LE 05 - A different sort of "Exam"!

The night of Jul-11-2012

People reading blogs, glancing through book (Yes, glancing, NOT reading), trying to find simple, one word answers to very simple looking questions!

Now, you might be wondering, what's going on?

Well, here's the answer!

Jul-12-2012 - Mid-term examination of Principles of management!

And, I must say, this was the most different examination I have given till date! Why? Because, at PG level you do not expect an exam to be of True/False and Fill in the blanks type!

Was it simple? I don’t know what to say, probably for the other section who received the complete test questions as they were taking it later. But, still, what is the definition of “simple” for you? Because, people had tough time scoring 16 marks, and 10-12 was the mean! (Out of a test of 20 marks)

But, was it effective? Yes! There was no scope for anyone to write (or invent in JIT) lengthy theories or share their opinions. You either know what is on the table or you don’t! And, that’s all is required to measure the knowledge of a person.

For example, “Bounded Rationality enables managers to be gamblers!” State whether given statement is true or false with one line of reason. This kind of questions do not allow one to share “gyan” and fool the examiner which otherwise is the case when asked “Write in brief about Bounded Rationality” and then examiner is forced to give “some” marks if the candidate has written anything.

The test had 10 such discrete questions (consisting of True/False and FIB type questions). Time given was 1 hour. It may seem that people were given a lot of time, but that is true only if you know your subject well, and understand the applications of it.

So, to sum up, not only this test was different, but also refreshing to take where one’s knowledge and understanding of the subject was tested rather than his ability to bluff!!

Read More...

Lessons from The Three Monks

Three Monks (also referred to as The Three Buddhist Priests) is an animated film based on the ancient Chinese proverb "One monk will shoulder two buckets of water, two monks will share the load, but add a third and no one will want to fetch water." A note about the columns of text that appear at the beginning: the first column reads, "one monk fetches water to drink", the second column reads, "two monks carry water to drink", and the third one merely says, "three monks". With a simple and fresh directing style, the film depicts the comparisons of the different attitudes of the three monks when staying alone, staying with one other, and staying with two others.

But, as always we raise the question, is that all this beautiful film wants to say, or is there more to it? Let's find out!

Three Monks

Plot

A young monk lives a simple life in a temple on top of a hill. He has one daily task of hauling two buckets of water up the hill. He tries to share the job with another monk, but the carry pole is only long enough for one bucket. The arrival of a third monk prompts everyone to expect that someone else will take on the chore. Consequently, no one fetches water though everybody is thirsty. At night, a rat comes to scrounge and then knocks the candleholder, leading to a devastating fire in the temple. The three monks finally unite together and make a concerted effort to put out the fire. Since then they understand the old saying "unity is strength" and begin to live a harmonious life. The temple never lacks water again.
[Source - Three Monks]

Let's divide the plot in 3 parts -

1. First part where the first monk reaches temple and brings water for himself.
2. After the second monk arrives, how the behavior of each monk changes; and how the conflict for bringing water arises & the way they solve it.
3. The change in behavior of each monk after arrival of third monk and conflict faced by them in bringing water. And finally, how they collaborate to bring the water when adversity arises.

The final part, where the improvises to get the water up to temple - I won't consider in any of above three parts and would rather treat as an additional/bonus discussion!

Part 1 - First Monk :

The monk gets water whenever required from the lake at bottom of hill. For accomplishing this task, he uses a stick with a bucket hanging on each side.

Part 2 - Second Monk :

When the second monk arrives, both monk need to contribute equally to the task required. But, since two monks are going to be sharing the same stick (available resources at hand), now only one bucket can be used for bringing the water. Initially, the conflict arises as the task in not well-defined for each monk, but once done, it reduces the efforts for both the monks and things are settled for a while.

Now, before we move on to the third part, let's discuss certain things.
As always, as managers, first question we need to ask is - Are there any other feasible solutions? Let's ponder over some other solutions (we will also explain why the particular solution is not feasible alongside) -

1 - Two monks go to bring the water alternately (on daily or weekly basis)

Is it feasible - No. Two person, means higher resources, this should, must, will, always has to reduce the effort. If one person has to go even when two are available, this simply is under utilization of the resources, or in simpler terms, waste of your resource.

2 - Carry more than one bucket with two monks carrying from each side.
Is it feasible - No. As already stated, we have a stick of given length which can allow only one bucket to be carried at the moment, so we cannot do anything about it. This is condition where your capacity is limited due to unavailability of proper resources.

3 - Use a bigger stick to carry more buckets.
Is it feasible - In a way Yes. The thing is, while this could be done, at present the problem is that resource at hand is "stick of given length". Thus, it is not feasible at present. But, if in future they can arrange a longer stick, then my be yes. But again, there are more constraints to it, like the strength of stick, and ease of holding it with more weight. Thus, it must be noted that when upgrading resources, we must not only consider one criteria to judge the suitability of the resource. When we change the one factor, other factors are relatively affected, and we must make sure to reduce its ripple effect further.

So, is the current solution the best one?

YES. Because, this not only allows the proper utilization of our resources, it also reduces the effort per bucket significantly for each monk.
Quantitatively speaking, the effort for each monk reduces to one fourth. Suppose 1 be effort per bucket for one monk, then for each monk effort in older method would be 2. But, with the current scenario, it would be 1/2.
Now, let's talk from the perspective of productivity in terms of effort spent, then, we can come up with table like following -

Scenario	Output	Effort (per monk per bucket)	Input	Productivity = Output / Input
1 Monk	2 Buckets	1	2	1
2 Monk	1 Bucket	½	½	2

This table clearly demonstrated the reduction of effort and increase in an overall productivity for each monk!

Resolving Conflict -

One more thing to be observed here is when there are two monks involved, the conflict arises, and the way they solve this conflict. 
It can be seen that the conflict arises because the task division is not clearly defined and each monk tries to deliberate the work over to another one. This is natural in any organization and is bound to happen if the tasks are to be done in collaboration. Thus, a system to avoid such conflicts and maintain the harmony must be there.
In case of monks, they resolve this conflict by marking the exact half on stick and balancing bucket in that position.

NOTE - As we have discussed in earlier blogs also, it has to be always kept in mind that the physical structure or ability must not be thought about. In an organization, everyone is equal.

Part 3 - Third Monk :

Third monk is very thirsty when he arrives and finishes all the water at once. He is made to bring the water by other monks, but when he brings the water to top, he is again so thirsty that he finishes it again at once. After this, none of the monks are ready to take the responsibility and neither is anyone willing to find a way to solve the conflict among them.

Here, it should be noted that, conflict again arises as the task distribution fails again. Also, each monk acts being self-centric, thus trying to avoid the work.

The tendency to delegate work to others may lead to crisis!

But, in this case, the conflict is not resolved by anyone nor does anyone make efforts responsibility to face the situation. Thus, in the end, they all collectively come to work together only when the monastery is on fire (one caused by the mouse, which is ignored by each monk individually). While at the end, they do come up to work together, it must be noted that, since the conflicts at hand were not resolved pro-actively by each of them, the condition becomes so worse that not only the monastery but their individual lives are at stake at one point of time. Thus, it is very necessary to have a proper coordination and communication whenever one is working in an organization, where more than one person are involved and everyone has to assume individual responsibilities.

Here, for putting out the fire, each monk takes responsibility of bringing water from certain location to another point, thereby working in team not only to reduce the efforts but also to work efficiently.

Final Part - Improvising :

Towards the end of film, it can be observed that the monks have suitable alterations to the system of bringing the water up which has -

• reduced their efforts
• increased individual and group productivity
• improved efficiency
• higher capacity
• innovative work practices
• scientific work tools
• effective communication
• And, clearly defined task roles.

Improvisation is important, but feasibility of solution must remain.

Thus, it is important to remember that management always strives to make the work easier, and efficient. It continuously strives for the innovative methods of solving problems. Because, there always is a simpler solution!!

Read More...