Scribd
Upload
4 views

Exercise 2

The document discusses various aspects of process design and the impact of technology on productivity, highlighting the trade-off between impact and manageability in broad versus narrow processes. It critiques a consultant's one-size-fits-all approach to building permits and examines how technological advancements have transformed everyday and business processes, while also addressing the 'productivity paradox' where expected productivity gains from technology have not materialized. The document concludes by suggesting that effective management of technology usage is crucial to overcoming the challenges posed by the productivity paradox.

Uploaded by

trinhthimychi123
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views

Exercise 2

The document discusses various aspects of process design and the impact of technology on productivity, highlighting the trade-off between impact and manageability in broad versus narrow processes. It critiques a consultant's one-size-fits-all approach to building permits and examines how technological advancements have transformed everyday and business processes, while also addressing the 'productivity paradox' where expected productivity gains from technology have not materialized. The document concludes by suggesting that effective management of technology usage is crucial to overcoming the challenges posed by the productivity paradox.

Uploaded by

trinhthimychi123
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Exercise 2

1/ Explain how the trade-off between impact and manageability works out for broad
and narrow processes, respectively.

2/ A city council hires a consultant to help redesign the building permit process of
the city. After gaining an understanding of the current process, the consultant suggests
that the best solution is to create a one-size-fits-all process to handle all building-related
applications. What is your opinion about the consultant’s solution?

3/ The fast development and widespread use of smartphones, portable computers,


global positioning systems, Internet, and mobile services has drastically changed many of
the processes in our everyday life. It has also profoundly changed the business processes
in many industries. Consider, for example, the processes of buying music, renting (DVD)
films, planning your trip to a new location (by car or public transportation), or shopping
for a particular product. How has new technology enabled new, more efficient and
effective, process designs that satisfy customer requirements better at lower costs
(eliminating non-value-adding activities and buffers, resources, etc.)? What has happened
to companies that were not able to change their process designs and business strategies
fast enough?

4/ What is the meaning of the process paradox? How can it be avoided?

5/ Case: PCs and the Productivity Paradox (adapted from Goldsborough,


1998)

Despite the riotous instability of stock prices, some prognosticators are advising us
not to worry. Sure, the stock market has experienced unprecedented growth without
significant downslide for several years. And sure, the market has always been cyclical in
the past. But we’re in the midst of a revolution, say the pundits, an information
revolution. Spurred by the fast development of the computer, mobile and information
technology, and the widespread use of personal computers, smartphones, Internet
services, and social media, the economy has morphed in a fundamental way. Information
technology has ushered in a paradigm-smashing leap in productivity that might have
made recession passé

Not so fast, say those who’ve studied these issues. It’s not even clear that personal
computers (PCs) have affected productivity appreciably, let alone leading to the kind of
improvements that would allow us to sail off with our mutual fund investments into a
tranquil prosperity. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that despite the PC
“revolution” and the billions invested in technology, productivity gains measured in
output per hour have remained at a feeble annual rate of 1 percent for the past 30 years,
which pales in comparison to the brawny productivity growth of 3 percent annually
experienced during the 1950s and 1960s.

Common sense indicates that PCs and digitalization should increase productivity. It
lets individuals plan and budget far more effectively. It makes it possible to keep track of
people and things far more easily, and it helps people communicate far more efficiently.
They can tap far more research sources than the largest collection of periodicals or books.
Even though some studies have shown that PCs have had a positive impact on
productivity, and even though some experts contend that such intangibles as convenience
and service don’t show up in the statistics, the fact remains that the productivity figures
haven’t budged. This anomaly has been called the “productivity paradox,” and if you
look at your own habits and those of people around you, you’ll see some of the reasons
why.

• Those memos with their fancy fonts and elaborate formatting take longer to create
than the simple typewritten memos of the past.

• Likewise with those presentations adorned with graphics, sound effects, and
animation.

• E-mail makes it easy to stay in the loop, but wading through scores of nonessential
messages each day is definitely a time sink.
• The Web can be an invaluable informational resource, but the temptation is great
to jump from one site to another, each in turn less relevant to your work needs. Not to
mention using the Web to shop, check out sports scores, and engage in chitchat.

• Then, there is the equipment maintenance. Whereas in the past only specialists got
silicon under their fingernails, today everybody has to deal with software bugs, hardware
conflicts, and system crashes. And when the machine is not cooperating, it lures you to
tinker endlessly in pursuit of perfection.

• A few years ago, a survey by SBT Accounting Systems of San Rafael, California,
showed that the typical computer user in a business setting wastes 5.1 hours each week
on PCs.

• Another study by Forrester Research of Cambridge, Massachusetts, showed that


20 percent of employees’ time spent on the Internet at work doesn’t involve their jobs.

This is not to say that you should trade your laptop for a typewriter or prevent
workers from having access to the Internet. It’s not the technology that’s the villain. It’s
how we use it. Because the machines are so dumb—all they really do is add and subtract
zeros and ones—we have to be smart in managing them.

a. What policies can a company establish to remedy some of the causes of the
productivity paradox?

b. Should the productivity paradox be a factor when considering the application of


information technology to business process design?

You might also like