Many companies nowadays put forward programs to help their employees to develop. One interesting marketing campaign I have seen said "your development is your responsibility" implying that the employees have to take charge of their own development (I assume it means career and personal development). However, it does not seem to imply employer's role in it.
Granted that unless one is driving oneself, one would find it hard to succeed in anything. However, many times the employees' hands are bound by what the employers plan. How many employers would agree to fund and support their employees' development plan which is not aligned with the greater business objectives (aka making money)? I am not pessimistic to say none but I would say a great deal of them would say a clear "NO" although they may hide it under different disguise. In reality, a development plan means time and cost is required. A mentoring plan requires the mentor to spend the time and it is an opportunity cost where the time can be used to make money. A course will cost the department / company. These are the parts that are often forgotten. I would argue then that the employers have a bigger role in developing the employees. All comes to budget and thoughts within the organizations. All need management support. A company losing money will not be able to realistically fund for a course for the employees unless the course will make more money in a very short time!! However, I would also argue that the employers should look into a longer term and think about how the employees can be happier, more productive and when even leaving a company they may appreciate what have been done. These intangible values are somewhat lost, at least based on what I have experienced and through my reading of the newspaper. Sadly..
Showing posts with label Random thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Random thoughts. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Cost of salary
Everyone wants higher salary, doesn't it? Why? Because we think we deliver more value to justify that, right?
Now, plenty of us tends to forget several other costs of working. We always think about Profit = Revenue - Cost, aka Savings = Salary - Time spent.
However, what has always been forgotten are costs such as:
- Family life
- Social life
- Rest time
- Ethics
- Integrity
- Honesty
- Morality
Those costs are intangible yet important as it provides the invisible support to allow one to work optimally. However, plenty of times we and our employers do not value them. It is pretty much a driven world, world driven by money. We have seen recently how those many costs are blowing up. Consider the financial crisis fuelled by irresponsible acts. But wait, who says it is irresponsible? It is the unfortunate. In a way, it is the lack of integrity, ethics and morality which has seem degraded our working life to just work, for money, money and money. Plenty of times other rewards, benefits and contribution from working life are not considered. A meaningful work should be those that help the world turns around and better other people. Consider the cleaner, the operator, the rubbish collecter, etc. We need all those but we rarely reward them just simply because they don't create the money. Wait, someone will say "the value". I am not exactly sure when we human started to equate value = money and only money.
Similarly, moral degradation affects lots of facets of our lives. See how lavish some senior management is rewarded. It is time that more realistic and moralistic based salary calculation is implemented. Only then perhaps working life is considered sacred and really for the betterment of society.
Wait, even then this argument may turn against me because I am also talking about money here. :-) Then again, those other values ("costs") need to be considered as well. Why are we paying irresponsible and ethically incorrect people higher than the honest folk?
Now, plenty of us tends to forget several other costs of working. We always think about Profit = Revenue - Cost, aka Savings = Salary - Time spent.
However, what has always been forgotten are costs such as:
- Family life
- Social life
- Rest time
- Ethics
- Integrity
- Honesty
- Morality
Those costs are intangible yet important as it provides the invisible support to allow one to work optimally. However, plenty of times we and our employers do not value them. It is pretty much a driven world, world driven by money. We have seen recently how those many costs are blowing up. Consider the financial crisis fuelled by irresponsible acts. But wait, who says it is irresponsible? It is the unfortunate. In a way, it is the lack of integrity, ethics and morality which has seem degraded our working life to just work, for money, money and money. Plenty of times other rewards, benefits and contribution from working life are not considered. A meaningful work should be those that help the world turns around and better other people. Consider the cleaner, the operator, the rubbish collecter, etc. We need all those but we rarely reward them just simply because they don't create the money. Wait, someone will say "the value". I am not exactly sure when we human started to equate value = money and only money.
Similarly, moral degradation affects lots of facets of our lives. See how lavish some senior management is rewarded. It is time that more realistic and moralistic based salary calculation is implemented. Only then perhaps working life is considered sacred and really for the betterment of society.
Wait, even then this argument may turn against me because I am also talking about money here. :-) Then again, those other values ("costs") need to be considered as well. Why are we paying irresponsible and ethically incorrect people higher than the honest folk?
Friday, November 20, 2009
Healthy company
The working world is very dynamic. It is very rare to see a company without any staff turnover. Depending on the type of business, the turnover rate may easily reach above 50%, e.g. hotel and service industry. Part of the issue is the long hours in those industry which does not tend to translate into adequate pay for the employees. Despite whatever turnover rate existing, I believe the spread of employee service duration can be used to describe the effectiveness of the company.
I would split the service duration in a company to short (0-5 years), medium (5 to 10 years) and long term (above 10 years). I believe that an effective company the spread of service duration should follow a kind of normal distribution where most of the employees should be in medium service durations.
Young employees of 20s to mid 30s are known to job hop and change job regularly to (1) find a job that suit themselves better; (2) negotiate better working condition. However, some of those 'lucky' youngsters will land in their dream job from day one or near day one. These are the people that would stay in medium to long term. People in medium term would be expected to have master their work and be in good productive part of their life while not being paid excessively. Thus, they are the ones which would be upholding the effectiveness and productivity of the company. Employees serving less than 5 years would be expected to still learn the rope and still climbing in productivity. Unless the company attempt to keep more of this people, the company will experience high turnover for the young employees.
Employees who have served the company for more than 10 years are known to be loyal and die hard fans of the company. They are the stalwart employees. However, their salary is often rather high compared to what they do. After all, you would have few people in the top management (normally people who has served for a long time). The rest would be low or medium level employees. Hence, their work would normally considered of lower value add but yet due to their long service, they are paid quite well.
Therefore, I believe an effective and productive company would be those with employee in medium service duration followed by a short service duration. A company that experiences a hollow medium service duration employee , i.e. lots more oldies and youngsters, may not function as effectively as they should be since the employees are either still (i) learning the rope or (ii) paid overly high compared to their value.
I would split the service duration in a company to short (0-5 years), medium (5 to 10 years) and long term (above 10 years). I believe that an effective company the spread of service duration should follow a kind of normal distribution where most of the employees should be in medium service durations.
Young employees of 20s to mid 30s are known to job hop and change job regularly to (1) find a job that suit themselves better; (2) negotiate better working condition. However, some of those 'lucky' youngsters will land in their dream job from day one or near day one. These are the people that would stay in medium to long term. People in medium term would be expected to have master their work and be in good productive part of their life while not being paid excessively. Thus, they are the ones which would be upholding the effectiveness and productivity of the company. Employees serving less than 5 years would be expected to still learn the rope and still climbing in productivity. Unless the company attempt to keep more of this people, the company will experience high turnover for the young employees.
Employees who have served the company for more than 10 years are known to be loyal and die hard fans of the company. They are the stalwart employees. However, their salary is often rather high compared to what they do. After all, you would have few people in the top management (normally people who has served for a long time). The rest would be low or medium level employees. Hence, their work would normally considered of lower value add but yet due to their long service, they are paid quite well.
Therefore, I believe an effective and productive company would be those with employee in medium service duration followed by a short service duration. A company that experiences a hollow medium service duration employee , i.e. lots more oldies and youngsters, may not function as effectively as they should be since the employees are either still (i) learning the rope or (ii) paid overly high compared to their value.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Technology marketplace - a potentially better set up?
I just visited A*STAR's website on a whim and I found an interesting link: http://www.a-star.edu.sg/Industry/TechnologyMarketplace/tabid/97/Default.aspx
Looks like they are heading to a correct direction. They are offering technologies for licensing openly in the market. I wish there are more things listed there though. But then again, Singapore's R&D scene is still in the growing stage. The list there may even be considered impressive for the beginners.
However, I feel that more should be done for those patented technologies. They should be actively offered to targeted businesses or industries. A team of people whose job scope comprises of listing and finding potential companies who may find those technologies useful will serve any R&D institute well. Not many companies embrace the idea of searching technologies to buy online so to wait for one to stumble upon the webpage seems complacent. Active searching of buyers should still be the main activity.
The webpage set up could be improved as well by allowing companies to search based on their need, e.g. searching based on the type of the company, the type of technology and trying to categorize the technologies in wider manner. A technology would normally fall under several categories so they should be listed under those categories at the same time.
Another issue that can be taken up is to reduce patent applications. Patenting findings seem to be a pastime of Singapore's researchers. Unfortunately, not many of those patents really worth patenting. I think this is a credible explanation to the lack of commercialization. In fact, patent application may serve as the end point of the research without afterthought put into what will happen after that. Money spent for patenting nearly useless research findings could be well spent into bettering the technology or even channeling them to better use. Before a patent is applied, potential for commercialization should actually be assessed first. I would think that having 100% commercialization success of 100 patents are better than having 10,000 patent with 10 commercialization success.
Looks like they are heading to a correct direction. They are offering technologies for licensing openly in the market. I wish there are more things listed there though. But then again, Singapore's R&D scene is still in the growing stage. The list there may even be considered impressive for the beginners.
However, I feel that more should be done for those patented technologies. They should be actively offered to targeted businesses or industries. A team of people whose job scope comprises of listing and finding potential companies who may find those technologies useful will serve any R&D institute well. Not many companies embrace the idea of searching technologies to buy online so to wait for one to stumble upon the webpage seems complacent. Active searching of buyers should still be the main activity.
The webpage set up could be improved as well by allowing companies to search based on their need, e.g. searching based on the type of the company, the type of technology and trying to categorize the technologies in wider manner. A technology would normally fall under several categories so they should be listed under those categories at the same time.
Another issue that can be taken up is to reduce patent applications. Patenting findings seem to be a pastime of Singapore's researchers. Unfortunately, not many of those patents really worth patenting. I think this is a credible explanation to the lack of commercialization. In fact, patent application may serve as the end point of the research without afterthought put into what will happen after that. Money spent for patenting nearly useless research findings could be well spent into bettering the technology or even channeling them to better use. Before a patent is applied, potential for commercialization should actually be assessed first. I would think that having 100% commercialization success of 100 patents are better than having 10,000 patent with 10 commercialization success.
Good idea for mall management
I went to West Mall today and I must confess that I am impressed with whoever has the idea for the escalator arrangement. The Mall is roughly a rectangle and runs two stacks of escalator at the opposite long side. It used to be set such that one stack is for going up while the other stack is for going down. In this set up, the shoppers simply walk along a side to reach the escalator for continuing their trips up or down.
Today I saw the escalator being set in a crisscrossing manner. The escalator on the next level is running to the opposite direction of the previous level. In short, the shoppers has to circle one short side and one long side of the Mall to reach the escalator to the next level. Hence, the shoppers are required to pass through 50% of the shop in one level just to get to another level regardless of whether they are going up or going down! It is a simple but really good idea, for the retailers of course.
As for the shoppers, they have to travel far longer than they are used to. In fact, more than twice the previous distance, as previously one only need to go through one of the short side.
Who wins here? I guess both as the shoppers who need to reach the level would normally know where they want to go and they shouldn't really mind the extra trips while the shop owners are also happier (especially shop owners at the long side of the Mall) since more shoppers pass their way (although most will not go into their shops, at least higher chance of having shoppers). The definite winner is clear, the Mall management, for satisfying the shop owners while not terribly turning away the shoppers.
Today I saw the escalator being set in a crisscrossing manner. The escalator on the next level is running to the opposite direction of the previous level. In short, the shoppers has to circle one short side and one long side of the Mall to reach the escalator to the next level. Hence, the shoppers are required to pass through 50% of the shop in one level just to get to another level regardless of whether they are going up or going down! It is a simple but really good idea, for the retailers of course.
As for the shoppers, they have to travel far longer than they are used to. In fact, more than twice the previous distance, as previously one only need to go through one of the short side.
Who wins here? I guess both as the shoppers who need to reach the level would normally know where they want to go and they shouldn't really mind the extra trips while the shop owners are also happier (especially shop owners at the long side of the Mall) since more shoppers pass their way (although most will not go into their shops, at least higher chance of having shoppers). The definite winner is clear, the Mall management, for satisfying the shop owners while not terribly turning away the shoppers.
Customer satisfaction
Recently, there has been quite a hot discussion the results of customer satisfaction survey in Singapore. The key issue is the finding that Singapore's customer satisfaction index has declined! It means that customer is less satisfied with the service this year compared to last year. In response to that, the so called Singapore Retailers Association (SRA) blames the customer! It is said that the frontline service personnel has been given training and they have improved. The customer is now to be blamed because they have increase their expectation.
How far can the retailers be from the current denial? Are really customers to be blamed for desiring more? Who are the customers? I thought customers are what the retailers want to gain. The world is dynamic and so are customers. It is inherent that people desire better situations, better products, better service and so on. The key point of winning customers is to fulfill their expectations or even winning them. So, customer satisfaction is a moving target. To say that the service improve while not managing to satisfy customers or clients are like saying that one is prepared to catch a 1 tonne fish with a makeshift wooden fishing rod (forgive my analogy, I can't find better example than this :-P). The inability of the retailers to understand what the customer wants or expects should not be turned around to the extent that customers are asked to lower their expectation. Who are to be served here at the first place? Service should not stagnate and should aim higher and higher to fulfill and exceed customer satisfactions. Efforts should be put forward to really understand customer's needs, e.g. maybe better ambient, better store set up, wider product line up or simply staff that speaks the language. Instead of complaining, the energy should be better spent on interviewing and seeking feedback to formulate real actions.
How far can the retailers be from the current denial? Are really customers to be blamed for desiring more? Who are the customers? I thought customers are what the retailers want to gain. The world is dynamic and so are customers. It is inherent that people desire better situations, better products, better service and so on. The key point of winning customers is to fulfill their expectations or even winning them. So, customer satisfaction is a moving target. To say that the service improve while not managing to satisfy customers or clients are like saying that one is prepared to catch a 1 tonne fish with a makeshift wooden fishing rod (forgive my analogy, I can't find better example than this :-P). The inability of the retailers to understand what the customer wants or expects should not be turned around to the extent that customers are asked to lower their expectation. Who are to be served here at the first place? Service should not stagnate and should aim higher and higher to fulfill and exceed customer satisfactions. Efforts should be put forward to really understand customer's needs, e.g. maybe better ambient, better store set up, wider product line up or simply staff that speaks the language. Instead of complaining, the energy should be better spent on interviewing and seeking feedback to formulate real actions.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Ineffective advertisement
Advertisements on "encounter of the nice kind" aka "closer" (if I remember the title correctly) that are normally put up in the MRT station have quite good stories. It talks about friendship of people from different background. However, I don't think it is effective. I would love to take a poll of how many people actually know which advertisement I am talking about. I bet there are not many people who are aware of that.
The only appealing thing (or repealing) on the advertisements are the huge number of words they use. I don't count but a simple glance can tell anyone it's far too many. Not surprising that people will not remember the advertisement or know what it talks about. MRT station is where people pass through and it's rare to see people stopping. It'll be difficult to expect people to stop, stand still and takes half a minute to read! In fact, people may actually remember "oh yeah, wordy advertisement with weird fonts and random highlights" but does this constitute effective advertisement? I don't think so. Effective advertisement is one where people know what the advertisement is about, remember clearly what it looks like or hears like and it's best if people involuntarily recall the advertisement. The advertisement on "encounter of the nice kind" (or maybe some other title... if you get what I mean here) does not seem to fulfill any of those requirements.
The only appealing thing (or repealing) on the advertisements are the huge number of words they use. I don't count but a simple glance can tell anyone it's far too many. Not surprising that people will not remember the advertisement or know what it talks about. MRT station is where people pass through and it's rare to see people stopping. It'll be difficult to expect people to stop, stand still and takes half a minute to read! In fact, people may actually remember "oh yeah, wordy advertisement with weird fonts and random highlights" but does this constitute effective advertisement? I don't think so. Effective advertisement is one where people know what the advertisement is about, remember clearly what it looks like or hears like and it's best if people involuntarily recall the advertisement. The advertisement on "encounter of the nice kind" (or maybe some other title... if you get what I mean here) does not seem to fulfill any of those requirements.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Fair company
Nowadays we are flooded with news about pay and bonuses in the big bank where the bonus pool is larger than profit. Then there are the other side of the stories where employers run away with pay and leave the employees without pay.
I am wondering, have been wondering for long in fact, whether it is possible to set up a fair company. Seems logical and easy but haven't even found any that is built on such principle. What I mean by a fair company is where the profit is shared from the top to the bottom. Where say a profit of 1 million goes to the CEO for about 10%, the rest is to the say, 50 employees. There must be a way to work out a fair proportion where employees feel the CEO worth getting paid that much. Doing so, everyone in the company will be spurred to work and feel ownership. This is very ideal, I realize. How do you find a CEO nowadays that care less about his pay and bonuses? How do you find a married man with less worry on how to feed his family?
But I do strongly feel that unless we as human dare to stand up and share earnings in more equally manner, all of us stand to lose. The violence in Africa is a living testament of such issue and as the few corporation complexes (fortress like) in Indonesia where the surrounding is still forest like.
I am wondering, have been wondering for long in fact, whether it is possible to set up a fair company. Seems logical and easy but haven't even found any that is built on such principle. What I mean by a fair company is where the profit is shared from the top to the bottom. Where say a profit of 1 million goes to the CEO for about 10%, the rest is to the say, 50 employees. There must be a way to work out a fair proportion where employees feel the CEO worth getting paid that much. Doing so, everyone in the company will be spurred to work and feel ownership. This is very ideal, I realize. How do you find a CEO nowadays that care less about his pay and bonuses? How do you find a married man with less worry on how to feed his family?
But I do strongly feel that unless we as human dare to stand up and share earnings in more equally manner, all of us stand to lose. The violence in Africa is a living testament of such issue and as the few corporation complexes (fortress like) in Indonesia where the surrounding is still forest like.
Friday, July 17, 2009
The patient flight to Singapore
JW Mariott and Ritz Carlton hotel was bombed yesterday morning. Soon, the news report in Indonesia reported the flight of foreign patients, bomb victims, to Singapore to seek hospitalization and cure. The news highlighted the advance of skin grafting and burn victim care in Singapore. Salute to Singapore.
On the other hand, it exposes once again the perception (and I would think, the reality) of poor health care in Indonesia. Coming from Indonesia, I know clearly doctors are among those that make tonnes of money. Lots of smart doctors but the infrastructure and the investment are just not supportive of getting some good surgeons. Unless you are very nationalistic or very dedicated to human lives in Indonesia, there seems to be nothing that prevent the doctor leaving for a better place. Yet, I would tend to think that not many countries would recognize medicine degree from Indonesia. Then, if that is such, there is a slim chance of medicine graduate in Indonesia to work somewhere else. Perhaps it is the insufficient medicine education in Indonesia to produce good skin doctors that pulls down the quality care.
Considering the chance of more attacks in time to come, more disasters, it is imperative that the government or private institution to look at bettering the healthcare of the country. I would believe that a hospital that manages to pull themselves out beyond the average hospital and claims the best doctor would at the end be able to sell the value and serve the crowd more. It is quite unimaginable why no hospital has clearly done so. What has transpired recently is more like a wanna be 'international' hospital suing a patient who complains. Then, plenty of report how those 'international' hospital is not really 'international'. I can't comprehend the wish to be 'international'. There is in no way any international hospital standard. The standard of care between Africa and western countries are definitely beyond imagination. The fundamental issue is more on the line of perception and obtaining the instrument capable of helping doctors providing the best of care. And of course the medicine education must be reviewed to get them up to date from time to time.
On the other hand, it exposes once again the perception (and I would think, the reality) of poor health care in Indonesia. Coming from Indonesia, I know clearly doctors are among those that make tonnes of money. Lots of smart doctors but the infrastructure and the investment are just not supportive of getting some good surgeons. Unless you are very nationalistic or very dedicated to human lives in Indonesia, there seems to be nothing that prevent the doctor leaving for a better place. Yet, I would tend to think that not many countries would recognize medicine degree from Indonesia. Then, if that is such, there is a slim chance of medicine graduate in Indonesia to work somewhere else. Perhaps it is the insufficient medicine education in Indonesia to produce good skin doctors that pulls down the quality care.
Considering the chance of more attacks in time to come, more disasters, it is imperative that the government or private institution to look at bettering the healthcare of the country. I would believe that a hospital that manages to pull themselves out beyond the average hospital and claims the best doctor would at the end be able to sell the value and serve the crowd more. It is quite unimaginable why no hospital has clearly done so. What has transpired recently is more like a wanna be 'international' hospital suing a patient who complains. Then, plenty of report how those 'international' hospital is not really 'international'. I can't comprehend the wish to be 'international'. There is in no way any international hospital standard. The standard of care between Africa and western countries are definitely beyond imagination. The fundamental issue is more on the line of perception and obtaining the instrument capable of helping doctors providing the best of care. And of course the medicine education must be reviewed to get them up to date from time to time.
Monday, July 13, 2009
SSO advertisement in MRT can be better
Saw Singapore Symphony Orchestra's new advertisement in MRT train. Impressive and educative. Lots of new musical terms to learn! Simple graphics and the message is that classical music is not that complicated. The advertisement is pasted in the exterior and interior's overhead advertisement board. In addition, it is also pasted on the panel at the end of the seating row. The ads on the panel could have been improved though. It seems that the ads pasted on that panel is with graphics on the top part and sentences on the lower part, which ends up at the side of the person sitting on the seat at the end of the row. Meaning.... noone can read the sentence at all. In other words, the poster on the panel is totally useless unless noone is sitting at the priority seat, which is always at the side of the poster. The graphics could have been at the lower part and the sentence at the top part? Or perhaps change the design?
Monday, July 6, 2009
Surgical mask and N95
It seems that there are quite a number of article perpetrating wrong information on the use of surgical mask to prevent from getting flu.
Referring to http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/masks.htm
It says that surgical mask is for ill people. The mask captures whatever expelled out from the nose and mouth during coughing and sneezing. It does not seal tightly so it only blocks large droplets. However, it is still useful for the ill people to prevent them from infecting others. They are not supposed to wear N95 because they are already with nose problem and wearing N95 may as well kill them due to additional breathing difficulty.
If you want to prevent yourself from catching flu, wear N95. N95 is supposedly fitting tightly to your face. In occupational setting, there is respiratory fit testing you are supposed to take to test how fitting N95 can be on your face. They will get you to breath lots of smell to test. On the other hand, in community testing, at least you have to cup your hand around the seals and inhale or exhale deeply to ensure that no flow is felt around the edge connecting the mask to your face. N95 then will protect you from breathing aerosols containing the virus. The big problem with N95 is that it won't fit in small face (e.g. children) since it's only produced in one size and it won't fit in people with facial hair (no way to create seal around the big mustache and beard.
So if you are the sick one, surgical mask is your choice. Ensure the flexible adjustment around the nose is pressed around your nose and check properly.
If you really feel you need to wear N95 since you are within 2 m of the sick all the time, wear N95 then, don't just wear surgical mask. In your household with flu infected person, just isolate that person and get him to wear mask when he is to common area. Stay away from him 2 m apart. You won't really need N95 or mask then.
Best precaution is still personal hygiene and get away from people displaying flu-like symptom (sneezing, coughing). But remembers, still help them if they need to. Just don't breathe in their direction if possible. The suggested steps if you see people sneezing or coughing near you is to exhale and then move away before inhaling and continuing with normal breathing cycle.
Referring to http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/masks.htm
It says that surgical mask is for ill people. The mask captures whatever expelled out from the nose and mouth during coughing and sneezing. It does not seal tightly so it only blocks large droplets. However, it is still useful for the ill people to prevent them from infecting others. They are not supposed to wear N95 because they are already with nose problem and wearing N95 may as well kill them due to additional breathing difficulty.
If you want to prevent yourself from catching flu, wear N95. N95 is supposedly fitting tightly to your face. In occupational setting, there is respiratory fit testing you are supposed to take to test how fitting N95 can be on your face. They will get you to breath lots of smell to test. On the other hand, in community testing, at least you have to cup your hand around the seals and inhale or exhale deeply to ensure that no flow is felt around the edge connecting the mask to your face. N95 then will protect you from breathing aerosols containing the virus. The big problem with N95 is that it won't fit in small face (e.g. children) since it's only produced in one size and it won't fit in people with facial hair (no way to create seal around the big mustache and beard.
So if you are the sick one, surgical mask is your choice. Ensure the flexible adjustment around the nose is pressed around your nose and check properly.
If you really feel you need to wear N95 since you are within 2 m of the sick all the time, wear N95 then, don't just wear surgical mask. In your household with flu infected person, just isolate that person and get him to wear mask when he is to common area. Stay away from him 2 m apart. You won't really need N95 or mask then.
Best precaution is still personal hygiene and get away from people displaying flu-like symptom (sneezing, coughing). But remembers, still help them if they need to. Just don't breathe in their direction if possible. The suggested steps if you see people sneezing or coughing near you is to exhale and then move away before inhaling and continuing with normal breathing cycle.
Get more information
If you can read Bahasa Indonesia, read http://www.antaranews.com/view/?i=1246879019&c=NAS&s=KES
A representative from Indonesian embassy claimed that an Indonesian citizen paid 10k SGD as a treatment of his dengue fever although he went to doctor as a suspected H1N1 case. The report is written such that I interpret the representative being confused why the so-called suspected case has to pay for treatment. He also says that the change from having free treatment to having to pay is because there are more cases.
Strange reporting, as always from Indonesian news. The Singapore MOH said in the news that H1N1 screening is free while there are definitely charges of consultancy fee, etc. Now, the clear fact from the Indonesian news is that the patient is hospitalized because of dengue, not H1N1. It's not weird for him to be charged to cure his dengue!
Not a first time I read strange news from Antara.
A representative from Indonesian embassy claimed that an Indonesian citizen paid 10k SGD as a treatment of his dengue fever although he went to doctor as a suspected H1N1 case. The report is written such that I interpret the representative being confused why the so-called suspected case has to pay for treatment. He also says that the change from having free treatment to having to pay is because there are more cases.
Strange reporting, as always from Indonesian news. The Singapore MOH said in the news that H1N1 screening is free while there are definitely charges of consultancy fee, etc. Now, the clear fact from the Indonesian news is that the patient is hospitalized because of dengue, not H1N1. It's not weird for him to be charged to cure his dengue!
Not a first time I read strange news from Antara.
Flu clinic and observance of PPE
I just came back from a Flu Clinic since I have fever and sore throat. So, I went to the flu clinic wearing a piece of surgical mask. I can testify that surgical mask is really posing breathing problem. My blocked nose went worse under the mask since I guess the nose detect higher breathing resistance which induces the production of more mucous!
Since I was without travel history, apparently was let go with just paracetamol and previous day's medication for sore throat.
What appalls me again is the observance of PPE by the front line staff in the clinic. I do realize that surgical mask is a problem, but the registration lady had her mask under her nose when she talked to the people who registered! Well, she did don it properly when talking to me. Perhaps she makes a judgement based on whether you wear a mask or not when you register. That should be problematic, isn't it? Not everyone has a mask at home! Well, the lady taking the temperature does wear gloves and N95. However, the same issue as the pervious clinic I went to, people are using the same pen. Hence, really, personal hygiene must be really implemented. Only if my eczema allows me to do so though.
So at the moment, extra days MC and hoping that the fever subsides tomorrow. Oh, quarantining yourself is a big problem. I am wondering about people who stays alone and never stocks up anything to cook. In that situation, is he going to wear mask to supermarket and buy things? I wonder...
Since I was without travel history, apparently was let go with just paracetamol and previous day's medication for sore throat.
What appalls me again is the observance of PPE by the front line staff in the clinic. I do realize that surgical mask is a problem, but the registration lady had her mask under her nose when she talked to the people who registered! Well, she did don it properly when talking to me. Perhaps she makes a judgement based on whether you wear a mask or not when you register. That should be problematic, isn't it? Not everyone has a mask at home! Well, the lady taking the temperature does wear gloves and N95. However, the same issue as the pervious clinic I went to, people are using the same pen. Hence, really, personal hygiene must be really implemented. Only if my eczema allows me to do so though.
So at the moment, extra days MC and hoping that the fever subsides tomorrow. Oh, quarantining yourself is a big problem. I am wondering about people who stays alone and never stocks up anything to cook. In that situation, is he going to wear mask to supermarket and buy things? I wonder...
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Temperature screening, mask and H1N1 in Singapore
Yesterday there is an article written by Dr. Lee Wei Ling, Director of National Neuroscience Institute in Singapore, daughter of Lee Kuan Yew. She called temperature screening as herd mentality. She argued that temperature screening is carried out since everyone else is doing it, not really because true belief that it will works. She is a knowledgeable person and quite right to quote research saying that asymptomatic person with H1N1 can be infectious. In fact, Singapore acknowledges that 1/3 of people infected with H1N1 can be infectious and this is a clear group of people which temperature screening will definitely miss.
Today I visited a clinic in CCK and notice first hand how I think temperature screening can really create more cases than prevent it. The clinic has employed a girl who is her teenage years. She wore a disposable blue gown, N95 mask and used ear thermometer. The N95 mask clearly looks too big for her, with the lower strap dangling loosely at the back of her neck. The N95 mask she wore is from 3M and it is actually for occupational use where respiratory fit testing is required and the mask must fit the face. The guidance document on mask clearly specify N95 mask is not designed for small faces.
Worse is the way she touched and adjusted the mask and then use the same finger to:
1. Touch her eyes
2. Play with her handphone which was on the table
3. Write using a pen which is also used by the multiple visitors + patients
4. She has no gloves. Not that it's wrong, but she has to perform personal hygiene to do it right.
And despite having a hand sanitizer on the desk, she never used it.
The girl is a clear example that putting PPE and temperature screening may create more havoc. The chance of cross infection from her action especially through the pen is enormous. The false sense of security by the patient and visitor that temperature screening will prevent H1N1 infection is something that should not be maintained. Inexperienced personnel handling supposedly first line defence like temperature screening is really an error that should be easily fixed.
Temperature screening is indeed helping to screen 2/3 of cases but the false sense of security and simple mistakes in screening activities may simply create more cases from the missed 1/3. The fact that a lady actually asked her daugther to wear surgical mask only because of fever is another example of wrong knowledge. Educating the population to be vigilant, appropirate use of PPE, keeping themselves away from people sneezing and coughing while being responsible to lock themselves up if they suspect themselves having flu will probably go a long way further than screening by inexperienced personnel.
Today I visited a clinic in CCK and notice first hand how I think temperature screening can really create more cases than prevent it. The clinic has employed a girl who is her teenage years. She wore a disposable blue gown, N95 mask and used ear thermometer. The N95 mask clearly looks too big for her, with the lower strap dangling loosely at the back of her neck. The N95 mask she wore is from 3M and it is actually for occupational use where respiratory fit testing is required and the mask must fit the face. The guidance document on mask clearly specify N95 mask is not designed for small faces.
Worse is the way she touched and adjusted the mask and then use the same finger to:
1. Touch her eyes
2. Play with her handphone which was on the table
3. Write using a pen which is also used by the multiple visitors + patients
4. She has no gloves. Not that it's wrong, but she has to perform personal hygiene to do it right.
And despite having a hand sanitizer on the desk, she never used it.
The girl is a clear example that putting PPE and temperature screening may create more havoc. The chance of cross infection from her action especially through the pen is enormous. The false sense of security by the patient and visitor that temperature screening will prevent H1N1 infection is something that should not be maintained. Inexperienced personnel handling supposedly first line defence like temperature screening is really an error that should be easily fixed.
Temperature screening is indeed helping to screen 2/3 of cases but the false sense of security and simple mistakes in screening activities may simply create more cases from the missed 1/3. The fact that a lady actually asked her daugther to wear surgical mask only because of fever is another example of wrong knowledge. Educating the population to be vigilant, appropirate use of PPE, keeping themselves away from people sneezing and coughing while being responsible to lock themselves up if they suspect themselves having flu will probably go a long way further than screening by inexperienced personnel.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Orange juice dangerous for your teeth
Scientists compare effect of orange juice and whitening agent to teeth and they found that orange juice is more dangerous than whitening agent! Read more at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090630132007.htm
This finding is distressing. So many people (including myself) are drinking orange juices and we all just see the bright side, that it is full of vitamin C. If orange juices are dangerous for teeth, it would also mean that orange by itself (not yet juiced) is also not so good for teeth. I wonder if this will provide the fuel needed by all the supplement manufacturer to promote the use of vitamin C tablet. To be very frank, they really should use this finding to boost their sales.
If indeed drinking orange juice is not good for our teeth, should there be any research on how to lessen the impact? Will there be such thing? Vitamin C is L-ascorbic acid anyway. Hence, it is indeed acidic by nature. But then again, if we as human has been eating orange all our lives, why should we care about the finding? I think the real perspective is that we drink and take too many substance that is not good for our teeth. Whitening agent is not uncommon in toothpaste. Sodas are also known to erode enamel. Therefore, the best and reasonable steps are to reduce those unnecessary sodas going down the teeth way and just enjoy our orange juices. Oh yeah, drink faster. Drinking longer = longer contact to teeth = bad for your teeth.
This finding is distressing. So many people (including myself) are drinking orange juices and we all just see the bright side, that it is full of vitamin C. If orange juices are dangerous for teeth, it would also mean that orange by itself (not yet juiced) is also not so good for teeth. I wonder if this will provide the fuel needed by all the supplement manufacturer to promote the use of vitamin C tablet. To be very frank, they really should use this finding to boost their sales.
If indeed drinking orange juice is not good for our teeth, should there be any research on how to lessen the impact? Will there be such thing? Vitamin C is L-ascorbic acid anyway. Hence, it is indeed acidic by nature. But then again, if we as human has been eating orange all our lives, why should we care about the finding? I think the real perspective is that we drink and take too many substance that is not good for our teeth. Whitening agent is not uncommon in toothpaste. Sodas are also known to erode enamel. Therefore, the best and reasonable steps are to reduce those unnecessary sodas going down the teeth way and just enjoy our orange juices. Oh yeah, drink faster. Drinking longer = longer contact to teeth = bad for your teeth.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
IES magazine vs. Eureka from UK
In this writing, I would like to dissect engineering publication.
I got myself a copy of Eureka, an engineering publication from UK and IES magazine, publication of Institute of Engineer Singapore. My first and foremost assumption is that both publication attempts to interest people to the field engineering. My verdict: Eureka is a nice and cool publication that really triggers my thought and re-kindle my interest in engineering. On the opposite end, IES magazine is an old boring magazine that is full of advertisements.
Eureka contains articles of engineering advancement and extol the goodness and roles of engineering in life. The two magazines I have show solar powered car, new rapid prototyping method, bacterial cellulose from fruit waste, green power from compressed air, spin off examples from F1, plastic technology, etc. Those topics are the in-things. The articles and magazines are designed to look like a normal off-the-shelf magazine (not the gossip type). By showing reader that engineering is advancing and not long time dead and archeological finding, it tells them that engineers still takes part in the betterment of the world and the magazine proudly proclaim that engineers is to solve the problem of the world! That engineers have an important role to play and engineers deal with trendy stuff. That is exactly what students need to hear and to know that engineering is a field they can be proud of.
On the other hand, IES magazine is written like a journal! It has abstract, introduction, etc. etc. I am wondering why they don't call it IES journal instead. Then it has multiple times more advertisements (from NTU, from some course organizers, from some manufacturers, etc.). The articles talks about earthquake being from some other stuff, that risk management something and I can't even recall any title completely. I am wondering why Eureka can be designed more impressively without so many advertisements while IES magazine is full of advertisements.
One glance of Eureka and it gives me a good impression and I remember the title. One glance of IES magazine and I can't even remember anything but that it is terrible.
My point is that if the aim of the publications are to interest people to engineering, IES fails miserably. I feel that IES can do the following:
1. Take a look at other engineering magazine and use part of the advertisement money to pay someone to re-design the magazine.
2. Gather industrial people in engineering field and scour the engineering marvel that can be found in those organizations locally (not necessarily a local made technology, of course as Singapore gets more and more innovative, the local made stuff can take the prominence, until then anything will do).
3. Do number 2, but from the local universities.
4. Re-assess the role the magazine play, gather feedback!
5. If need more money, talk to the government of Singapore and plan a way to improve IES image and plays a part in government's attempt to make engineering cool.
6. Many more other things.
Of course ideally is for IES to bridge the engineering company and universities to once again produce engineers that are hands on and with critical thoughts and innovative!
I got myself a copy of Eureka, an engineering publication from UK and IES magazine, publication of Institute of Engineer Singapore. My first and foremost assumption is that both publication attempts to interest people to the field engineering. My verdict: Eureka is a nice and cool publication that really triggers my thought and re-kindle my interest in engineering. On the opposite end, IES magazine is an old boring magazine that is full of advertisements.
Eureka contains articles of engineering advancement and extol the goodness and roles of engineering in life. The two magazines I have show solar powered car, new rapid prototyping method, bacterial cellulose from fruit waste, green power from compressed air, spin off examples from F1, plastic technology, etc. Those topics are the in-things. The articles and magazines are designed to look like a normal off-the-shelf magazine (not the gossip type). By showing reader that engineering is advancing and not long time dead and archeological finding, it tells them that engineers still takes part in the betterment of the world and the magazine proudly proclaim that engineers is to solve the problem of the world! That engineers have an important role to play and engineers deal with trendy stuff. That is exactly what students need to hear and to know that engineering is a field they can be proud of.
On the other hand, IES magazine is written like a journal! It has abstract, introduction, etc. etc. I am wondering why they don't call it IES journal instead. Then it has multiple times more advertisements (from NTU, from some course organizers, from some manufacturers, etc.). The articles talks about earthquake being from some other stuff, that risk management something and I can't even recall any title completely. I am wondering why Eureka can be designed more impressively without so many advertisements while IES magazine is full of advertisements.
One glance of Eureka and it gives me a good impression and I remember the title. One glance of IES magazine and I can't even remember anything but that it is terrible.
My point is that if the aim of the publications are to interest people to engineering, IES fails miserably. I feel that IES can do the following:
1. Take a look at other engineering magazine and use part of the advertisement money to pay someone to re-design the magazine.
2. Gather industrial people in engineering field and scour the engineering marvel that can be found in those organizations locally (not necessarily a local made technology, of course as Singapore gets more and more innovative, the local made stuff can take the prominence, until then anything will do).
3. Do number 2, but from the local universities.
4. Re-assess the role the magazine play, gather feedback!
5. If need more money, talk to the government of Singapore and plan a way to improve IES image and plays a part in government's attempt to make engineering cool.
6. Many more other things.
Of course ideally is for IES to bridge the engineering company and universities to once again produce engineers that are hands on and with critical thoughts and innovative!
Monday, June 29, 2009
Urinal without flushing
Went to Vivocity on Sunday and realized one interesting thing from the toilet! The urinal is said to require no water flushing since it was treated with biotechnological system! It sounds really cool and very environmental friendly especially if it does prevent the smelly part as well. Alas, I still detect slight smell and one disturbing issue... there is no mention of the so called biotechnological system. A visit to the company's website (www.redlab.com.sg) on Sunday and today shows it to be under maintenance. I surely will visit the website again to get more details. The company actually seems like one that will succeed with such a radical idea. Weird that they don't publicize themselves more openly though... Let's see in a couple more days.
Monday, 30 June - Website still under "maintenance"
Monday, 30 June - Website still under "maintenance"
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Exhausting all oil and gas on earth
Green and renewable energy source is one hot topic nowadays. In US, the stimulus package has largely focus on getting more people involved in the green business area. However, the Democrats as the majority in congress also calls for energy tax to encourage more responsible energy use. On the other hand, the Republicans (now being the opposition) in US, banking on the potential hurt at the bottom line of the population having to pay extra, calls for greater oil and gas exploration and greater investment to renewable energy sources. Here, we see two opposite view of the situation. One says stop spending more non renewables, one says spend till the end.
We, being human, are quite creative and we think very well. So, normally it is the cost and benefit analysis that sways our decision. Nevertheless, cost and benefit will never manage to account for things that we cannot put exact value on, i.e. morals, ethics. In the energy debate, however, ethics and morals are quite complicated. Having less energy to spend freely means human having to survive with potentially less welfare (arguably, depending on where your "greed" level is). This could mean less morally responsible to ourselves while being morally responsible to the environment and our descendants. Which would be morally and ethically correct to side?
It is also known that human does extraordinary stuff when we are cornered. So, I would think that for energy debate, perhaps the best is to exhaust all oil and gas until suddenly we are totally out of oil and gas. Then perhaps we would be very creative. However, that would mean an extremely bad situation for those countries having winter season. Well, the solution would be to discover commercially viable renewable sources before all oil and gas are gone. Exploring and extracting more reserves would definitely mean faster exhausting, which in turn may force quicker innovation. That's a gamble and hey, I think it really suits the Republicans philiosophy so far, considering all the wars they have fought. But mind you, renewable sources are useful if the earth is not yet submerged and destroyed by global warming. If you think of the imminent rise of sea level or think a bit further than "now", perhaps you may want to consider the other end of argument.
Experts expect a certain minimum temperature rise that is no longer unavoidable, so it's not about mitigating and coping, no longer about preventing. At least in UK, the bag reuse scheme seems to be working well. But in Asia, owing to the mentality "Europe and US has enjoyed polluting to get better, it's our turn to experience the same thing", things are not so simple. After all, when you are still hungry all the time, floods are common and plantation failure is not unusual, global warming effect is not that great. In such situation, who would consider the Maldive residents having to search for another island to settle when the sea level rises a bit higher? Exhausting all oil and gases and not reigning their use will definitely fasten the bad effect but perhaps then it is a lot easier to make the argument. Again, when it is not too late to do so.
In the mean time, regardless of what other people is saying, time for me to reduce my plastic bag usage and be mindful with my electricity and water cost. It helps my bottom line at least.
We, being human, are quite creative and we think very well. So, normally it is the cost and benefit analysis that sways our decision. Nevertheless, cost and benefit will never manage to account for things that we cannot put exact value on, i.e. morals, ethics. In the energy debate, however, ethics and morals are quite complicated. Having less energy to spend freely means human having to survive with potentially less welfare (arguably, depending on where your "greed" level is). This could mean less morally responsible to ourselves while being morally responsible to the environment and our descendants. Which would be morally and ethically correct to side?
It is also known that human does extraordinary stuff when we are cornered. So, I would think that for energy debate, perhaps the best is to exhaust all oil and gas until suddenly we are totally out of oil and gas. Then perhaps we would be very creative. However, that would mean an extremely bad situation for those countries having winter season. Well, the solution would be to discover commercially viable renewable sources before all oil and gas are gone. Exploring and extracting more reserves would definitely mean faster exhausting, which in turn may force quicker innovation. That's a gamble and hey, I think it really suits the Republicans philiosophy so far, considering all the wars they have fought. But mind you, renewable sources are useful if the earth is not yet submerged and destroyed by global warming. If you think of the imminent rise of sea level or think a bit further than "now", perhaps you may want to consider the other end of argument.
Experts expect a certain minimum temperature rise that is no longer unavoidable, so it's not about mitigating and coping, no longer about preventing. At least in UK, the bag reuse scheme seems to be working well. But in Asia, owing to the mentality "Europe and US has enjoyed polluting to get better, it's our turn to experience the same thing", things are not so simple. After all, when you are still hungry all the time, floods are common and plantation failure is not unusual, global warming effect is not that great. In such situation, who would consider the Maldive residents having to search for another island to settle when the sea level rises a bit higher? Exhausting all oil and gases and not reigning their use will definitely fasten the bad effect but perhaps then it is a lot easier to make the argument. Again, when it is not too late to do so.
In the mean time, regardless of what other people is saying, time for me to reduce my plastic bag usage and be mindful with my electricity and water cost. It helps my bottom line at least.
Weatherman
Weather report from BBC looks totally different from the Asia counterparts in the equator. In those countries, I think we don't really expect any difference from looking at the weather. After all, it's always wet and shine repeatedly. We are kind of always prepared for the wet and any change of weather does not affect the temperature by much any way. While in UK, rain and shine can swing the temperature from 10 C to 23 C, a huge range of change. Wind blowing in the shining sun may mean freezing feeling in a hot sun! Well, it's still better than raining and cloudy at the same time... Therefore, if there is huge incentive in following the weather report. Any sunny days in Summer means people rushing to enjoy the day, which at times is rare to come. People will travel out of town. It would also mean that Sunday evening would ten to have congestion in the motorway.
After having been in the weather swing for a week, I really appreciate the sunny days...
After having been in the weather swing for a week, I really appreciate the sunny days...
Friday, April 3, 2009
Pharmaceutical manufacturing
Just yesterday, some baby powder in US is found to have perchlorate above safe level of consumption. Read it here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_he_me/baby_formula_perchlorate
The find makes me reflect. Pharmaceutical manufacturing (including baby powder) is regarded as a very regulated industry where validation of each process and regular maintenance of the plant is required by regulation so as to ensure safe product is being produced. The baby powder and salmonella presence in the pistachio clearly show that the so called regulation does not exactlyu work well. After all, although the validation process where input and output is verified, I am not aware that the roles and responsibilities are regulated, i.e. noone care the independence and quality of the guy who does the work. You can probably get someone from the street and get him sign for you (correct me if I am wrong). I realize that at times company presents their validation strategy to the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and submit whole chunk of paperwork before they can start the validation process to confirm that what they will produce is safe or consumption (in short although there are lots more details to it). However, if these process is conducted correctly and regulated, why such clear disaster recipe such as the perchlorate and salmonella can happen?
Simply said, you can regulate process, you can not regulate people. People can choose to sign and not really able to vouch for it. People can choose not to reveal bad news (such as Salmonella in pistachio). Unless a good management system supported firmly by responsible top management is the only way to go. When people are aware of every consequence of their action, that is how we can prevent disaster. Simple validation and signature does not prevent bad things from happening especially when commitment from the top management may not exist. Furthermore, as my write up earlier point out, you can check for what you know you need to check. You can not possibly check everything. The most important issue is the responsibility. I view the Salmonella case as worse than the baby formula simply because their an indication of cover up. What we need in this world for the safety of all is responsible people who realizes the need to care for others, not just money.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_he_me/baby_formula_perchlorate
The find makes me reflect. Pharmaceutical manufacturing (including baby powder) is regarded as a very regulated industry where validation of each process and regular maintenance of the plant is required by regulation so as to ensure safe product is being produced. The baby powder and salmonella presence in the pistachio clearly show that the so called regulation does not exactlyu work well. After all, although the validation process where input and output is verified, I am not aware that the roles and responsibilities are regulated, i.e. noone care the independence and quality of the guy who does the work. You can probably get someone from the street and get him sign for you (correct me if I am wrong). I realize that at times company presents their validation strategy to the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and submit whole chunk of paperwork before they can start the validation process to confirm that what they will produce is safe or consumption (in short although there are lots more details to it). However, if these process is conducted correctly and regulated, why such clear disaster recipe such as the perchlorate and salmonella can happen?
Simply said, you can regulate process, you can not regulate people. People can choose to sign and not really able to vouch for it. People can choose not to reveal bad news (such as Salmonella in pistachio). Unless a good management system supported firmly by responsible top management is the only way to go. When people are aware of every consequence of their action, that is how we can prevent disaster. Simple validation and signature does not prevent bad things from happening especially when commitment from the top management may not exist. Furthermore, as my write up earlier point out, you can check for what you know you need to check. You can not possibly check everything. The most important issue is the responsibility. I view the Salmonella case as worse than the baby formula simply because their an indication of cover up. What we need in this world for the safety of all is responsible people who realizes the need to care for others, not just money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)