Six Sigma, Kaizen, Lean, and other variations on continuous improvement can be hazardous to your organization's health. While it may be heresy to say this, recent evidence from Japan and elsewhere suggests that it's time to question these methods.
Admittedly, continuous improvement once powered Japan's economy. Japanese manufacturers in the 1950s had a reputation for poor quality, but through a culture of analytical and systematic change Japan was able to go from worst to first. Starting in the 1970s, the country's ability to create low-cost, quality products helped them dominate key industries, such as automobiles, telecommunications, and consumer electronics. To compete with this miraculous turnaround, Western companies, starting with Motorola, began to adopt Japanese methods. Now, almost every large Western company, and many smaller ones, advocate for continuous improvement.
But what's happened in Japan? In the past year Japan's major electronics firms have lost an aggregated $21 billion and have been routinely displaced by competitors from China, South Korea, and elsewhere. As Fujio Ando, senior managing director at Chibagin Asset Management suggests, "Japan's consumer electronics industry is facing defeat. "Similarly, Japan's automobile industry has been plagued by a series of embarrassing quality problems and recalls, and has lost market share to companies from South Korea and even (gasp!) the United States.
Looking beyond Japan, iconic six sigma companies in the United States, such as Motorola and GE, have struggled in recent years to be innovation leaders. 3M, which invested heavily in continuous improvement, had to loosen its sigma methodology in order to increase the flow of innovation. As innovation thinker Vijay Govindarajan says, "The more you hardwire a company on total quality management, [the more] it is going to hurt breakthrough innovation. The mindset that is needed, the capabilities that are needed, the metrics that are needed, the whole culture that is needed for discontinuous innovation, are fundamentally different."
So should we abandon continuous improvement? Absolutely not! It has created tremendous value and still drives competitive advantage in many companies and industries. But perhaps it's time to nuance our approach in the following ways:
Customize how and where continuous improvement is applied. One size of continuous improvement doesn't fit all parts of the organization. The kind of rigor required in a manufacturing environment may be unnecessary, or even destructive, in a research or design shop. Sure it's important to inject discipline into product and service development, but not so much that it discourages creativity.
Question whether processes should be improved, eliminated, or disrupted. Too many continuous improvement projects focus so much on gaining efficiencies that they don't challenge the basic assumptions of what's being done. For example, a six sigma team in one global consumer products firm spent a great deal of time streamlining information flows between headquarters and the field sales force, but didn't question how the information was ultimately used. Once they did, they were able to eliminate much of the data and free up thousands of hours that were redeployed to customer-facing activities.
Assess the impact on company culture. Take a hard look at the cultural implications of continuous improvement. How do they affect day-to-day behaviors? A data-driven mindset may encourage managers to ignore intuition or anomalous data that doesn't fit preconceived notions. In other cases it causes managers to ask execution-oriented, cost-focused questions way too early, instead of percolating and exploring ideas through messy experimentation that can't be justified through traditional metrics.
Continuous improvement doesn't have to be incompatible with disruptive innovation. But unless we think about continuous improvement in more subtle, nuanced, and creative ways, we may force companies to choose between the two.
What are your views about continuous improvement and innovation?
Newsroom » Security Landschap » #Zembla meldt gigantisch datalek persoonsgegevens, maar wie is aansprakelijk?
#Zembla meldt gigantisch datalek persoonsgegevens, maar wie is aansprakelijk?
Categorie: Security Landschap | 20/04/2012 om 22:55
In de uitzending van Zembla van 20 april, wordt melding gemaakt van een datalek in het systeem Humannet. Dat systeem wordt gebruikt voor verzuimregistratie door afhandelaar VerzuimReductie. Het blijkt dat een grote hoeveelheid persoonsgegevens voor ongeoorloofde bezoekers inzichtelijk was. Dat betekent hoogstwaarschijnlijk een schending van de Wet Bescherming Persoonsgegevens, maar wie zou daar in dit geval aansprakelijk voor zijn?
De Wet Bescherming Persoonsgegevens behandelt in artikel 49 de rechtsbescherming. Daarin staat dus wie aansprakelijk is in geval van dataverlies. De volgende subartikelen zijn daarin opgenomen:
Artikel 49
- 1. Indien iemand schade lijdt doordat ten opzichte van hem in strijd wordt gehandeld met de bij of krachtens deze wet gegeven voorschriften zijn de volgende leden van toepassing, onverminderd de aanspraken op grond van andere wettelijke regels.
- 2. Voor nadeel dat niet in vermogensschade bestaat, heeft de benadeelde recht op een naar billijkheid vast te stellen schadevergoeding.
- 3. De verantwoordelijke is aansprakelijk voor de schade of het nadeel, voortvloeiende uit het niet-nakomen van de in het eerste lid bedoelde voorschriften. De bewerker is aansprakelijk voor die schade of dat nadeel, voor zover ontstaan door zijn werkzaamheid.
- 4. De verantwoordelijke of de bewerker kan geheel of gedeeltelijk worden ontheven van deze aansprakelijkheid, indien hij bewijst dat de schade hem niet kan worden toegerekend.
Belangrijk is dus wie in de context van deze wet de verantwoordelijke en de bewerker zijn. Dat is te vinden in de Algemene Bepalingen:
- d. verantwoordelijke: de natuurlijke persoon, rechtspersoon of ieder ander die of het bestuursorgaan dat, alleen of te zamen met anderen, het doel van en de middelen voor de verwerking van persoonsgegevens vaststelt;
- e. bewerker: degene die ten behoeve van de verantwoordelijke persoonsgegevens verwerkt, zonder aan zijn rechtstreeks gezag te zijn onderworpen;
(bron: wetten.nl)
Het is duidelijk dat de primaire verantwoordelijkheid bij datalekken ligt bij de werkgever. Dat is ook logisch, want het zou niet voor de hand liggen om een slachtoffer (de betrokkene) te verplichten om de hele keten van ict-dienstverleners af te moeten om iemand aansprakelijk te kunnen stellen. Het is gebruikelijk dat een wet het slachtoffer daarin beschermt en dus de werkgever in dit geval als direct aansprakelijke definieert.
De bewerker in deze is waarschijnlijk VerzuimReductie. Aan de uitzending te zien bereid deze partij bij monde van diens woordvoerder zich voor om zich te beroepen op artikel 49 lid 4. Daarmee zijn zij echter hooguit in staat zich te ontdoen van aansprakelijkheid, maar de wet bepaalt mijns inziens niet dat die aansprakelijkheid dan automatisch doorvloeit naar VCD, de leverancier van de Humannet software.
Kortom: een heleboel getroffen werknemers kunnen zich nu richten tot hun werkgevers. En die kan zich weer beroepen op VerzuimReductie. Waar dat uiteindelijk op uit zal komen is de vraag. Ik wacht zeer geïnteresseerd af.
Kijk hier de Zembla uitzending terug.
Written by Erik Remmelzwaal
Algemeen Directeur van Medusoft BV. Sinds 2001 in dienst van Medusoft actief werkzaam in de Nederlandse IT Security branche.View all posts by: Erik Remmelzwaal
No Comments Yet.
Leave a Reply
Dit is sinds 25 januari ook Europese wetgeving. http://www.nu.nl/internet/2721684/strenge-europese-privacywetgeving-snel-onth...
Wordt zeker ook voor de gezondheidszorg een issue om voor elkaar te gaan krijgen.
Wow, is this the long awaited Google Wave successor? They make it at least very easy to export/import your old Waves into this new open source and FREE platform. It looks very nice.
I am giving it a spin.
Volgens mij eindelijk een aardig artikel om je agenda's wat beter op elkaar afgestemd te kunnen houden.
Meet hoe je schaatst met Schaatsprestaties.nl
zondag, 5 februari 2012 (14:39) | Bert van Doorn
Origineel geplaatst door '+aut+'')).focus();}/*]]>*/
'+con+'
Met de gratis Android-app Schaatsprestaties.nl kan je precies bijhouden hoeveel meters je hebt geschaatst, met welke snelheid je dit hebt gedaan en hoeveel calorieën je hiermee hebt verbrand. Daarnaast krijg je deze informatie ook in het Nederlands te horen tijdens het schaatsen en wordt je aangespoord door een audiocoach om net iets langer door te schaatsen dan je in eerste instantie zou willen.
De afgelegde afstanden met de bijbehorende tijden worden opgeslagen bij je profiel. Je kan deze informatie ook met anderen delen via Facebook of Twitter. Het unieke van Schaatsprestaties is dat je tijdens het schaatsen in het Nederlands te horen krijgt hoe hard je gaat en over kilometer je al hebt afgelegd. Ook wordt je gemotiveerd om langer door te schaatsen. Wel wordt continu gebruik gemaakt van je GPS-locatie, dus als je lang gaat schaatsen kan het zijn dat je batterij opeens leeg is.Schaatsprestaties is gratis te downloaden in de Android Market. Wel dien je een gratis account te maken op Schaatsprestaties.nl. Naast begeleiding tijdens het schaatsen kan je in de app ook informatie vinden over schaatsbanen in Nederland. Zo kan je onder meer beoordelingen lezen van andere schaatsers over de meeste schaatsbanen.
potvoordrie, net te laat ontdekt ;-)
It's when companies under-promise and over-deliver that people experience memorable moments that will affect their habits for a lifetime.
In a small restaurant in Shinjiku, a suburb of Tokyo, I ordered sake. First, the waitress placed a small wooden box in front of me. Then she arrived with a large tray carrying 40 cups. Each one, she explained, represented a different personality. I chose a blue cup, which she removed from her tray and carefully placed in the box.
As she began to pour the traditional drink into my small blue cup, things took a decidedly unusual turn. I had, as most would guess, expected her to stop below the rim. Instead she continued pouring, the clear liquor overflowing into the wooden box. And then, when most of the cup was submerged, she stopped, smiled, bowed, and said, "Enjoy."
As I nimbly attempted to fish for the cup, I asked her why she had poured so much. Her answer surprised me. She said, "Martin-san, I do this to show gratitude--to deliver a little bit more than what you expect."
Do you remember the last time you got more than you expected? Perhaps you were shopping for groceries or even buying something online. Am I right in assuming that, rare as these occasions are, when they happen you don't forget them? When I was a kid, I was a devoted Lego builder, collecting box after box. I came to realize that Lego always placed a few extra bricks inside the box, bricks never accounted for on the list of inventory. Over the years I began to accumulate a secret collection of Lego's gifted bricks. Funnily enough, I valued this collection above all others. It took on a kind of sacred quality.
Some years later, I visited the factory and the manager told me that those extra bricks were more a matter of practicality than goodwill. They were included in an attempt to circumvent thousands of requests from distraught parents who had unsuccessfully searched for that missing piece lost under the carpets or beneath the furniture.
Devalued as my collection of special bricks may have been in that childhood moment, what Lego had inadvertently achieved was to over-deliver and under-promise. And that's what stuck with me.
These days, we seem to be following a reverse philosophy. We over-promise and under-deliver. Or, at best, we deliver exactly what was promised--nothing more, nothing less. Just think of that pre-packed shrimp salad you bought, where you found that there was not a single shrimp among the lettuce, only the four at the top of the plastic container. Or the big bag of potato chips that is more air than chips. In general, we are more familiar with a leaner scenario than we are with excess.
Several years ago, I checked into the Peninsula Hotel in Chicago. I asked the concierge if it was possible to borrow some music CDs. Over the years, I'd grown accustomed to listening to music supplied by other hotels in the Peninsula group. It's a service they offer to all their regulars. As the hotel was new, the clerk politely informed me that this particular Peninsula had no CD library. Oh, well, so it goes. Yet minutes later, the concierge called to ask me what my favorite music was. Eminem, ABBA, and the Beatles, I replied. I was curious about this, but it slipped my mind as I continued working.
About 20 minutes later, I heard a knock on my door. When I opened it, the concierge handed over a small bag containing three CDs. You guessed it: Eminem, ABBA, and the Beatles. "This is a personal present from us to you," the concierge said. "Welcome to the Peninsula."
Now's let's pause here for a second. I've related this anecdote to hundreds of thousands of people attending my conferences--and to millions who have watched my TV appearances. My guesstimate would be that some 15 million people have heard this story. The cost to the Peninsula? About $22.50.
Needless to say, the Peninsula experience is far from common. However, every time I hear consumers raving about a brand, almost without exception it's been the result of the brand over-delivering. In a world where promises are routinely ambiguous or broken, when we encounter such service we find it, quite literally, remarkable. Small acts of generosity imbue us with that rare feeling of being cared for or considered by a company. Perhaps, when it comes down to it, we're still kids falling under the spell of surprise. If it's better than what we expected--or hoped for--we remember it above all else.
Who knows? Maybe the brand manager responsible for your favorite brand will not only read this article, but will act on it. Don't get your hopes up--catering to you may cost a few dollars more than what has been budgeted. After all, few people are willing to step outside the plate and eat into the budget that's already been set aside for things like consultants or social media ads.
Martin Lindstrom is a 2009 recipient of TIME Magazine's "World's 100 Most Influential People" and author of Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy (Doubleday, New York), a New York Times and Wall Street Journal best--seller. His latest book, Brandwashed: Tricks Companies Use to Manipulate Our Minds and Persuade Us to Buy, was published in September. A frequent advisor to heads of numerous Fortune 100 companies, Lindstrom has also authored 5 best-sellers translated into 30 languages. More at martinlindstrom.com.
Read more by Lindstrom: Trust Me: Here's Why Brands Sell Trust, Subconsciously
For more leadership coverage, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn
[Image: Flickr user David Lofink]
