Why Telecoms and Banks Don’t Care

I hate Philippine telecommunication companies.

I hate Philippine banks.

I hate telecom companies and banks in the Philippines because they don’t care about customer service. 

They can say all they want that they value their customers. 

They don’t. 

I know they don’t care because they provide the worst customer experience.

I can never have an uninterrupted conversation when using my mobile phone.  I can never hear clearly what the other person is saying from the other side of the line.  And that’s assuming I make a successful connection, which happens only half the time. 

When it comes to connecting to the internet or running an app, the quality of access is never good.  There’s never a decent signal or reception when I need one. 

And this isn’t just for mobile phones but landlines too.  I’d be lucky if my landline telephone at work goes out of order only once a year.  My office phone line always goes dead at least four (4) times a year.  Never mind if the phone company fixes it within a week; the phone will inevitably die again within a few months. 

The telecom companies don’t sincerely apologise for the poor service.  They reply with canned messages when someone complains on social media like Facebook and Twitter.  The telecom companies would ask the complainer to send a private message or email in which there would never be a satisfactory response.   

And despite the poor service and the hundreds of complaints, the telecom companies promptly bill their post-paid subscribers every month and threaten disconnection if one doesn’t pay by the deadline.  Prepaid subscribers meanwhile just pray that they get good reception for the money they shelled out already. 

I hate banks for the same reason as I hate telecom companies. 

They don’t care about their clients.

Banks always say they value their clients.  Yeah right. 

They don’t.

It may be easy to open a personal bank account as showing one’s identification is usually enough.  When it comes to opening an account for one’s business, however, banks, apply a presumed-guilty-till-proven-innocent approach. 

Banks ask just about everything from an enterprise: proof of registration, articles of incorporation, by-laws, lists of stockholders, latest financial statements, etc. 

Fine, I say.  One can argue that those are legitimate requirements. 

But why do they want the same f@#king stuff when they ask me to update the account’s records every year? 

They say it’s just an update but in other words, it’s because they don’t trust that my business still exists.  Never mind if I had been actively and continuously depositing funds into the account. 

Worse, banks demand that all signatories of the business account be certified by my company’s corporate secretary or legal counsel.  And that the corporate secretary provide identification to prove that she exists.  How more distrusting can banks get?

I do have a degree of understanding that transparency is important between enterprises and banks.  I just wonder if banks understand the time and productivity enterprises expend to prepare all these paperwork and signatures. 

Banks can call me lazy.  For me, it’s a darn waste of time due to simple distrust. 

It gets worse. 

You want a loan?  Hahahaha, Good Luck!  Banks rarely give the credit line you want.  And if they do, you’d have to fork over assets three to four times the value of the limit you want to borrow at most.  And again, you’d have to prepare another heap of paperwork and have fresh ballpens ready as you’d be running out of ink getting them all signed. 

When it comes to daily transactions, banks and telecom companies have some things in common: 

  • Long lines at their branches;
  • Long online transaction times

Whenever I go the bank, I’d have to budget an hour even for just a deposit. Some banks make it fast but often, especially with the big banks, it would take the whole morning.  Even just for one transaction.  The lines are always long; the waiting time running close to eternity. 

Telecom company branch offices likewise have long lines of people always waiting.  Whether it be to pay bills or make a complaint, some people would spend up to a day waiting before they’d need to talk to a “customer service representative,” which is an oxymoron since there’s no service represented. 

And just when I thought online portals of telecom companies and banks would make it easier and faster?  No such luck.    

Telecom companies and banks have websites that are complicated to navigate.  One telecom company has a website in which looking for my bill requires clicking on a link that’s almost invisible to the naked eye.  And when I do click it, I again have to find another microscopic link to look for my phone records.  It’s as if the telecom company doesn’t want me to find my bill!  

Bank websites meanwhile require so much security that by the time I finish, my work day morning would have disappeared. 

Friendly to customers?  Banks and telecom companies don’t show it with their very user-unfriendly websites. 

Banks and telecom companies don’t care about their customers because they have their captured markets.  People, especially enterprises, need banks to transact.  And we need our phones to communicate. 

We can’t live without phones or banks.  And the telecoms and the banks know that.  They therefore don’t care if they make life difficult for their clients if it would make their bottom lines fatter. 

Whenever I ask banks and telecom companies why they don’t try caring about clients, they cite several words:

  • Audit
  • Process
  • Policy

Banks say their auditors won’t approve skipping some documents in updating accounts even if they already have the documents when the account was opened.  No matter it doesn’t make sense, auditors want it and they have the final say; customers don’t.  

Telecom companies always say they have processes to follow.  Repairing a phone, for example, requires diagnosis which will take two to three days.  A service person will then schedule to visit your home or office which will take another so many days.  The service person sometimes never shows up, so we’d have to follow up and the cycle from diagnosis to schedule repeats itself. 

A telecom company refused to fix my company’s phone because the local barangay (neighbourhood village government unit) requires a permit to climb the pole where the fault for my phone service usually is.  The telecom company doesn’t want to pay the cost of the permit (in this case: PhP 350 ($USD 7.00); the company thinks the contractor it hired should pay for it.  A stalemate ensues; and my phone as a result would be out of order for months.  The telecom company kept quoting “process” whenever I followed up.  (My company finally ended up paying for the permit because we needed the phone). 

You want to increase your business corporate credit card limit?  I might as well wait till hell freezes over.  Banks ask for so much requirements and paperwork just to apply for it; I’d still have to wait for the bank to bless the application for approval. 

Banks and telecom companies provide the epitome of lousy customer experience. 

Poor reception from telecom companies.  Huge amounts of paperwork from banks.  Long lines and complicated online navigation.  You name it, banks and telecom companies have it—everything that customer service experts say a business shouldn’t be doing.  They have their captured markets so they don’t care. 

We just have to live with it.  Hope springs eternal; I just hope I can wait that long.

About Overtimers Anonymous

What is a Supply Chain, Really?

The first time I heard about supply chains was when I was working as a production planner at P&G Philippines in 1989.  P&G’s top management had just reorganised the multinational consumer goods corporation’s operations worldwide, integrating manufacturing, purchasing, and logistics under one group: the Product Supply Organisation or PSO, for short. 

The aim of the PSO was to streamline the flow of materials and products from vendors to customers.  Executive leadership emphasised customer service, lower costs, and reductions in working capital, especially inventories. 

Top management at P&G Philippines pushed a comprehensive information technology project as the centrepiece to integrate the various functions, with focus on MRP 2, or Manufacturing Resource Planning, the precursor to Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP).

When P&G moved me to manage the shipping department at the company’s Tondo Plant in 1990, I arrived just in time for the implementation of the newly installed MRP-2 software.

It didn’t start well.

The software couldn’t keep up with the pace of orders coming in and the loading and dispatch of trucks.  The system would hang often or users from other departments weren’t updating inventories to allow us to pick items for shipping.  We ended up overriding the system which earned me the ire of the IT project leader.   Marketing brand managers and field sales came after my department as pending orders piled up and the General Manager even had me sat down in a whole day meeting to explain the snafus in the system.    

The shipping and IT department people worked nights, holidays, and weekends to get the system to work and ship orders.  We finally were able to deliver and the company saw its sales hit record highs. 

A lesson learned from the experience was this: 

Managing a supply chain doesn’t start with reorganisations or putting in a fancy computer system.  Managing a supply chain starts with establishing relationships between the people who’d be running it.  

The supply chain is a representation of operations and their relationships not only within the organisation of an enterprise but also with other organisations of other enterprises, especially the ones the enterprise does business with, such as customers, vendors, and 3rd party providers. 

A supply chain isn’t an organisation nor is it a system of operations.  It isn’t a flowing stream and it is not an ecosystem.  (Ecosystems are communities of biological organisms that eat each other). 

The supply chain is a model, a paradigm that shifts us from seeing work not as the jobs we do on our own at a work-station, cubicle, or vehicle, but as jobs that connect us with others in getting what we need, producing what are needed, moving to where they’re needed, and delivering to who needs them.    

A more-to-the-point definition for supply chains would be:  supply chains are operational relationships that make available products and services. 

Supply chain management is the management of those operational relationships

It’s not a system.  It’s not an organisation.  Supply chains are about relationships―relationships consisting of people working together to deliver products and services. 

About Overtimers Anonymous

Why Should We Care?

Silos

When we get a job in an enterprise, we generally assume it’s for work the company advertised and interviewed us for.   We would find it kind of funny if the company assigns us to do something we didn’t get hired for.   

But it happens.  We sometimes are given work that are not on our original job descriptions.   

Some organisations include “any additional jobs the company may assign” to the list of things to the position we are employed in, but we would push back if the “things” our bosses tell us to do are far from the kind of work we are supposed to be doing.  One does not assign advertising work to an accountant, for instance. 

But it happens.  Like a bookkeeper who the boss treats as a secretary.  Like a plumber who ends up repairing electrical circuits.  Or an engineer who doesn’t do any engineering work at all but becomes a supervisor of an assembly line. 

We also hesitate when an enterprise gives us work in another department or to a “sister company.”  In the Philippines, some firms set up “sister companies” or “subsidiaries” that are totally different legal entities but have almost identical ownership.  The owners would ask their best-performing personnel working in one enterprise to do jobs in another.  An accountant would end up bookkeeping for several different firms or a technician would find himself repairing machines at several different workplaces. Each would, however, be earning just one pay-check from just one company. 

And it does happen.  And often.  Especially in corporations that have diversified holdings in various enterprises. 

We of course want to do just the jobs we are hired and paid for.  “It’s not my job” and “I don’t care” have become favourite mantras in most workplaces.  But just as much as our peers avoid asking us to do things we’re not supposed to do, we find it difficult when our bosses tell us otherwise. 

Our bosses, however, also do get their share of extra work.  Their superiors as well as executives of other departments at times ask them to do things that’s not on the scope of the departments they run.  As much as they resent the additional assignments, many have a hard time saying no. 

And it happens again and again.  Despite what bosses have on their plates, superiors would pile on more.  And we employees get more work too as a result. 

So, we build walls.  What some so-called experts would call “silos.” 

Silos literally are those large towers we find mostly at farms.  They’re storehouses farmers typically put their bulk harvests in before sending them off to markets.  They are usually built with strong materials such as steel or cement.  Silos are designed to isolate stock they store from the outside world, to keep out pests, provide protection from the weather, and preserve freshness.    

Silos have become the best figures of speech for departments in an enterprise who don’t interact with other functions.  And they apply to individual enterprises as well. 

Many enterprises have a culture of looking more towards within than without.  The entrepreneurs that start them have a tendency focus a lot on the activities of their enterprises as they make the effort to boost sales and control costs.   Organisations are conditioned from day one to look inward.  How do we sustain cashflow?  How do we improve our products?  How many sales people do we need?  How much training is enough? 

They ask less about:  how did my customer do with my product?  Did he or she like it?  How has my vendor reacted to my purchase order?  Is she making the effort to ensure the best quality of the items we asked for? 

These latter questions don’t address the interests of our enterprises, so why ask?  Why should we care? 

We should care because the world is changing.  And supply chain management has become more applicable if not more essential in this changing world.    

It’s not only because of the pandemic.    

When the coronavirus (CoVID-19) pandemic hit in 2020, enterprises saw their supply lines fall apart.  Merchandise didn’t arrive or orders were cancelled.  Hospitals didn’t receive needed personal protective equipment (PPEs).  Ocean transport stalled, tying up containers at ports.  Factory production stopped; food deliveries were disrupted.  It was chaos. 

And it didn’t end there. 

Governments have lifted restrictions only to repeatedly put them back again as the virus returned in second, third, and even fourth waves.  Ocean-going vessels ran short of shipping containers for clients and the clients scrambled to build inventories as their customers rushed orders.  Factories stopped and started due to uneven deliveries of critical materials ranging from semiconductor chips, coffee beans, cotton, and chemicals. 

Some politicians trumpeted recovery but realities on the ground were that supply chains have buckled under the stress of whipped up demand and limited supply and capacities. 

Supply chains aren’t in a crisis because of the pandemic.  The pandemic just aggravated what has been holding back supply chains. 

Silos. 

Many businesses had built walls and had focused only on what’s happening within; they ended up at the mercy of outside forces.  They faltered from disruptions that became more frequent this past decade, culminating with the global coronavirus pandemic. 

The concept of the supply chain, since its introduction in the 1970’s, requires managers and executives to not only interact with each other’s functions but also relate with parties along the supply chains they link to.

A butcher must take into account the origin of the meat he procures. 

Chemical companies must assure the lasting efficacies of its products from deliveries to customer to succeeding tiers of trade to the final consumer. 

We cannot not care.  We need to realise we are participants in a supply chain that runs through enterprises, not just within enterprises.  The bottlenecks our vendors face whether it be in material shortages or traffic gridlocks are our business as well as theirs.  The effects of how our deliveries cascade down from buyers to consumers are for our best interests to know and even be involved.    

We should mind the business of others, as we no longer can mind our own alone. 

This is what supply chain management teaches us.  A supply chain’s greatest strength lies in its links, in the connections we make with others. 

It’s a hell of a change in mindset. 

The good news is that many if not most enterprises we compete with are still stuck in the mindset of silos. 

The bad news is that they’re getting the picture too and they will soon be change to become better themselves. 

About Overtimers Anonymous

The Path Towards Becoming a Supply Chain Expert Begins with Basic Competency

Sometimes identifying a problem is not in observing what’s going on; sometimes it’s noticing what’s not there.

In my blog, “Where are the Supply Chain Experts?”, written last March 2020, I wrote there were no supply chain experts seen working side by side with business and government leaders in solving supply issues at the height of the CoVID-19 pandemic. 

As media reported issues regarding shortages of medical supplies and consumer goods, we heard no real solutions to the problems.  And as government executives encountered obstacles deploying vaccines, there was no supply chain professional managing proper and efficient distribution. 

There may have been much talk about supply chain issues but there was little in the way of supply chain solutions coming from supply chain experts.

Not that there aren’t any supply chain experts.  There have been numerous podcasts, blogs, and testimonies on the subject but most if not all the supply chain professionals were really just broadcasting opinions.  There wasn’t much in the way of seeing them together with leaders or the leaders even mentioning any of them at all.* 

Simply put, despite the attention, nobody is putting weight in people with supply chain expertise.  Hardly any supply chain professional is in the limelight, even as the global CoVID-19 has brought on the most traumatic economic disruption in history.

There are several reasons which I believe why we don’t see supply chain experts taking the lead in solving major supply chain problems: 

Reason #1: Supply chain people are operations people and operations people are not expected to go out and interact with the outside world.   

The paradigm of operations people is to focus on what’s going within the workplace, that is, they focus inward.  Except to buy or deliver or hire a contractor, operations people don’t really interact with the outside world.

That essentially had been my upbringing in most of my supply chain jobs.  I concentrated on my department, my workplace, the processes within that were assigned to me.  Emphasis was always on what was going on within operations, not without.

Any interactions with the outside world were initiated mostly be people who were not in operations.  Operations people did not initiate such things and I don’t think many do so up to today.

In other words, operations people, especially supply chain professionals, are proactive in what happens within the four (4) walls of factories, warehouses, and offices.  We were not asked to improve the connections enterprises had with vendors, customers, and 3rd party providers.  Executives emphasised performance measures, not relationships.

Reason #2: There aren’t many supply chain experts in the first place. 

Many entrepreneurs are not supply chain professionals and many executives aren’t either.

That’s one reason maybe why we don’t see many chief supply chain officers.  There aren’t that many experienced supply chain managers in the first place. 

It’s not that the leaders don’t recognise the importance of supply chain management even to the extent of having it as an equal in the echelons of top management.  It’s just that there are very few managers with supply chain experience. 

When I say experience, I don’t just mean experience in logistics or manufacturing.  I mean experience as in synchronising operational functions and interacting with customers, vendors, and 3rd parties in procuring, transforming, and moving merchandise from sources to customers.  How many people do we know have this kind of expertise?  Chances are not a lot. 

Reason #3:  Supply Chain education is relatively new and not widespread. 

Many people aren’t schooled in supply chain management.  We can’t blame them for that; supply chain education is relatively new, as in it’s a course that only has been around for only 30 years or so, unlike finance and marketing which have been around for more than a century (longer perhaps).  And supply chain management as a concept and application is still evolving.

Coupled with that are the ones who teach supply chain management.  There aren’t that many supply chain teachers, at least one would call qualified to teach, one who has experience in various supply chain activities.  

Many supply chain courses teach specific subjects that tie in general operations management topics such as inventory management, production planning, transportation management, and operations research.  The trouble is many of these courses don’t tie in the topics together to teach how the supply chain functions as a whole.  They don’t offer the connectivity that illustrates how supply chain operations work together from end to end.

At the same time, supply chain education isn’t really uniform from place to place.  Some schools link supply chains more to logistics while others stress transportation and purchasing.  Some don’t even teach manufacturing’s connection to the supply chain, treating it separately even as it shouldn’t be.  There’s really no formally standard course for supply chains as one would see for law, engineering, or business administration. 

The people graduating from any supply chain management course from the 1990’s to the 2020’s aren’t therefore fully educated in supply chains.  They’re just graduates taught with a hodgepodge of individual courses related to the subject, which in itself isn’t the same from one school to the next, from one teacher to another. 

These make the diplomas and certificates some supply chain schools issue open to doubt.  A certificate or diploma in supply chain management thus testifies to a school’s brand of teaching, not necessarily one that is generally applicable in any industry. 

When it comes to bringing supply chain management to the forefront and developing it as a prominent field that addresses present-day issues via the three (3) aforementioned reasons, what should be done? 

I believe education should be the starting point and the very first step should be to establish basic competency among candidates for the field. 

I define basic competency in supply chain management as where one is familiar with operations, can at least see how to tie them in altogether towards overall optimal performance, and where one has the ability to plan, organise, direct, and control supply chains both in the day-to-day and strategic perspective. 

Basic competency would be the foundation.  Experiences afterward would be the building blocks that would develop the manager’s proficiency. 

Both the education in basic competency and the experience one gains should not be inward looking but focused on the relationships and connections between parties and links within and outside the enterprise. 

It would be a wholly new approach to some entering into the study of supply chains.  But I believe it would be worth it.  Many of the challenges we see in supply chains are precisely occurring in relationships and connections between functions and parties inside and outside enterprises. 

Where can we find the teachers or just even the mentors?  Because there are not many of them, many aspiring students would be left on their own to look for and put together the bits and pieces experiences would bring. 

But even as they may be few, there are those who can at least help new managers attain that basic competency.   I’d like to think I can be one of those teachers given the knowledge and insights I gained from close to 40 years’ experience in the field. 

*[President Joseph Biden of the United States led a “summit on semiconductor and supply chain resilience” in April 2021 in which the President discussed  with chief executive officers (CEOs) how to tackle supply issues particularly in semiconductor chips.  No prominent supply chain expert was seen stepping up to address the issue].     

About Overtimers Anonymous

Six (6) Reasons Why We Need to Learn How to Manage Supply Chains

Why do we need to learn how to manage supply chains?

The answer to the question may seem straightforward at first.   

We need to learn how to manage supply chains so that we can ensure the availability of products and services at the right quantity, right quality, at the time they’re needed, and at a cost that is within stakeholders’ expectations.

But it’s not really that straightforward. 

Supply Chain Management was the idea of Mr. Keith Oliver who sometime in the 1970’s, while working for consultancy firm, Booz Allen Hamilton, developed a vision to break down the functional silos within organisations and integrate operations toward the common purpose of meeting customer requirements. 

Keith Oliver proposed I2M or Integrated Inventory Management in a presentation to a steering committee at the multinational corporation, Philips, in the 1970’s.  But as Oliver struggled to define I2M as the “management of a chain of supply as though it were a single activity,” one of the Philips managers, Mr. Van t’Hoff, suggested Oliver to call it just that:  “total supply chain management.” 

Not many of us really remember Keith Oliver or Mr. Van t’Hoff that much these days but most of us know, or at least heard of, supply chains and supply chain management

Supply Chain Management is a subject that has gained much attention and interest since Messrs Oliver and Vant’Hoff uttered the term.  Just about every enterprise that sells a product recognises the importance of supply chains especially when it comes to deliveries and costs. 

I learned supply chain management mostly on my own, in which I was fortunate to experience different assignments representing various stages of supply chain operations.

I managed inbound receipts of raw materials in which I learned how to plan, schedule, store, and handle incoming receipts.  I learned to be careful in making sure there neither was too much inventory nor too little. 

I managed production operations in which I learned that management is mostly how one works with not only people who are on the factory floor but also with peers from other departments, like purchasing, shipping & transportation, engineering & maintenance, human resources (HR), finance & accounting, and research & development (R&D).

I managed outbound logistics in which I learned that customer service starts not with deliveries but with understanding what customers want. 

From these experiences, I’ve distilled six (6) reasons why we need to learn how to manage supply chains. 

  1. Supply chains are the life-blood of (just about) every enterprise

All enterprises that sell products and services rely on some sort of supply chain for the transformation and flow of resources and merchandise.  The operations that underlie them provide the revenues and dictate the costs which determine the wealth and health of enterprises. 

  • Supply chains go beyond the enterprise’s borders

Supply chains don’t describe what happens within enterprises.  They describe what happens between enterprises.  Managers who are adept about their operations are only at most half-way in managing supply chains.  The real good ones are those who can make the entire supply chain work favourably for their enterprise’s interests. 

  • They’re complicated

No two (2) supply chains are alike, whether one compares enterprises or the operations that run through them.  And every supply chain isn’t really just a single flow of stuff from one end to another.  They’re really interconnected links where items flow in and flow out at various points of every other enterprise’s operation; some of which are visible and some of which are sometimes not. 

  • They’re prone to adversity

Every chain has its weakest links and the more links they are, the more likely they are vulnerable to adversity.  Adversities come in all types of risks and degrees of disruption.  Some are natural; some are man-made.  And they are often unpredictable, which requires some special talent in mitigating, if not avoiding them. 

  • Supply chain success relies on the performance of people

Much emphasis has been made on managing resources when it comes to supply chains.  But supply chain success can only happen with how well people working in them perform.  A lot rides on the workers and operators at different points of the chain and that doesn’t discount stakeholders such as the vendors, customers, information technology professionals, engineers, technicians, executives, and supervisors. 

  • They’re changing

Supply chains are evolving.  And not necessarily uniformly.  Some have hardly changed, such as storage & handling at seaports.  Some have dramatically altered the landscape such as e-commerce portals displacing middlemen in the retail industry.  And not only are they evolving within industries.  Supply chains are coming into play in enterprises one would never think they’d be applicable.  These include business process outsourcing (e.g. call centres), labour contract agencies, insurance, and software development. 

Supply chain management was born from the “aha” moment of Messrs. Keith Oliver and Van t’Hoff.  While the names of both esteemed men have waned from our memories, their brainchild, supply chain management, has become a very popular subject of discussion at enterprises the world over. 

But popularity alone is not enough a reason for why we need to learn how to manage supply chains. 

Supply chain management has become more important as enterprises recognise that it is the manifestation of actual revenue and cost, that it goes beyond borders of businesses, that it addresses complexity and adversity, that people performance is key to success, and that it is changing, not necessarily smoothly but more often in fits and starts. 

I am lucky to have experienced working in various supply chain operations but what it gave me wasn’t credentials but rather, the insights in how supply chains deserve a high place in our management priorities. 

About Overtimers Anonymous

What is a Manager, Anyway?

What is a manager?

That was the first question the group of line managers asked me. 

I just got hired by as a management trainee at a consumer goods company and was on my first month at its Manila manufacturing facility, going through orientation. 

I was required to undergo a qualification test with senior managers to assess how familiar I was with the company’s personnel manual, which detailed policies and benefits for employees.  The session with the line managers was a practice or “mock” qualification before the actual test with the facility’s top executives. 

Even after reading through all the manuals and memorising human resource policies and procedures, I was stumped.  I didn’t know how to answer the question.

“Do not guess!,” one line manager said, who happened to be a 25 year veteran shipping manager in the company.  “Apparently, you do not know what a manager is.” 

And right there, I failed the mock qualification test and had to go back to studying and finding out specifically what a manager is. 

Some will say a manager is a leader.  And that would not be the right answer.

Some will say a manager is a supervisor.  And again, the answer is no. 

A search on the internet will show varying results: 

A manager is a person who is responsible for supervising and motivating employees.”

A manager is an individual that supervises both activities and people within a given organization. In other terms, it is the person in charge of overseeing things that to get done.”

A manager is an expert in his or her field and is a support system for employees.”

“manager: a person who has control or direction of an institution, business, etc., or of a part, division, or phase of it.”

“manager: a person responsible for controlling or administering all or part of a company or similar organization.”

Words such as “responsible,” “supervision,” and “control”, however, don’t provide a complete picture of what a manager is. 

After my disastrous failure at the mock qualification test, the shipping manager approached me and said, “check the Philippine Labour Code.”  I did right away and this is how the Philippines labour law defines a manager:   

(m) “Managerial employee” is one who is vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment.

ref: Article 219 (m), Labor Code of the Philippines, DOLE Edition, 2016

In later conversations, the line managers said that the Philippine Labour Code was a starting point to knowing what a manager is.  They said:

Managers are representatives of the business.  They have the mandate and authority to make and enforce policies, and to hire & fire people. 

But more than that:

Managers are expected to muster resources to deliver results but what makes a manager different from everyone else is that they have responsibility over people

The late Peter Drucker, famous management guru, said it best when he said:

Management involves getting people to work toward the objectives of the enterprise.

A manager doesn’t just handle resources; a manager isn’t a manager unless he or she has people working for him or her.  

When the line managers met me again for a retaking of the mock qualification, I was able to hurdle the definition of what a manager is.  At the same time, the line managers taught me an important lesson.

You can’t manage anything until you first understand what your role as a manager is.

In a world where enterprises outsource work to third parties and oversee operations from far-away offices, defining what a manager is can be debatable and complicated. 

I don’t really believe a manager is one until he or she directly handles people, as in person, face-to-face, restrictions such as pandemics notwithstanding.  One can have one, two, or a team of a hundred working for him or her.  The point is management when it comes down to it, is all about getting people to work for the goals you as a manager and the enterprise who hired you have set. 

Defining what a manager is the very first step in any enterprise endeavour. 

And in the field of supply chain management, for instance, the most important word is the last one. 

About Overtimers Anonymous

Appreciating the Value of Veteran Employees

When I was a young industrial engineer at the food production division of a multinational company, the accounting department asked me to find out why there was a large reported loss of refined coconut oil.

They’re the ones we always look for when we need something. 

I went to the production manager and he told me to ask Mang Ben.

In the Philippines, calling someone “Mang” is an address of respect usually to an elder.  Mang Ben in my case was a fifty-plus year old veteran who had worked at the multinational’s foods processing department for more than 25 years.  Mang Ben had more experience than everyone else and he would know why there is a reported loss in the coconut oil.  (It turned out to be due to an unsubmitted form that failed to get to accounting). 

Mang Ben could tell how many weeks supply an oil storage tank has just by looking at a gauge and he knew how to “cook” the fats and oils that the multinational produced every day. He could unload a barge of coconut oil all by himself and even called shipping operators to schedule when the barges should arrive such that they’d be timed with the incoming tides.  

I’ve met many workers like Mang Ben in the enterprises I later engaged with.

  • There’s the veteran machine operator who worked for a printing press company.  He knew how to quickly troubleshoot critical equipment and was the one the owners went to if they wanted to know if deadlines could be met; 
  • There’s the storeroom clerk who knew where every spare part of every equipment of the enterprise.  Even if there would be hundreds of items, he’d know where they were kept.  He also had a box of index cards which he used to track the inventory of the items, from when and how many arrived from which vendors to when and how many were given out and to whom; 
  • There was the 30-year-old young lady who was the right-hand assistant of an owner of a trading enterprise which delivered to independent convenience stores.  She knew every inch of the warehouse she was in charge of and knew every step in the trader’s logistics operations, from order to delivery.  She would push people to deliver rush orders and knew the ins and outs of the trading enterprise’s accounting system;
  • There’s the purchasing clerk who was familiar with every vendor of the multinational company she worked for.  From the ones who delivered the expensive chemicals down to the office supplies, she knew who offered the best deals.  She was the go-to person when any of the enterprise’s managers needed something to be bought fast. 

Some executives in the past have cited operations managers’ dependency on people like Mang Ben as a sign of weakness in the system.  Relying on one person for so much may entail risk especially if that employee suddenly becomes absent or leaves the enterprise. 

On the other hand, having a very able veteran brings about opportunities.  Veteran employees like Mang Ben bring a wealth of experience that manuals or consultants can’t equal.  A manual does not quite teach how much to turn a valve in real life to get to just the right cooking temperature as well as how Mang Ben would show it in person.    

Veterans also are likely to know what improvements would be most helpful for an enterprise.  Many veteran labourers at warehouses had given me insights on how storage racks should be laid out and what kind of material handling equipment would help. I was surprised, for example, when the labourers at a toy importer said they’d settle for well-built ladders to climb than expensive forklifts to retrieve bulky boxes from the tallest rack shelves. 

And when it comes to big changes such as building a new warehouse or installing new technology, it also helps to have veterans participate.  Veterans know the products and services of an enterprise very well, if not more so than the owners themselves.  Whenever there is an introduction of something new like a new improved machine or new storage facilities, the veterans would likely have valuable input on what to watch out for especially on quality, efficiency, and service. 

Veterans would know how high a truck dock should be or where in a factory the floor would be strongest to place a new machine.  An architect or civil engineer may offer all the standards but a veteran would know via experience what and where would contribute best for something new. 

Many enterprises have veterans like Mang Ben, employees who have loyally stayed long with the business and know more about the operations than just about anyone else.  Veterans are not signs of weaknesses but people who offer opportunities for educating new employees and to consult with for improvements, whether minor or major. 

We should be grateful for the veterans in our workplace.  They contribute more than what we can appreciate them for. 

About Overtimers Anonymous

Why Redundant Systems are Out-of-the-Question Necessary

I live in Mandaluyong City, Manila, Philippines and on June 2, 2021, there were three (3) announcements:

  1. The Luzon electrical grid was on “red alert,” meaning power failures of up to two (2) hours were imminent due to shortfalls in supply from power plants;
  2. The water utility company, Manila Water, warned that there would be no water supply later in the evening, as the company was planning to fix a water main which could take up to ten (10) hours;
  3. The government’s weather bureau forecasted that a tropical storm was bearing down on Manila, which could bring heavy rains and strong winds.

None of the above happened. 

There was no power interruption.  Water slowed to only a trickle for up to at most a half hour in the middle of the night.  And the storm brought light rain but no strong winds. 

Though it was good news that none of the above happened, the three (3) announcements were disturbing for the following reasons:

  1. They all came as surprises.  The government was assuring ample electrical supply from April to June 2021.  Manila Water had just fixed the water main a few weeks before so we residents didn’t expect there’d be another job that would entail one more whole night of no water.  The weather bureau was predicting the tropical storm wouldn’t reach Luzon but we suddenly saw the new forecast on social media before the storm would hit;
  2. There was no sense of urgencyPoliticians bickered about the power shortages.  Agencies weren’t advising people about the risks in regard to the storm.  And no one was asking communities to prepare for the scheduled water interruption.
  3. These announcements wouldn’t have been necessary if the systems behind each of them were reliable in the first place

All of us rely on electricity and water for our basic needs.  It’s therefore a given that supply should be reliable, as in 100% reliable.  We don’t and shouldn’t accept anything marginally lower. 

If someone tells us we should be happy with 99% reliability in electricity and water, we would ask that person if he’d be happy having no water or power one day out of every 100 days.  We wouldn’t and no one else would. 

Hence, we expect the people who supply us the power and water to be utterly and perfectly dependable.  It’s what we pay for via the bills the utility companies send us and expect us to pay by deadlines with the threat of disconnection if we don’t. 

Electricity and water, like products, easily follow the supply chain model.  Power plants procure raw materials (e.g., coal, oil, gas, wind, solar, geothermal steam) and convert them to electricity which they deliver via transmission lines and distribution grids.  Water companies likewise procure raw water from reservoirs, treat it, and distribute it via their plumbing networks to household and commercial consumers. 

The procurement, transformation, and logistics that comprise every supply chain are present as well in electricity and water utilities.

What makes the power and water supply chains unique is that the products of both are instantly available.  We get power at the flick of a switch and water at the turn of a valve. 

We consumers expect three (3) things from utility companies that supply electricity and water: 

  1. Reliability all the time.  When we consumers need it, the supply should be there. 
  2. Reliability to all.  Supply should be available all the time to all in a utility company’s coverage area.  It is not acceptable if one community has water and power while another has none. 
  3. Reliability in quality.  Utility companies must supply electricity and water at the quality needed.  If our appliances need 220 Volts, it should be 220 Volts, not 250 or 190.  Water should be clean, not dirty. 

Some executives and politicians mistake capacity for reliability.  Some believe if there are more power plants, the more reliable power supply will be.  Likewise, for water, some believe the greater the reservoir capacities, the more reliable water supply would be. 

Capacity is about the capability of assets, such as machines that can produce more and such as storage facilities that can keep more.  But having the ability to make or store more doesn’t make a system more reliable. 

Manila relies on one large reservoir to supply the bulk of its water.  Some people urge that another should be built so that there would be more water available for a growing population.  It’s an issue of capacity, these people say. 

Manila, however, relies on treatment plants to clean and filter the water.  It also relies on a network of pipes to bring the water to consumers. 

What would happen if Manila had lots more water than needed via two (2) reservoirs but had only one treatment plant and one main pipe supplying several of its cities?  The system may have more than enough capacity but wouldn’t exactly be reliable especially if the treatment plant shuts down or a pipe springs a leak.

This is what exactly was the issue for that announcement of no water on June 2, 2021.  A main water pipe needed repair and it was the only one that supplied to a large swath of the city.  One pipe determined the reliable supply of water to hundreds of thousands of people. 

Similarly, it would be nice to have more power plants to have more generating capacity. But if there’s only a single transmission line from each power plant and single substations to process that power before reaching respective consumers, then the power supply may not be as reliable.

Luzon had a shortfall of power supply on June 2, 2021 not because there weren’t enough power plants.  It was because Luzon’s power plants weren’t being managed reliably.  A power plant for instance didn’t have a backup for its boiler facilities that ran its turbine.  Other power plants were down simultaneously for preventive maintenance, which reflected poor scheduling. 

Redundancy is key to dependable reliability in utility companies.  Redundancy is the operation of multiple identical assets for the same process.  Instead of one asset, there’d be two or more even if just one is enough to do on its own.  That means either there’d be at least one idle asset backing up other assets in an operation or several assets running at the same time but at lower capacities as they share serving the total demand. 

For electricity supply, that would mean multiple facilities, not only in the form of multiple power plants but also in multiple transmission grids and substations running parallel to each other. 

For water, that would mean not only multiple reservoirs but also multiple treatment plants and plumbing networks either running parallel or taking turns to be on standby. 

If a transmission line has a fault, the power company can switch to another grid to deliver the electricity.  If a pipe bursts, the water company can switch to an alternate pipeline. 

Some executives, however, see redundancy as a bad thing.  Since it requires extra investment and added operating costs, they would rather not have redundant systems and instead insist that their management teams simply make sure that the systems are always running all the time and perfectly.

Unfortunately, no system is perfect.  Eventually, there will be failure.  It is just not humanly possible to prevent a power line from snapping due to wear and tear or a water treatment plant from shutting down due to an unexpected clog in its filter systems.                                                                                  

Redundancy therefore not only becomes justifiable but also necessary especially when the consumers the utility companies serve, which is practically everyone, demand 100% reliable electricity and water.

Redundancy applies to other supply chains in other industries as well where customers are very sensitive to failure in the delivery of goods and services. 

Enterprises that sell finished products rely on multiple vendors for the same raw materials to avoid run-outs.  They also set contracts with multiple transport providers to ensure there’d be available trucks to deliver the goods. 

Again, some executives mistake capacity for reliability.  They ration procurements from vendors based on percentage of their manufacturing capacities and they ask only so much trucks per transport provider to total only what’s needed to ship in a day.  When a vendor fails to deliver or a trucker doesn’t show up, the enterprise ends up not making what’s needed or delivering to schedule. 

Redundancy means having assets that provide multiples of needed capacity, not just the capacity itself.  It means having multiple sources, multiple facilities, and multiple systems such that when one fails, another picks up the slack. 

And as much as it applies to electricity and water, it is very much applicable to other industries that have very demanding customers.

And it also applies to weather forecasting too.  Weather forecasters rely on multiple monitoring stations and multiple providers for satellite and analytical data.  The data and analyses are redundant but it allows weather forecasters to compare information and come up with more accurate and reliable forecasts.  Which makes it puzzling as to why the forecast was so much wrong before June 2, 2021. 

For critical services like electricity and water, we demand perfect reliability.  Redundancy in systems help assure that reliability.  We expect nothing less from those who provide what we feel we deserve. 

About Overtimers Anonymous

Three Questions Every New Manager Should Ask

Every new manager should always ask three (3) questions about an operation he or she will be in charge of:

  1. What does the book say should be happening?
  2. What do the people say should be happening?
  3. What is really happening? 

Chances are each answer would be totally different from the others. 

What does the book say?

The “book” in this case is the manual, memo, policy, or rule.  What does the book say how an operation should be run? 

What do the people say?

The “people” are the workers running the operation, your boss, and your peers whom you work with.  They’re the men and women on the ground who know their jobs as well as those co-managers who think they know more than you. 

You could also pose the same question to support staff like the inspectors & maintenance technicians, or to foremen and supervisors who oversee the workers.  But I’d put more weight to what the people who are on the front-line say since they’re the ones who are right there doing the job itself.   

What is really happening?

This is what is actually happening which comes from witnessing the operation itself. 

Most of the time the answers to each question differ greatly.  What the book says would differ from what the people you work with say and either would differ from what is happening in real life.

When a new manager notes the different answers, it provides a starting point on how best to manage the people and operations she will be in charge of.  It will lead to more questions like:

  • Why isn’t the operation doing what it’s supposed to as per the manual?
  • Why are people saying differently from what is actually happening?

The idea isn’t to catch people and find fault.  It’s to know what real problems underlie the jobs people are doing and the systems that run them. 

The three (3) questions provide an opening into understanding what those challenges and difficulties are. 

Case in Point:  Production at a Refrigerated Margarine Packing Line

As a new manager of a refrigerated margarine packing line of a multinational consumer goods corporation, it was my job to make sure production would always be maximised.  There was high demand for the corporation’s refrigerated margarine brand at the time and I had to make sure production was in full swing.

I noticed, however, that production per eight-hour shift never was more than 700 packed cases a day. 

I went to check the work styles of the margarine’s operators.  I had the three (3) questions in mind:

What did the book, the company’s manufacturing manual, say? 

The manual said employees must be on the production line at the very start of their shift and can only leave their work-place during breaks and only at the end of their shift.  During their work-time, they must be working and packing to meet output as dictated by the production schedule.

In other words, employees should be working throughout their shift except during breaks. 

But if they are working throughout their shift, then based on time & motion studies, they should easily exceed 700 cases a day.  So why weren’t they?

What did the operators say?

When I asked the operators how come they weren’t exceeding the 700 cases a shift, they said that is the maximum they can humanly do.  Each case is heavy and packing them isn’t as easy as what the manual says. 

When they pack a refrigerated margarine case, they said they have one person scooping up the margarine bars and putting them into a corrugated container.  A second packer tapes the case and stacks it with others on a pallet.  A third person who is also the operator of the production equipment moves the pallet to cold storage adjacent to the packing line and then provides a new pallet for the packets to stack new cases. 

What was really happening?

When I went to discreetly observe the packing operation (I would observe from a spot where they wouldn’t see me), I noticed that there’d only be one operator on the packing line.  The other two wouldn’t be there.  In fact, whenever I observed the operation, there will always be only person doing everything:  packing, stacking, and moving the pallets. 

On the swing shift (afternoon to evening) and graveyard shift (evening to early morning), there would be no production operation for the last two to three hours of each shift.  As in no one present on the production line. 

When I confronted the crews about this, their first answer was that the other operators were on break when I was observing only one person on the line.  When I countered that it wasn’t the designated company break time, they then said they took turns on breaks so that they could run the machine straight without having to turn it off and on again. 

When I asked how come there was no operation for the last two to three hours of a shift, they said they were making up for the break-times they didn’t use up from going straight during the shift.

Finally, when the employees realised they weren’t making sense, they finally said:

Some years ago we were paid on incentive.  We were given a quota of 700 cases a shift.  If we exceed quota, then we will be paid extra.  But the company decided two (2) years before you the manager came to scrap the system and raised every worker’s salaries to make up for the lost incentive.  We at the refrigerated margarine line, however, felt no longer motivated to produce more than 700 cases per shift.  And rather work throughout a shift, each of us operators took turns packing the items on the line.  Each of us would really be working only two (2) hours a shift.  After six (6) hours, when we reached the “quota” of 700 cases, we would all go upstairs to our locker room and rest until quitting time. 

For the succeeding months afterwards, I worked with the refrigerated margarine crew in this regard.  I didn’t outright succeed in getting more production per shift but I did change how production schedules were done and did organise the crews into teams that worked on reducing downtimes.  Productivity actually improved despite the ongoing practice of producing only a fixed quantity per shift. 

Asking those three (3) questions:

  1. What does the book say?
  2. What do the people say?
  3. What is really happening? 

helps managers see what’s happening from three (3) different angles. 

Neither answer may necessarily be the right one.  The idea is to reconcile them all and identify the problems that underlie each one of them. 

About Overtimers Anonymous

Just About Every Enterprise is a Supply Chain Enterprise

I and ten million people in Manila have the same problem every day.  Mobile phone reception—it’s lousy. 

It would take several tries to call someone on my mobile phone and when I do, chances are the conversation would stop in the middle. 

Poor cellular reception is a norm in the Philippines.  It’s just so hard to get a decent signal to have a continuous conversation or get a text out. 

I’m sure telecom companies are doing all they could to improve their services.  I see it with their unrelenting investment in the set-up and maintenance of cell-phone towers as they continue to expand coverage and upgrade reception. 

If we think about it, the operations of telecom companies have similarities to those enterprises who manufacture and deliver finished products.  The good quality mobile phone reception we yearn for is not much unlike the supermarket products in how both are made available to consumers.  In short, both have supply chains. 

The supply chain is a model for enterprises that buy raw materials and produce & deliver merchandise for their customers.  Supply chain management has become a standard when it comes to managing the inventories and logistics of items, from chemicals to consumer goods.

Supply chains, however, aren’t limited to just physically tangible products.  They’re very much applicable to intangible items, such as electricity, health care, and business process outsourcing (BPO) services. 

Supply chains follow the flow of products from their start as raw materials to their conversion to merchandise and subsequent delivery to users.  Service and utility enterprises also follow a path of conversion and delivery not altogether different from product supply chains. 

In manufacturing industries, factories convert raw materials into products. 

In non-manufacturing industries, enterprises convert specific problems and issues into finished services.   Hospitals treat sick patients.  Call centres handle problems and questions.  Telecom companies provide mobile phone receptions resulting in uninterrupted conversations and successful sent messages.  Power utility companies make available electricity from energy sources. 

But It’s not just relating manufacturing and services.  It’s also the logistics behind both.  Whereas manufacturers rely on procurement of materials and logistics for transport and delivery, service enterprises depend on infrastructure and systems to ensure the flow of their operations.

A hospital needs not only ambulances but also the system of managing the dispatch of the ambulances for the assurance of fast turnaround for the benefit to patients needing immediate transport. 

One mistake I observe with service companies is that they limit supply chain management to stuff like spare parts and supplies. 

A large energy corporation for instance has a supply chain executive whose job is to buy equipment and components.  The energy corporation had no structure or strategy when it comes to power conversion and delivery.  The energy corporation, hence, had big issues in unreliable power delivery due to poor planning in energy generation and power plant capacities. 

The success of a supply chain model starts with its scope.  Does the supply chain manager of the enterprise handle the total flow from start (procurement/purchasing), to its conversion (production/service operation), and the logistics operations (transport/delivery/orders processing)?  If it misses on any of the aforementioned, chances are the enterprise’s business has a lot of room for improvement.

We consumers want good quality from the things we buy.  Not only the merchandise from the store but also from services such as mobile phone reception, electricity at the flick of a switch, and the best health care. 

The supply chain model is just as much applicable for intangible services as much as it is for tangible items.  Most if not all enterprises have supply chains for what they offer and deliver.  We just need to recognise that managing the operations with supply chains in mind can go a long way to bringing excellence and win-win results. 

If only the telecom companies can think like this, then maybe we’d get better service with our cell-phones. 

About Overtimers Anonymous