At the risk of babbling on too much about Robert Reich's book Supercapitalism (see my long review here), I want to touch on one more issue raised in the book. Reich spends quite a bit of time on the concept that so-called corporate social responsibility is a veritable oxymoron, and not something that an intelligent, self-preserving corporation should do. For example, unless sponsoring a concert will make the company worth more, it's counterproductive to do it, and the competitor that doesn't sponsor concerts will gain an advantage. (His point, for those who read either the book or my review, is that social responsibility should come from citizens working through their government, and should not be looked for from corporations.)
As one example, Reich cites the attempts to convince companies that they should adhere to codes of conduct across their operations, so they will apply the same standards in Chinese factories as in the U.S. Reich is appropriately skeptical of this, as companies that compromise profit-making opportunities will lose to those that keep their eyes on the prize. There is huge incentive to agree to these codes to look responsible, then look the other way if, by ignoring them, money can be made.
In particular, Reich says that codes of conduct are being violated in China, that "factories keep double sets of books to fool auditors and distribute scripts for employees to recite if they are questioned" [p. 193]. When I read this, I had to chuckle, because I think the American reader is supposed to be shocked.
Can anyone be surprised by this, especially in light of the various product safety problems we've seen the past several months? But my goal here is not to criticize the Chinese, even though they obviously have strong incentives to cut corners. It's to talk about how we do the same things in this country.
What was Enron but a library of double sets of books? Their bookkeeping was shaky past belief.
As for distributing scripts...
I'm not sure how many readers have ever been through an ISO 9000 audit. I used to work at a company that was largely manufacturing-oriented, though I worked on the computer software side. ISO 9000 certification is a big deal in this industry, apparently there are customers that insist on it. Since our software was sold with the hardware, we needed to be certified as much as the manufacturing area did. Someday I may write a post on the differences between a manufacturing line and any other part of the company, and some of the hilarious attempts to apply one kind of structure on the other.
My manager at the time was absolutely opposed to process of any type, not to preserve the individual craftsmanship of the brave developer, but because he didn't understand it. He saw software development as a series of magical, heroic steps, kind of like Lord of the Rings. (He had been a developer, a lousy one, for many years, and still didn't quite understand where code came from - like the couple who has six kids and still can't understand how.)
So when management came up with the requirement that our group be able to pass an ISO audit, we prepared - not by improving anything about the way we coded or designed or tested, but by writing a few process documents and putting them on the network hard drive. Once everyone knew where they were, we were ready for the audit...and we passed!
How this is any different from the Chinese practices cited by Reich, I don't know. Essentially we all knew exactly what we were to say if interviewed by the auditor, exactly where to find the process diagrams that the senior members of the team (like me) had thrown together. Understand that none of the diagrams or flows or documents had anything to do with how we did our work, they were based on previous places I had worked or taken from books.
So when you hear that some company has ISO 9000 certification, or has attained CMMI level 3 (or 4, or 5), or has reached Six Sigma, take that with a huge grain of salt. These techniques can represent an attention to quality, an overall improvement in the way the company does business, or the announcement can certify, well, nothing but a desire to get a corporate credential.
As one example, Reich cites the attempts to convince companies that they should adhere to codes of conduct across their operations, so they will apply the same standards in Chinese factories as in the U.S. Reich is appropriately skeptical of this, as companies that compromise profit-making opportunities will lose to those that keep their eyes on the prize. There is huge incentive to agree to these codes to look responsible, then look the other way if, by ignoring them, money can be made.
In particular, Reich says that codes of conduct are being violated in China, that "factories keep double sets of books to fool auditors and distribute scripts for employees to recite if they are questioned" [p. 193]. When I read this, I had to chuckle, because I think the American reader is supposed to be shocked.
Can anyone be surprised by this, especially in light of the various product safety problems we've seen the past several months? But my goal here is not to criticize the Chinese, even though they obviously have strong incentives to cut corners. It's to talk about how we do the same things in this country.
What was Enron but a library of double sets of books? Their bookkeeping was shaky past belief.
As for distributing scripts...
I'm not sure how many readers have ever been through an ISO 9000 audit. I used to work at a company that was largely manufacturing-oriented, though I worked on the computer software side. ISO 9000 certification is a big deal in this industry, apparently there are customers that insist on it. Since our software was sold with the hardware, we needed to be certified as much as the manufacturing area did. Someday I may write a post on the differences between a manufacturing line and any other part of the company, and some of the hilarious attempts to apply one kind of structure on the other.
My manager at the time was absolutely opposed to process of any type, not to preserve the individual craftsmanship of the brave developer, but because he didn't understand it. He saw software development as a series of magical, heroic steps, kind of like Lord of the Rings. (He had been a developer, a lousy one, for many years, and still didn't quite understand where code came from - like the couple who has six kids and still can't understand how.)
So when management came up with the requirement that our group be able to pass an ISO audit, we prepared - not by improving anything about the way we coded or designed or tested, but by writing a few process documents and putting them on the network hard drive. Once everyone knew where they were, we were ready for the audit...and we passed!
How this is any different from the Chinese practices cited by Reich, I don't know. Essentially we all knew exactly what we were to say if interviewed by the auditor, exactly where to find the process diagrams that the senior members of the team (like me) had thrown together. Understand that none of the diagrams or flows or documents had anything to do with how we did our work, they were based on previous places I had worked or taken from books.
So when you hear that some company has ISO 9000 certification, or has attained CMMI level 3 (or 4, or 5), or has reached Six Sigma, take that with a huge grain of salt. These techniques can represent an attention to quality, an overall improvement in the way the company does business, or the announcement can certify, well, nothing but a desire to get a corporate credential.
No comments:
Post a Comment