S'pore pays price of restructuring on inflation and growth fronts

(29-10-2014, 10:40 AM)thor666 Wrote: As I shared my views with my friends, productivity is the one thing that the government has consistently failed to improve on.

I'm puzzled here - why is it the Govt's failure to improve productivity of businesses? Shouldn't it be businesses here have consistently failed to improve productivity? Aren't the business owners and managers the ones who should be vested?

(29-10-2014, 10:57 AM)egghead Wrote:

(29-10-2014, 10:40 AM)thor666 Wrote: As I shared my views with my friends, productivity is the one thing that the government has consistently failed to improve on.

I'm puzzled here - why is it the Govt's failure to improve productivity of businesses? Shouldn't it be businesses here have consistently failed to improve productivity? Aren't the business owners and managers the ones who should be vested?

The same as saying the Govt has consistently failed to improve the Graciousness Index of Singapore?

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sing...32720.html

(29-10-2014, 10:57 AM)egghead Wrote:

(29-10-2014, 10:40 AM)thor666 Wrote: As I shared my views with my friends, productivity is the one thing that the government has consistently failed to improve on.

I'm puzzled here - why is it the Govt's failure to improve productivity of businesses? Shouldn't it be businesses here have consistently failed to improve productivity? Aren't the business owners and managers the ones who should be vested?

all the money Govt dumped on PIC (and previous schemes) ended up in abuse and waste. e.g. what is the most purchased IT hardware bought using PIC - iPhone/Ipad.
Most likely end up in hands of bosses kids. Heard some folks set up multiple companies to get PIC. Just hire 3 part-timer on CPF for 1-2 months then apply.

My view is that businesses should be the ones to drive productivity and automation processes. And for them to do that, the cost of labour has to be of economically expensivet. In areas of f&b, companies like Japan food has resorted to ipads and pos upgrades. However this too is due to pic credits etc. In Sg, the govt has been reluctant to increase labour cost and only does it gradually.

Subsequently providing incentives to companies to adopt automation. Subsiding companies instead of increasing labour cost is a wrong way to go imo. We can't be Subsiding them indefinitely

(29-10-2014, 10:57 AM)egghead Wrote:

(29-10-2014, 10:40 AM)thor666 Wrote: As I shared my views with my friends, productivity is the one thing that the government has consistently failed to improve on.

I'm puzzled here - why is it the Govt's failure to improve productivity of businesses? Shouldn't it be businesses here have consistently failed to improve productivity? Aren't the business owners and managers the ones who should be vested?

I agree it is business need to improve productivity.
The issue is that the government has distorted the productivity of businesses through policies such as PIC and having a loose FT employment policy.
There is no incentive for businesses to improve with the approaches that the government took.

The government has recently been tightening up on PIC scheme and I applaud them for that. However, it remains one of the schemes that is wasting taxpayer money by not getting the right results.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

(29-10-2014, 11:18 AM)CY09 Wrote: And for them to do that, the cost of labour has to be of economically expensivet.

That is like saying I won't try to make more money unless the Govt makes life more difficult for me.

(29-10-2014, 11:28 AM)thor666 Wrote: The issue is that the government has distorted the productivity of businesses through policies such as PIC and having a loose FT employment policy.
There is no incentive for businesses to improve with the approaches that the government took.

I cannot imagine any business owner saying that - no incentive to improve because <excuse> <excuse> and <excuse>?

Working in many different types of organizations, I realize that improving productivity is a grey area. Theoretically it is about increasing more output for less input. However, the way to get there is so diverse based on the organizations you are.

Politics, Fear, comfort zone etc.... these things play a big role in changing the organization.

e.g. In one large organization I know, just removing a middle manager would improve the productivity. Why? that individual manager has more political power and prevents any form of process improvement, design changes etc... the manager wants to maintain the status quo and prevent anything that might challenge his authority.

In another micro - SME, they are so caught up in their routine process that works for them, they don't think beyond that. Its about getting the next client, firefighting the projects to ensure they finish on time. The employees know that if you take time to improve the process, a lot of the time spend on fire fighting can drastically reduced, but the management does not want to venture as it will take time away from more projects, clients etccc.....

I can list a dozen more. I think ultimately it is up to the organization, but I think until they feel the pain or the push, a lot of them might not change, and when they do want to change, it might be too late... as others might have overtaken them.

egghead Wrote: I cannot imagine any business owner saying that - no incentive to improve because <excuse> <excuse> and <excuse>?

Egghead: companies will take the economical way out in general. I think u missed my point. What I am saying is that the government implementation of certain policy is incentivising companies in the wrong way.

You may want to google on PIC scheme abuse to get an idea of what I mean.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

(29-10-2014, 02:15 PM)thor666 Wrote: Egghead: companies will take the economical way out in general. I think u missed my point. What I am saying is that the government implementation of certain policy is incentivising companies in the wrong way.

thor666, your point is abundantly clear to me.

My points are:

1. Companies are in business to make profit and business owners and managers look at ALL avenues to increase profit (whether by increasing sales, reducing costs, tapping Govt rebates, etc). If I have three ways to improve my bottom line (i.e. increase productivity), why should I take only the one that is the most economical way? You seem to suggest that because of the PIC scheme, somehow companies stop looking at other ways to improve their productivity.

2. I understand what you mean by incentivizing companies the wrong way. Didn't you also mention that Japan Food did it correctly? As with all schemes, there will be people who abuse the system. Just as there are people who get duped by Sure Win 4 U no matter how stupid the scheme sounds. If you make the scheme too strict (too many checks), real entrepreneurs won't waste their time; on the other hand, if you make it too easy, you attract people out to game the system. I don't know the right balance but I support the PIC (even though I have not applied for it) and am glad that Govt is monitoring and fine tuning to safeguard it.

My own sense of this low productivity thingy is in line with flinger's observations - many companies here are still too comfortable and complacent. For me, productivity is a discipline and no improvement is too small to drive.

1. I agree there is additional room for improvement from companies. With reference to this article, am addressing the situation that the government attempts to drive productivity, when I find some of the policies enacted disincentivizes companies to take greater effort.

2. Agreed.

I have no doubt the implementation of productivity is tedious. Where I work at, it took 2 yrs to drive a simple clean up effort costing less than 1k. A lot of politics were involved in between.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk