Management Speak / Talking Bolleaux
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Management Speak / Talking Bolleaux
Well chaps and chapesses, sad to say but things are a bit LEAN up here in God's own country. Upshot is: AT is considering getting back on Auntie Betty's payroll.
Sufficient grey matter appears to have survived the onslaught of Guinness and Islay malt that I can actually remember how to do the actual military stuff. Whoopee!
Question is, it appears from the LEAN thread that MOD hasn't learned yet that most of these management fads are just repackaged / bureaucratized crap sold by some charlatan who's read the principles of war, Sun Tzu, Adair, Slim et. al. without really understanding any of them.
All of the civvy companies I've worked for ran a mile from this kind of tosh. I'd therefore be most grateful for a crash course from fellow ppruners so that, should I go through with it, I will be able to talk bolleaux with the best of them, or at least understand the bolleaux that they are talking to me!
I see LEAN has been bought in to. Is IIP (expensively packaged and bureaucratized common sense) still on the go? What about TQM? any other TLAs or FLAs I should be aware of?
Sufficient grey matter appears to have survived the onslaught of Guinness and Islay malt that I can actually remember how to do the actual military stuff. Whoopee!
Question is, it appears from the LEAN thread that MOD hasn't learned yet that most of these management fads are just repackaged / bureaucratized crap sold by some charlatan who's read the principles of war, Sun Tzu, Adair, Slim et. al. without really understanding any of them.
All of the civvy companies I've worked for ran a mile from this kind of tosh. I'd therefore be most grateful for a crash course from fellow ppruners so that, should I go through with it, I will be able to talk bolleaux with the best of them, or at least understand the bolleaux that they are talking to me!
I see LEAN has been bought in to. Is IIP (expensively packaged and bureaucratized common sense) still on the go? What about TQM? any other TLAs or FLAs I should be aware of?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your TLAs are AOK you get an OBE (Other Buggers' Efforts) -while your NCOs get NFI OOA and PVR when they RTB because....................................................?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuba
Ingemisco, tamquam reus:
culpa rubet vultus meus:
supplicanti parce Deus.
That was tongue in cheek. My question is specific to the RAF so your thread is less than useful. Thanks for the effort, but may I respectfully suggest that you take your
, and your trumpet and spargens sonum mirum elsewhere.
Ingemisco, tamquam reus:
culpa rubet vultus meus:
supplicanti parce Deus.
That was tongue in cheek. My question is specific to the RAF so your thread is less than useful. Thanks for the effort, but may I respectfully suggest that you take your
, and your trumpet and spargens sonum mirum elsewhere.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AT
If you can still remember all the old military bolleaux then you should be OK. IIP is still with us; as is the unbalanced scorecard. EFQM seems to have been put on the back burner but we're still talking 'outcomes' and 'matrix management' as well as my old favourite the 'functionally integrated but geographically separated staff' = I don't care where you are you do as I say!
We're also big on 'efficiency' but most horrendous of all is the sway that civil servants who couldn't organise, let alone fight, their way out of a soggy paper bag hold over defence policy.
Oh and the latest management speak is all about 'work - life balance' which I think is the modern version of QOL.
But all that aside its still a hoot and roar and where else do you get paid good money for flying aircraft, shooting the sh1t and turning money into memories via a bucket of beer? (well 2 out of 3 ain't bad!).
If you can still remember all the old military bolleaux then you should be OK. IIP is still with us; as is the unbalanced scorecard. EFQM seems to have been put on the back burner but we're still talking 'outcomes' and 'matrix management' as well as my old favourite the 'functionally integrated but geographically separated staff' = I don't care where you are you do as I say!
We're also big on 'efficiency' but most horrendous of all is the sway that civil servants who couldn't organise, let alone fight, their way out of a soggy paper bag hold over defence policy.
Oh and the latest management speak is all about 'work - life balance' which I think is the modern version of QOL.
But all that aside its still a hoot and roar and where else do you get paid good money for flying aircraft, shooting the sh1t and turning money into memories via a bucket of beer? (well 2 out of 3 ain't bad!).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers Impiger.
Balanced Scorecard was a new one on me. On superficial (interweb) reading, would anyone be able to differentiate it from properly conducted combat appreciation with due consideration of Adair's Team / Task / Individual intersecting circles?
Balanced Scorecard was a new one on me. On superficial (interweb) reading, would anyone be able to differentiate it from properly conducted combat appreciation with due consideration of Adair's Team / Task / Individual intersecting circles?
AT
Sadly Investors in Paperwork is still in being and is shortly to be joined by the latest bolleaux.....that of Investors in Excellence!!! EFQM is still with us so that we can get an ISO Award. Just what ISO we get for invading countries, winning wars (large and small), NEOs etc etc is not explained.
But I have seen the light. All of these innovations are created by the latest company out to make money, the British Quality Foundation IIRC in the case of IiE. So I am going to start a new 'Chartered' company, perhaps Military Business Excellence (MBE) or the Organisation of Business Excellence, then I am going to rate civilian companies and the civil service against 'military best practice' and charge loads of money for visiting them and assessing them!
I get rich, they get loads of Investment in Paperwork and a flashy new logo to hang on the walls of their offices. Win, win!!!
Sadly Investors in Paperwork is still in being and is shortly to be joined by the latest bolleaux.....that of Investors in Excellence!!! EFQM is still with us so that we can get an ISO Award. Just what ISO we get for invading countries, winning wars (large and small), NEOs etc etc is not explained.
But I have seen the light. All of these innovations are created by the latest company out to make money, the British Quality Foundation IIRC in the case of IiE. So I am going to start a new 'Chartered' company, perhaps Military Business Excellence (MBE) or the Organisation of Business Excellence, then I am going to rate civilian companies and the civil service against 'military best practice' and charge loads of money for visiting them and assessing them!
I get rich, they get loads of Investment in Paperwork and a flashy new logo to hang on the walls of their offices. Win, win!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Roland. I've yet to find one of these fads that says anything new that I hadn't learned in the military (brown and light blue).
I've yet to suss why the MOD 'buys back' watered down versions of what military leadership did far better, but jazzed up with incomprehensible 'management' buzzwords.
However, as a professional desk-flyer I feel I'd better get my head round it, or at least be able to translate the latest 'management' bovine excrement into the original leadership principles I was taught.
I've yet to suss why the MOD 'buys back' watered down versions of what military leadership did far better, but jazzed up with incomprehensible 'management' buzzwords.
However, as a professional desk-flyer I feel I'd better get my head round it, or at least be able to translate the latest 'management' bovine excrement into the original leadership principles I was taught.
I hear what you say, but you need to appreciate the holistics of the big picture in the context of blue water thinking.......
Roly, your innovative, customer focused management initiative shows out of the box thinking.
Can't believe that no-one has seen through the utter nonsense of IiP yet - it is TOTAL bolleaux and wastes a lot of time for absolutely no tangible benefit. Or should that be that it represents an adverse gradient temporal added value situation?
Roly, your innovative, customer focused management initiative shows out of the box thinking.
Can't believe that no-one has seen through the utter nonsense of IiP yet - it is TOTAL bolleaux and wastes a lot of time for absolutely no tangible benefit. Or should that be that it represents an adverse gradient temporal added value situation?
Gentleman Aviator
There's a couple that I can see approaching that are used on the periphery of MoD. One is called Six Sigma , and (no I'm not making this up) practitioners get awarded judo style belts .... , so you can aspire to be a Six Sigma Black Belt!! having progressed through white yellow and green!!!
There's another one called Corporate Governance .... not sure if that's an award or just another bit of yuckspeak...
, so you can aspire to be a Six Sigma Black Belt!! having progressed through white yellow and green!!!There's another one called Corporate Governance .... not sure if that's an award or just another bit of yuckspeak...
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TH
There's no need to make this sort of bolleaux up, someone's beaten us to it:
"You may not like the words, but Corporate Governance is not an option."
Safety_Helmut
There's no need to make this sort of bolleaux up, someone's beaten us to it:
"Product and process complexity and fast-paced marketing schedules demand that DFSS becomes a computer-based methodology."
"An approach to solving the problem created when root causes are found outside the limited scope of a Six Sigma project.
Six Sigma project debunks myth that output variability cannot be improved because of variability of input and human skills."
"Green Belts are sent out to solve business problems with two weeks of intensive training and a pat on the back. The results usually are not stellar. Learn what you can do about it."
Safety_Helmut
"Six Sigma is a process-focused methodology designed to improve business performance through improving specific areas of a strategic business processes."
Well, actually it just means that a 'six sigma' organisation will strive to please all its customers (or technically 99.9997% of them) rather than just most of them (50.0001%).
The stupid 'six sigma' buzzword comes from the fact that 6 times the standard deviation (sigma) of a normal distribution curve pretty well represents the extreme limits of that curve. But any company spending resources to achieve 'six sigma' results would need to explain why 'three sigma' (or 99.73%) wasn't entirely sufficient....
But a handy spoof w@nkword to toss (sorry) in to conversation: "To attempt to achieve six sigma results would yield an adverse profit stream due to nugatory infrastuctural investment requirements. We can achieve three sigma results without such exposure risk whilst maintaining our customers' performance expectations"
Or "FFF's stop pi$$ing money away on worthless cr@p when we can do just as well as we are!"
Which is what we should have said to the IiP bull****, for example!
Well, actually it just means that a 'six sigma' organisation will strive to please all its customers (or technically 99.9997% of them) rather than just most of them (50.0001%).
The stupid 'six sigma' buzzword comes from the fact that 6 times the standard deviation (sigma) of a normal distribution curve pretty well represents the extreme limits of that curve. But any company spending resources to achieve 'six sigma' results would need to explain why 'three sigma' (or 99.73%) wasn't entirely sufficient....
But a handy spoof w@nkword to toss (sorry) in to conversation: "To attempt to achieve six sigma results would yield an adverse profit stream due to nugatory infrastuctural investment requirements. We can achieve three sigma results without such exposure risk whilst maintaining our customers' performance expectations"
Or "FFF's stop pi$$ing money away on worthless cr@p when we can do just as well as we are!"
Which is what we should have said to the IiP bull****, for example!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to confess, I took my last company but one through IIP. Was persuaded by 'special offer' from Scottish Enterprise - only £1375 to get tick in the box!
It involved 4 'consultations' with an expert followed by an exam (an interview with me then all the staff individually to see if I'd been lying!).
Our HR systems were approved (standard policies & procedures governed by employment law anyway).
Our appraisal system got a tick VG - EE writes own assessment based on strengths / weaknesses and needs for further trg etc., commented on by manager and director.
Our personnel development system got a tick VG - EE submits wish-list of courses, management team prioritise in terms of benefit to the company and we send them off as time / money allow.
We had changed absolutely nothing. However, we got our little plaque at a fancy dinner complete with Z list celeb where we were all congratulated on our hard work and committment to the principles of IIP. Not all was a waste of time, we had a good company p1ss-up and I made contact again with an old school mate whose hotel had 'won' the award.
Later found many IIP consultants were 'wives of' SE civil serpents (or 'permanently engaged consultants').
Cost of SE annually = £0.5 Bn
Amount raised in business rates in Scotland annually - £0.5Bn
3 guesses as to my preferred solution for encouraging economic growth in Scotland.
Oh well, better find out what the hell Sigma Six is
Many thanks for contributions so far and keep them coming, chaps.
My successor as treasurer of a club was instructed at the AGM to remove the club's accts from HBOS after this piece of management motivational brilliance.
It involved 4 'consultations' with an expert followed by an exam (an interview with me then all the staff individually to see if I'd been lying!).
Our HR systems were approved (standard policies & procedures governed by employment law anyway).
Our appraisal system got a tick VG - EE writes own assessment based on strengths / weaknesses and needs for further trg etc., commented on by manager and director.
Our personnel development system got a tick VG - EE submits wish-list of courses, management team prioritise in terms of benefit to the company and we send them off as time / money allow.
We had changed absolutely nothing. However, we got our little plaque at a fancy dinner complete with Z list celeb where we were all congratulated on our hard work and committment to the principles of IIP. Not all was a waste of time, we had a good company p1ss-up and I made contact again with an old school mate whose hotel had 'won' the award.
Later found many IIP consultants were 'wives of' SE civil serpents (or 'permanently engaged consultants').
Cost of SE annually = £0.5 Bn
Amount raised in business rates in Scotland annually - £0.5Bn
3 guesses as to my preferred solution for encouraging economic growth in Scotland.
Oh well, better find out what the hell Sigma Six is
Many thanks for contributions so far and keep them coming, chaps.My successor as treasurer of a club was instructed at the AGM to remove the club's accts from HBOS after this piece of management motivational brilliance.
Ah - but you don't appreciate the big picture surrounding the TLA origins of FLA:
A400M was once Future Large Aircraft (FLA); FLA was supposed to replace all large a/c. That proved unfeasible, so the tanker/transport requirement became Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) and another fight arose between A400M and C130J as the Future Transport Aircraft (FTA). FSTA then became a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project; the preferred platform became the A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) offered to the rental Air Force (rAF) by AirTanker. Meanwhile, A400M which had been the FLA was given the go-ahead to be the FTA; however, to fill the gap, a Short Term Strategic Airlifter, STSA, was needed and that became a fight between the An124 and the C-17. The rAF decided upon leased C-17s as STSA to fill the gap before FTA became reality; however, the C-17s will now be bought and the STSA will become another FTA, but not the sole FTA as that will still be the A400M. Which, of course had once been FLA and rejected as FSTA. Nevertheless, the Common Standard Aircraft (CSA) A400M does have a requirement to have an AAR role, but not as a strategic tanker as that will be the job of the FSTA, presumably the A330 MRTT.... Although there is, of course, the A310 MRTT in service with other countries but not offered by any of the FSTA bidders even though it had been studied under an earlier project by MoD Department of Future Systems (DFS) as it then was...
So:
C-17 which was the STSA but wasn't an FSTA will be an FTA.
A400M which was FLA, then rejected as FSTA will become the 'official' FTA.
A330 MRTT will probably be the FSTA under PFI.
A310 MRTT was looked at by MoD DFS as a FSTA before PFI.
Easy, innit?
A400M was once Future Large Aircraft (FLA); FLA was supposed to replace all large a/c. That proved unfeasible, so the tanker/transport requirement became Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) and another fight arose between A400M and C130J as the Future Transport Aircraft (FTA). FSTA then became a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project; the preferred platform became the A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) offered to the rental Air Force (rAF) by AirTanker. Meanwhile, A400M which had been the FLA was given the go-ahead to be the FTA; however, to fill the gap, a Short Term Strategic Airlifter, STSA, was needed and that became a fight between the An124 and the C-17. The rAF decided upon leased C-17s as STSA to fill the gap before FTA became reality; however, the C-17s will now be bought and the STSA will become another FTA, but not the sole FTA as that will still be the A400M. Which, of course had once been FLA and rejected as FSTA. Nevertheless, the Common Standard Aircraft (CSA) A400M does have a requirement to have an AAR role, but not as a strategic tanker as that will be the job of the FSTA, presumably the A330 MRTT.... Although there is, of course, the A310 MRTT in service with other countries but not offered by any of the FSTA bidders even though it had been studied under an earlier project by MoD Department of Future Systems (DFS) as it then was...
So:
C-17 which was the STSA but wasn't an FSTA will be an FTA.
A400M which was FLA, then rejected as FSTA will become the 'official' FTA.
A330 MRTT will probably be the FSTA under PFI.
A310 MRTT was looked at by MoD DFS as a FSTA before PFI.
Easy, innit?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Uk
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags/TH
Totally agree with your comments about IiP - complete waste of money.
Ref 6 Sigma - I am afraid i disagree. Since leaving the RAF several years ago, I have worked in a couple of companies (my current one included) where 6 sigma has generated genuine and significant savings in the right places without reducing our performance. 6 Sigma was, as I am sure you know, the brainchild of Jack Welch at GE - a genuinely world class company. Given the Services propensity to consistently over spend on a meagre budget, 6 sigma may be a useful tool.
"Well, actually it just means that a 'six sigma' organisation will strive to please all its customers (or technically 99.9997% of them) rather than just most of them (50.0001%)."
Not true - 6 sigma is about consistent processes/acceptable risk and reducing errors.
Totally agree with your comments about IiP - complete waste of money.
Ref 6 Sigma - I am afraid i disagree. Since leaving the RAF several years ago, I have worked in a couple of companies (my current one included) where 6 sigma has generated genuine and significant savings in the right places without reducing our performance. 6 Sigma was, as I am sure you know, the brainchild of Jack Welch at GE - a genuinely world class company. Given the Services propensity to consistently over spend on a meagre budget, 6 sigma may be a useful tool.
"Well, actually it just means that a 'six sigma' organisation will strive to please all its customers (or technically 99.9997% of them) rather than just most of them (50.0001%)."
Not true - 6 sigma is about consistent processes/acceptable risk and reducing errors.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,378
Received 127 Likes
on
92 Posts
BEagle, superb summation of Sick Sigma ---a slight problem with your hypothesis however. First, a significant percentage of the population ( or the self styled "management" t££sers if you prefer ) would not have a clue as to standard deviation let alone the normal curve--well possibly the latter I suppose. They may be superb at showing performance histograms with lots of pretty colours etc and can "talk" statistics with ease--but one simple question that invariably causes a "lets move on now" moment is the one concerning "What confidence level did you test to ?".
To return to the orginal thread however. Not so long ago, a certain "well known South-east based large airline" decided with all their well publicised self-flagellatory zeal to embrace TQM--and duly dropped it very quietly--because along came another spawn called BPR--or Business Process Re-engineering. Now for those who haven't encountered BPR, on the surface it is a brilliant concept--now dig about 0.00001mm below the surface and all the major flaws quickly appear. It was very much a mid / late 90's fad but I suspect it is still around in one guise or another. And yes, said airline did indeed embrace it with a fervour----and nothing of benefit ever resulted of course.
The next part of my text may seem a little obscure--however--please be tolerant here and read what I have to say. I have been following the threads on Centralised Engineering. / LEAN / LYH etc with interest and here is my perception of matters.
Somebody, somewhere, has decided to embrace the holy grail of management consutants---Change management !. Why ? Because the Air Force is changing and thus a major culture change is also needed. As I understand matters, once the various tranches of redundancy have been completed, then some of these people will have to be replaced---but NOT on the terms and conditions that were previously in place. The objective is to save the ££'s after all. Thus, whilst you will still have the core of the Air Force based around crews / types--you won't need the same for the support functions. The Air Force will not then be a career--other than for a select few--and all the rest will be on a short term contract basis---in effect--"factory fodder". But to ensure this is a success, first you have the difficult part to overcome--culture change. So, why not carry out a little experiment to see how this can be achieved and the reactions to it--why not select a Station that is scheduled to close anyway--and test the theories out there--once proven and evaluated--the whole process can then be applied across the RAF per se. Far fetched some may say--possibly--but have a think about what is happening and how it is being implemented whether directly or by stealth. I could be totally wrong of course, but I wouldn't mind betting I am also close to the truth in parts.
To return to the orginal thread however. Not so long ago, a certain "well known South-east based large airline" decided with all their well publicised self-flagellatory zeal to embrace TQM--and duly dropped it very quietly--because along came another spawn called BPR--or Business Process Re-engineering. Now for those who haven't encountered BPR, on the surface it is a brilliant concept--now dig about 0.00001mm below the surface and all the major flaws quickly appear. It was very much a mid / late 90's fad but I suspect it is still around in one guise or another. And yes, said airline did indeed embrace it with a fervour----and nothing of benefit ever resulted of course.
The next part of my text may seem a little obscure--however--please be tolerant here and read what I have to say. I have been following the threads on Centralised Engineering. / LEAN / LYH etc with interest and here is my perception of matters.
Somebody, somewhere, has decided to embrace the holy grail of management consutants---Change management !. Why ? Because the Air Force is changing and thus a major culture change is also needed. As I understand matters, once the various tranches of redundancy have been completed, then some of these people will have to be replaced---but NOT on the terms and conditions that were previously in place. The objective is to save the ££'s after all. Thus, whilst you will still have the core of the Air Force based around crews / types--you won't need the same for the support functions. The Air Force will not then be a career--other than for a select few--and all the rest will be on a short term contract basis---in effect--"factory fodder". But to ensure this is a success, first you have the difficult part to overcome--culture change. So, why not carry out a little experiment to see how this can be achieved and the reactions to it--why not select a Station that is scheduled to close anyway--and test the theories out there--once proven and evaluated--the whole process can then be applied across the RAF per se. Far fetched some may say--possibly--but have a think about what is happening and how it is being implemented whether directly or by stealth. I could be totally wrong of course, but I wouldn't mind betting I am also close to the truth in parts.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One very famous hotel chain recently spent $30 million Dollars implementing 6 Sigma. It quadroupled the amount of time managers spent at their computers filling in spreadsheets. After 14 months the group dropped the whole thing as a load of Bolleaux.
Talking of bolleaux can we have a ban on the word 'methodology'! what the hell is a methodology? Often incorporated as 'please explain your methodology', what does this mean? 'please explain the science of your method' perhaps ? Bolleaux!. Surely in plain english we mean to say ' what is your method'! stop using an unnecessary 'ology'.
Talking of bolleaux can we have a ban on the word 'methodology'! what the hell is a methodology? Often incorporated as 'please explain your methodology', what does this mean? 'please explain the science of your method' perhaps ? Bolleaux!. Surely in plain english we mean to say ' what is your method'! stop using an unnecessary 'ology'.