Being familiar (only familiar, there are Gurus who would review this more tactfully ) with Business Excellence frameworks like MBNQA. It was natural that repeat telecasts on several different TV channels on how the government botched up the opportunity to take the matter to closure when it comes to the arrest, offer to release, negotiation et al with respect to the anti-corruption crusade. Since MBNQA or any other Business excellence framework for that matter looks into how an organization identifies its customers and stakeholders, works closely with these including employees/work force, leveraging processes, measurements, systems & planning using a leadership driven approach to achieve the desired results. A different weightage on each of these highlighted items provides a balanced focus through the approach, deployment, results, learning & improvements across the organization.
When assessors assess a business with the MBNQA criteria they are very clear on the 4 broad patterns of scoring. Reacting to problems gives you anywhere between 0-25% of the score, early systematic approach gives 30-45%, aligned approach gives 50-65% while an integrated approach could give you 70-100% of the score.
If we analyze the Indian government’s response to the entire Anna Hazare episode, one would be able to clearly cancel out the last 3 patterns of scoring and focus on the 1st pattern i.e. 0-25% - reacting to problems. As an establishment that is supposed to provide for good governance and is supposed to be looking at the long term and short term welfare of its customers and stakeholders (read PEOPLE) scoring so poorly on the MBNQA criteria brings basic issues to the foreground.
Does this organization understand its target customers, customer groups(read PEOPLE) and market segments? Does it have sane and unbiased listening mechanisms in between 2 elections that are 5 years apart? Does it have mechanisms to anticipate the decisions of the customers(read PEOPLE) and their importance/value? Does it have the ability to use the feedback from the customers(read PEOPLE) and ensure their needs are satisfied? Does it have mechanisms to create/recreate new relationships?
There are many questions like these that come to the fore and this is just one of the 7 categories! If someone from the government reads this and wants help, I know exactly the kind of people who can help.
Believe me they would be more than willing to help
When assessors assess a business with the MBNQA criteria they are very clear on the 4 broad patterns of scoring. Reacting to problems gives you anywhere between 0-25% of the score, early systematic approach gives 30-45%, aligned approach gives 50-65% while an integrated approach could give you 70-100% of the score.
If we analyze the Indian government’s response to the entire Anna Hazare episode, one would be able to clearly cancel out the last 3 patterns of scoring and focus on the 1st pattern i.e. 0-25% - reacting to problems. As an establishment that is supposed to provide for good governance and is supposed to be looking at the long term and short term welfare of its customers and stakeholders (read PEOPLE) scoring so poorly on the MBNQA criteria brings basic issues to the foreground.
Does this organization understand its target customers, customer groups(read PEOPLE) and market segments? Does it have sane and unbiased listening mechanisms in between 2 elections that are 5 years apart? Does it have mechanisms to anticipate the decisions of the customers(read PEOPLE) and their importance/value? Does it have the ability to use the feedback from the customers(read PEOPLE) and ensure their needs are satisfied? Does it have mechanisms to create/recreate new relationships?
There are many questions like these that come to the fore and this is just one of the 7 categories! If someone from the government reads this and wants help, I know exactly the kind of people who can help.
Believe me they would be more than willing to help
No comments:
Post a Comment