Perhaps you can share with us exactly what “inefficiencies” have been eliminated.
Nice try. Not a nice corollary.
Nobody is asking for cheap.
Well that depends on the eye of the beholder.
Coal companies thought safety regulations were creating inefficiency.
Competing goals for one.
Other than that I’d have to get inside the process.
What “competing goals”?
They are asking for speed
Speed
Quality
Cost
Pick 2.
If you want high quality and speed… it will cost more.
If you want speed and low cost… quality goes down.
If you want low cost and high quality… you will get slow.
Did they? Or did they claim ridiculous regulations born of high modernism were inefficient?
What does MSHA know about mining coal? I’ll help, nothing.
Claiming to speed the process by “eliminating ineffciencies” is no different than politicians claiming they’ll lower the deficit by cutting “waste, fraud and abuse.”
It doesn’t mean anything unless you get specific.
What is your expertise in the vaccine development process that you believe you could troubleshoot it to identify inefficiencies?
I don’t disagree. Put the goalposts down.
I’m asking you to get specific.
My knowledge is that of process. Complex systems. Safety regulations. Human performance.
You?
I’m not in the process. I am simply addressing your incorrect claim that it is not possible.
In a pedantic sense, it is possible to lower the deficit by cutting waste, fraud and abuse.
No one’s ever done it, though.
This is when it starts getting really good.
That’s not at all true. The private sector does it all the time.
No, they don’t. “Waste, fraud and abuse” is as much of a joke in a boardroom as it is on the floor of Congress.
1 Like
Just proved my point
Eye of the beholder. When seeking speed ANYTHING that slows down a process could be considered inefficient
They absolutely do. Shell for example has an excellent materials recovery program.
No, I didn’t. But yes it can be claimed. Just like the removal of any inefficiency can be claimed to be a safety violation.
