbers of people and reward the best of them as if they were owners of the enterprise.

-- It's global. In the beginning, the global company was defined as one that simply sold its goods in overseas markets. Later, global companies assumed a manufacturing presence in numerous countries. The company of the future will call on talent and resources--especially intellectual capital--wherever they can be found around the globe, just as it will sell its goods and services around the globe. Indeed, the very notion of a headquarters country may no longer apply, as companies migrate to places of greatest advantage. The new global corporation might be based in the U.S. but do its software programming in Sri Lanka, its engineering in Germany, and its manufacturing in China. Every outpost will be seamlessly connected by the Net so that far-flung employees and freelancers can work together in real time.

-- It's about speed. All this work will be done in an instant. ''The Internet is a tool, and the biggest impact of that tool is speed,'' says Andrew S. Grove, chairman of Intel Corp. (INTC) ''The speed of actions, the speed of deliberations, and the speed of information has increased, and it will continue to increase.'' That means the old, process-oriented corporation must radically revamp. With everything from product cycles to employee turnover on fast-forward, there is simply not enough time for deliberation or bureaucracy.

The 21st century corporation will not have one ideal form. Some will be completely virtual, wholly dependent on a network of suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors for their survival. Others, less so. Some of the most successful companies will be very small and very specialized; others will be gargantuan in size, scope, and complexity.

DIGITIZATION. Just as the smaller companies will use technology to gain economies of scale, larger companies will harness technology to reduce the costs of complexity. McKinsey's Bryan points out that technology allows Bank of America to manage a continent-wide bank of $700 billion in assets as effectively as it once managed a single-state bank with $7 billion.

At the very core of the 21st century corporation is technology, or what most people today call digitization. Put simply, digitization means removing human minds and hands from an organization's most routine tasks and replacing them with computers and networks. Digitizing everything from employee benefits to accounts receivables to product design cuts time, cost, and people from operations, resulting in huge savings and vast improvements in speed. Everything a company does involves what Bryan calls ''interaction costs,'' the expenses incurred to get different people and companies to work together to create and sell products. In the U.S. alone, Bryan surmises, such interaction fees account for over half of all labor costs. Digitization lowers these expenses dramatically. ''You are going to see unbelievable speed and efficiencies,'' says John T. Chambers, Cisco's CEO. ''Truly efficient companies, particularly in the first couple of waves of change, will be able to drive [overall] productivity at 20% to 40% a year.''

CULTURAL CHANGE. The potential for productivity gains is everywhere, in every process, in every industry. The bigger the company and the larger its costs, the greater the opportunity to see tremendous efficiencies. In the years to come, large incumbent corporations that get it will be the greatest beneficiaries of the Net, not the dot-com insurgents that once garnered all the publicity and market valuations.

Despite a handful of leading-edge companies, the true 21st century corporation, at least as it will eventually emerge, does not yet exist. John F. Welch Jr. of General Electric Co. may have created the archetypal ''learning organization,'' a highly diverse company that shares ideas across its many boundaries. Chambers of Cisco Systems may boast the most networked organization in the world, a company in which nearly all its administrative functions are conducted over the Internet. Michael S. Dell may have built the most efficient supply-chain network ever, a model that requires virtually no inventory. But there is no one company today that embodies all the possibilities and promise of the superefficient 21st century corporation.

The truly great 21st century companies will recognize that the real power of technology is not just the ability to make a business more efficient but also its potential to spark transformative change. Much of that change will involve the company's relationship with its customers. In an era of unprecedented choice, in which prices and product specs for almost anything are only a click away, companies will have to offer a lot more than bargain prices.

The 21st century corporation will require an array of new skills, all of which must be mastered for leaders to gain the upper competitive hand. Globalization has opened new markets. Deregulation has broken down industry boundaries. Venture capital has funded thousands of new tech-savvy insurgents who now threaten incumbents. And the ever-ubiquitous Web has brought the potential for remarkable gains in productivity--but also for frightening deflationary pressures. All these forces are fast propelling the creation of new business models in the 21st century, models that will look nothing like the once-healthy and seemingly invincible enterprises of an earlier age.

Google's Downsizing Fever

Google in Downsizing Fever: 10,000 Jobs Cut and Counting
Nov 24th, 2008 | Category: Featured Articles, News
By Jimmy Vu

The first sign of the downsizing fever was seen last week when Google announced to shut down 5-month old service: Lively. Now it is said that Google may be preparing to cut thousands of jobs. Probably as much as 10,000 workers (and counting) will no longer enjoy the air of Googleplex.

In fact, according to internal source, Google has been quietly fired hundreds of employees in the past few months without reporting to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or publicizing the layoffs that appears being required by law.

Google has managed to avoid the legal requirement by classifying a number of the employees as “temporary operational expenses,” which means their positions are not official and could be eliminated without public notification. These employees were hired without full time benefits such as health coverage and insurance too, yet ironically many of them have been working there for five or even seven years.

“Google has hundreds of lawyers figuring out how not to get caught,” said Daya Baran, WebGuild President. “One of them is by moving workers from job to job every few months so that their status remains temporary. That is why you probably have never spoken to the same person twice at Google and that is also why there is somebody new on the job and most times you know more about their job than they do,” he supposed.

Google’s most recent filling with SEC shows only 20,123 employees being officially hired. But if counting the contractors the number comes out closer to 30,000, and this means the layoffs would cut about 33 percent of its staff in comparison to 10 percent cut by Yahoo announced recently when Yang planned to step down.

Without doubt, the economic downturn is hitting Google hard and with the slowdown in online advertising, the downsizing fever seems just begin getting heat.

Source:
http://www.techmacro.com/2008/11/google-in-downsizing-fever/


Corporate downsizing as a change management strategy has been adopted for more than two decades (Williams, 2004). Back in the 1980s and 1990s, it was implemented primarily by firms experiencing difficult economic times (Gandolfini, 2006). The prime impetus of most downsizing effort is the desire for an immediate reduction of costs and increased levels of efficiency, productivity, profitability, and competitiveness (Farrell and Mavondo, 2004). Over the years, this strategy has generated a great deal on interest among business scholars, managers, and the popular press.

The controversy that surrounds downsizing may be better described as a debate in organizational theory about whether change is adaptive or disruptive. The issues which establish the outcome of the controversy include why the downsizing is taking affect, how it is implemented, and what steps are taken to enhance its effects on organizational performance. The reasons for corporate downsizing are presented in many forms. Some companies downsize due to technological changes such as automation, which brings about the need for a reduction in the production workforce. Others may feel that competitiveness with other companies warrants the need for a reduction in the workforce. Financial setbacks due to customer demand, market shares, and loss of revenue could also initiate the need for downsizing. When will it end? Experts say it won't.



Cheers Cappuccino

MIS - Assignment no. 5

Based on your adopted orgnaization(s), identify and discuss barriers in their IS/IT implementation ..

I hope this assignment will be considered…

We are so unfortunate that until now, for the number of companies we have visited for inquiries and adoption for our study, not even one replied for approval.

For the compliance of assignment no. 5, I have browsed from the net some organizations that have discussed with them the barriers regarding their implementation of IS/IT. A barrier could mean something that separates one thing from another. It can either give good or bad feedback in effect.

I have found many and majority of them belongs from the medical organizations. I have retrieved this article from iHealthBeat. Com, Reporting Technology’s Impact on Health Care. A service of the California HealthCare Foundation. This article was dated April 27, 2004 – Tuesday.

Technological, Organizational Barriers Complicate CPOE Implementation

Successful implementation of information systems depends on changing technology and work practices, according to a case study in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. Researchers looked at the planning, use and aborted implementation of a computerized physician order entry system at a large Dutch university medical center.

The researchers based their findings on observations, interviews and document analysis at the medical center between 1998 and January 2003. The hospital in 1988 decided to buy a new system to replace the current information system that it had developed. After evaluating several systems, the hospital in 1993 proposed to implement a CPOE and results reporting system from TDS Healthcare Systems, and signed a contract with the company in 1995.

The system went live in December 1997, but only patient admission, procedure registration and patient scheduling were running throughout the hospital. In 1999, following several improvements and corrections to the system, the hospital introduced the CPOE and reporting functions with a few small pilots in certain departments. But physician complaints over the new system led the hospital to hire a consulting firm to evaluate the implementation in October 1999. In February 2000, the firm recommended that the system be discontinued. In December 2000, the hospital ended further deployment of the system, decided not to implement CPOE and is now looking for a replacement system.

The choice to install a particular CPOE system was constrained by the existing IBM infrastructure at the hospital and past investments in nonclinical IBM mainframe systems, which had to be integrated with the new clinical systems. Implementing any new system on a different infrastructure or with different nonclinical systems would have been too costly, according to the study.

The CPOE system also was initially intended for a U.S. hospital—the screens had to be translated into Dutch, and translating the clerical workflows into the new system required many new screens. Adapting the system to the Dutch hospital environment, which has a heavy ambulatory clinic component, was more difficult than for U.S. hospitals, which are focused mostly on inpatient functions.

Soon after implementing CPOE, clerical users spent more time on the new system than the previous systems. The extra time spent on the system required more clerical staff, "quite contrary to the expectation that the introduction of the new system would save on personnel," according to the study.

The medical center also had problems connecting the CPOE system to the laboratory system, so the old information system had to remain running for physicians to access lab data. The technical features of the system were \"restrictive and cumbersome\" to users, the study found. In the time between the decision to implement the system and the actual implementation, users became familiar with Windows-based PCs; researchers found that the interface of the new system looked primitive in comparison.

\"There is no simple formula for success because of the complexity of the sociotechnical networks and the inherent unpredictability of information system implementation within complex organizations such as the university medical center,\" the researchers concluded (Aarts et al., JAMIA, May/June 2004).

The term healthcare embodies a complex array of clinical, business, management, and service operations, as well as outputs and processes from a diverse set of entities that make up the entire healthcare supply chain. Many of these disaggregated entities that comprise the healthcare supply chain have been or will be linked through IS and the telecommunications infrastructure. The problems and many of the issues that have emerged or been caused by the IT revolution in healthcare observed in the above article has been related to some of the problems listed below:

1.

For a variety of very complex reasons, the healthcare industry has been reluctant or late adopters modern IT approaches to addressing its needs. In a 1997 article in Communications of the ACM, Raghupathi stated that \"it is generally perceived that the health care industry’s use of information technology (IT) is 10-15 years behind other sectors\" (Raghupathi, 1997).

2.

The data in many healthcare systems is still not linked, updated, or converted from the legacy systems or disaggregated data repositories. Moreover, little progress has been made in several key areas including; establishing electronic patient records, operationalizing electronic clinical procedures, best practices, and evidence-based guideline databases and expert systems, developing point-of-care processing and tracking systems, and deploying decision support systems for a range of tasks that are essential for managing highly-complex and fully integrated healthcare entities.

3.

Medical errors are the third critical problem area. For instance, the 1999 Institute of Medicine report \"To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System\" concluded that 98,000 individuals die in hospitals each year because of medical errors that are due in large part to the lack of automated information systems, the outdated procedures, inadequate tracking and monitoring technologies, and the lack of consistent guidelines that would prevent undo harm to patients.

4.

Privacy, confidentiality, and security that is a highly charged issue for many, especially for those individuals who are concerned about their personal medical information and the physicians and healthcare practitioners who are charged with maintaining the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship.

5.

The poor performance by many parts of the healthcare system. Several governmental agencies, expert panels, and consumer and watchdog groups have given healthcare entities poor grades on many of the report card evaluation projects that have been conducted. The reports conclude that the healthcare system is not meeting the needs of the stakeholders and consumers at an acceptable level or in an efficient way. All of the reports reach the conclusion that well-designed and widely-deployed information systems could improve the performance ratings of these institutions.

6.

Cost has become a significant barrier because the industry is already so far behind, the amount needed to purchase and sustain systems is so great, and the ROI (return on investment) data is often unavailable or is equivocal. Moreover, many of those who made the early efforts to move toward modern integrated information systems were burdened with solutions that were poorly designed, overly expensive, that did not have adequate support and evaluation systems, and that did not meet the needs or match culture of healthcare organizations.

7.

There are many reasons why change comes much more slowly to the healthcare industry than other sectors of the economy. Yet, change is fundamental to the industry\'s efforts to migrate from paper based and manual processes to automated and electronic IT-based solutions. The relentless pace of change that is characteristic of the IT industry is very unsettling to an industry that has had very limited available resources, has been very conservative, and because of the many \"life or death\" situations has been slow to change.

Resources: (Websites)

iHealthBeat http://www.iHealthBeat.com/
MD Computing Magazine http://www.mdcomputing.com/
Healthcare Informatics Magazine - http://www.healthcare-informatics.com/

Cheers Cappuccino

HRM - Assignment no. 5

Visit and identify a company website that has undergone HR downsizing. Identify the cause of downsizing and describe its processes.

Downsizing has become a watchword as company layoffs, mergers and acquisitions capture the headlines. Downsizing and mass layoffs are a plague afflicting not only US companies but also organizations in the entire industrial world. In addition to ruining employee morale, layoffs corrode loyalty and cause tremendous pain to employees, who, through no fault of their own, find themselves out of work. The subject of layoffs is controversial. On one side, critics paint a picture of layoffs as nothing but the abandonment of American workers by greedy corporate executives in their quest for profit, while those on the other side believe that massive layoffs are a necessary response to economic realities.

Ref:
Beylerian, Marc & Kleiner, Brian H. (2003). The downsized workplace. Management
Research News, Retrieved from Rutgers University ABI/INFORM Global database Web
site: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/indexes/search_guides/abi_inform.shtml

The reasons why the company downsizes are related to dramatic changes occurring in the environment. This may make the company lose a market share in its industry or respond to fierce competition from its rivals resulting in the need for the company to cut costs through altering its size to fit its market and customer base. Globalization and the breakdown of trade barriers among nations and the emergence of technology and automation have also necessitated the company to downsize. Thus, the overriding rationale for downsizing by the company appears to be the need for survival and the ability to compete in the new global economy.

Hewlett-Packard (HP) incorporated started in 1939 under the ownership of Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard. By 1979 the company had 52,000 employees and more than 4,000 products as reported by Beer and Rogers. Since that beginning, the company had a different, but concrete culture for managing its employees. Dave’s idea was that if they could simply get everyone to agree on the firm’s objectives and understand what the company’s business was; its employees, and eventually, the company, would move in the right direction.

HP was structured as a decentralized organization, where general managers were authorized to make decisions for their product segments. The firm’s business policies allowed for self-structuring mechanisms within the firm; and financially, leverage was almost non-existent as evidenced by its minimum long-term debt.

Management by wandering around (MBWA) and management by objectives (MBO) were unique elements of HP’s corporate culture. Beer and Rogers mentioned that these two elements consisted of tactics in which managers would spend part of the day walking and talking with subordinates and with other departments in order to improve communication; and establishing long and short-term objectives that were communicated to all employees. Employees had employment security and stability; and the company was proud of its hiring and employee retention policies. According to Beer and Rogers, the HP employees had an average satisfaction index that was 25% above the national norm in 1979. However, by the 1980’s Hewlett-Packard’s business units and organization had severely changed. Rapid innovation in information technology; new companies being created; and the decline of profits, caused the firm’s stock price to crumble. In order to react, the company was obligated to downsize and redeploy some of its workers to other units. Downsizing created a larger workload for the remaining workers and the relocated workers felt alienated. These actions led to disbelief of employees in the HP Way and caused their morale to decrease.

In 1989, pressured by competitors, HP was forced to acquire another company. HP’s creators felt that integrating the culture of the new firm would weaken the internal structure of Hewlett-Packard; eventually eroding the HP Way. New polices in the company also caused regional managers to lose their independence; as they no longer had direct influence on their business units.

How can one believe in the HP Way when people are losing their jobs?

It is important to remember that, regardless of industry and organization, most employees will tend to appreciate the company’s desire to avoid layoffs. So, in the case of HP, this could indicate that employees agreed that change is inevitable in order for the company to have a spot in the market. So the corporation should develop a different management approach that focuses on the merits of the program for organizational change. The new approach must emphasize the corporate objectives regarding people, values and mission. The company should also stress the HP security policy such as compensation packages, retirement plan, stock options, and relocation opportunities. Employees should understand that downsizing and redeployment were two better options than layoff. It could also be an opportunity for employees to change careers. In addition, a psychological support and a mentoring program would also be a good way to ensure employees still believe in the HP way.

Why don’t practices apply equally across the company anymore?

HP divided its operations between its computer hardware business and its smaller office products division. Beer and Rogers (1995) suggest that as HP expanded into the computer segment, resulting in acquisitions, consolidation and outsourcing, this created a feeling of detachment and fragmentation in employees. The company had no prior experience in dealing with growing a company, so as it grew larger, the only way they saw fit was to acquire and expand. This was further complicated by the fact that HP had no solid, general plan for growth. Substantiating this claim is the evidence that HP only acquired and partnered with other firms only to gain technical knowledge and not to integrate its organizational culture within the new firms. This resulted in the company not expanding HP practices across the board to their new partners. These issues would not have been so much of a problem if HP had experience in these procedures or had sought the use of consultants. That way, the transition process would have been easier and would have allowed the HP Way to still be used by the firm in light of the new changes.

The firm’s new decentralized structure also conflicted with the HP Way. The company did not factor in the firm’s mission, objective or vision statements into how the company was expanding and operating. Each of HP’s business segments also operated more independent from each other. The personal computer, printer, measurement, tests, and international divisions did not share any common services; each had different customers and target groups; their management structures were different; technology was implemented differently in each segment; and each segment also had its own set of distribution channels, all of which further led to lower coordination within the company and increased fragmentation across units . Efforts to bring centralization to HP for some reason reinforced its decentralized methods. The new bureaucracy that was created increased difficulty in decision making and other work processes which helped to bring down HP employees’ spirits. All of these actions further led to decreased coordination in the company’s work practices.

Another reason why practices at HP did not apply across the board can be attributed to how foreign operations were managed. Foreign managers were converted to only being liaisons between the U.S. and their subsidiaries. If these managers would have been used to coordinate business in their respective countries with headquarters, they could actually serve the purpose of employing the HP Way with minor modifications for cultural work practices in each foreign location. There was also no effort made to ensure the HP Way values were effectively communicated to the foreign branches. All of these actions and auxiliary actions that took place lead to the decreased application of HP practices throughout the firm, both domestically and internationally.

Can the HP Way survive in today’s intensely competitive environment?

The key to maintaining the HP Way and values like it are to create values that can be modified when changes in the firm’s internal or external environment occur. The problem most companies face when trying to hold on to their core values is that the values are sometimes too rigid. Rigid values and processes make it hard for a firm to adapt to environmental changes and to effectively implement new processes into the firm. If a firm instead has values that provide a good foundation and culture on how to operate without specific guidelines, the values can then be adjusted to incorporate new changes within and outside the firm; which allows smooth transitions and minimal disruptions for employees.

References:

Beer, M. and Rogers, G.C. (1995). Case Study: Human Resources at Hewlett-Packard (A) Harvard Business School.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IJN/is_2002_August/ai_90332291

http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2005/07/18/daily10.html