Somewhere in the top ranks of every corporation there is a vice president, probably the CEO’s son-in-law, whose official title is “Director of Confusing System Changes”. He doesn’t correct them or eliminate them, he invents them.
At an insurance company’s board of directors meeting there are glowing reports of profit gains, increased efficiency and a sizable leap in customer satisfaction according to the latest survey.
The meeting has gone on for over three hours. It’s nearing the two-martini lunch hour and the directors are eager to wind things up. That’s when the DCSC veep raises his hand and gets the floor. “I think we ought to change our 800 number for reporting claims. The present one has no zip to it. And we should change from having live receptionists answering claim calls to something robotic with a dozen button selections to help customers eventually reach the proper party. Also, I’ve redesigned the claims form increasing it from two to fifteen pages which will be a big help for us in gathering statistics.”
The directors have been looking at their Rolexes as the meddlesome exec drones on. A few have nodded off and empty stomachs have begun to give audible alarm signals. “End it, end it! Let’s get the heck out of here NOW! is the general attitude. A vote is called for and the roll call indicates unanimous approval. Otherwise the DCSC would spend another hour defending his proposed changes that will most likely confuse, anger and alienate policy holders and increase adjusters’ response time.
Computer users have been known to lose touch with reality when they’re advised the complicated operational instructions they’ve finally managed to figure out have been replaced with a whole new set that are even more perplexing.
This disruptive policy of change for change sake is spreading. Once or twice a month, supermarket managers relocate a dozen frozen and canned goods items from shelves they’ve occupied for years to unknown faraway places without leaving clues to their new locations. We’ll soon need GPS devices on our shopping carts.
Unemployment might be the reason for this, the unemployment of executives’ son-in-laws who have to be put back into the loop, and on the bonus list, regardless of consequences.
Imagine That 