Saturday, April 19, 2008 Roperos: Proof of inefficiency By Godofredo M. Roperos Politics Also
THREE Caucasian gentlemen, most likely Americans, who were having coffee at a shop along Jones Ave. were overheard by a government worker talking about their experiences in dealing with some government offices. I could not decide how to react to the information on the conversation that was told to me by our eavesdropper afterwards.
Our eavesdropper, who happens to be a nephew from Bohol, said he was amused by the common observation about how easy it is to know whether a local public office is operating efficiently and effectively. They agreed that a government office with people lining up to await their turn to be served can only be inefficient. And they cited the queues in a number of local offices.
Among the offices cited were the Social Security System, the National Bureau of Investigation, the National Statistics Office, and a host of others. The point is, queuing clienteles indicate inefficient management in the sense that the office heads did not anticipate the public need. Reasons such as lack of personnel or funds can’t be credible since they can always recruit more people to meet exigency of the service.
The fact is government offices do not go out of their way to extend service to their clientele in the best and fastest way they can. People would not be queuing if they are attended to immediately, or if there are enough people in the office serving the clientele. And this problem is a management one. There is such thing as anticipatory planning. Meaning the office management anticipates solution to a prospective problem.
An applicant for a visa to go abroad for a couple of weeks, for example, was required to have a certificate that he was granted permission to go on leave from his office. He sought to get the certification, and in his application for leave, he requested that his leave of absence would commence at the time the visa will be granted, if at all. His application was turned down on grounds that he did not place the date of his leave.
The point at issue is fulfillment of requirement. But how can he be specific when he was not sure when the visa would be granted? He would be wasting time if the visa would not be granted at all. It became a matter of the “cat going after its tail and unable to catch it because it moves away every time he turns around to catch it.”
The image conjured is not just stupid but ridiculous as well.
