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..
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?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Singapore and music player
Singapore residents seem to have quite a romance with MP3 players. This morning I took an opportunity to count how many people actually hearing songs while waiting for the train. Out of 33 people waiting for the train in a single door, I notice 22 people wearing either ear phones or head phones! That is 67% of them. No wonder mobile phones in Singapore seems to have audio player as a default feature. Too bad it does not seem that any company is taking a significant market share in it although iPhone seems to be very popular, held by students, teenagers and young adults.
Some people even use their music player to entertain others, kind of anyway. They enjoy blasting their music on their tiny ears. At times the music sounds even louder than if I were to use my own music player. When the music is what I enjoy, it is not that bad but most of the times, it's a pure ear splitting drums, heavy metals or alternative music that are blasting off. So it is quite annoying. This morning was not that bad though. There was only one (a Secondary School boy) out of the 22 people with music player who was blasting his music. It strikes me that with such a number of music player user and a small number of people who over estimate their ears, the business of hearing aid should be good in 20-30 years down the road. Surely they would have problem with their ears after subjecting their ears to daily loud music. Some scientific studies have outlined the danger of amplified music regularly:
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/03005369009077849
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WKR-4PYR4WN-5&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1314709155&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4a73119539abc420da390e0a9520aa7b
It would be interesting to understand whether the hearing aid companies actually know this case before venturing to Singapore. Quite a number of advertisements in the train actually.
Sometimes I have even thought of producing a T-Shirt with wordings "Listen less to music, Protect your ear" or "Keep your music to yourself" kind of T-shirt to wear in the train every morning. Haha... There are two big players in sarcasm T-shirt in Indonesia but none in Singapore. Anyone wants to join me?
Some people even use their music player to entertain others, kind of anyway. They enjoy blasting their music on their tiny ears. At times the music sounds even louder than if I were to use my own music player. When the music is what I enjoy, it is not that bad but most of the times, it's a pure ear splitting drums, heavy metals or alternative music that are blasting off. So it is quite annoying. This morning was not that bad though. There was only one (a Secondary School boy) out of the 22 people with music player who was blasting his music. It strikes me that with such a number of music player user and a small number of people who over estimate their ears, the business of hearing aid should be good in 20-30 years down the road. Surely they would have problem with their ears after subjecting their ears to daily loud music. Some scientific studies have outlined the danger of amplified music regularly:
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/03005369009077849
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WKR-4PYR4WN-5&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1314709155&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4a73119539abc420da390e0a9520aa7b
It would be interesting to understand whether the hearing aid companies actually know this case before venturing to Singapore. Quite a number of advertisements in the train actually.
Sometimes I have even thought of producing a T-Shirt with wordings "Listen less to music, Protect your ear" or "Keep your music to yourself" kind of T-shirt to wear in the train every morning. Haha... There are two big players in sarcasm T-shirt in Indonesia but none in Singapore. Anyone wants to join me?
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Curriculum in NTU
I studied in Nanyang Technological University for a total of 7 years ins the School of Mechanical and Aerospace engineering. So I have a good idea of what was taught. However, my several working years clearly indicate the insufficiency of what was taught suring the undergraduate study. I feel that they should have taught taguchi method and project management as core subjects. Plenty of engineer's work would need taguchi method and most of the time, engineer runs project so a good understanding of project management surely help. However, I do understand that there has been plenty of comments on how busy he study life is.I would think that simple weighting prioritization scorwe wilhelp determine which subject would need to bw compulsory. Subject such as human resource management is hard yo argue for its usefulness. When project management is in the curriculum, project team management would be inside anyway.
There are plenty of ways to reinvigorate the life of engineer in NTU and I believe the change is necessary for survival and to ensure survivabity and relevant to the world today. I don't think that would be other ways to do.
There are plenty of ways to reinvigorate the life of engineer in NTU and I believe the change is necessary for survival and to ensure survivabity and relevant to the world today. I don't think that would be other ways to do.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Singapore taxi driver
I am continuously amazed by the taxi driver in Singapore every single time I take taxi. Most are generally quite talkative. They all offer unique perspectives of their lives and do not shy away from dishing some advices of how to lead one's life.
I can however put them into three baskets generally speaking:
1. Super rich taxi driver. They are some sort of high level executives in their previous jobs before deciding to retire and instead of spending time doing nothing, they drive taxi. Simply as filling up their time. These drivers are generally of full praise of the government.
2. Normal taxi driver. They are simply driving taxi to earn a living. Nothing like the type in no.1. Perhaps since generally they are in the middle income range or slightly below middle income that they are the complaining type. Most rant about how the Government doesn't care about the people, how Singapore is terrible place to live, how things has become quite expensive.
3. The silent one. They are simply ignoring you and aim to put you where to go with the slightest conversation as possible. They just want to make their ends' meet.
I think the drivers embodies typical Singaporeans. It is quite interesting to see how diverse the view that people have of the governance in Singapore. It is also a good description and wake up call that nothing is perfect in this world.
I can however put them into three baskets generally speaking:
1. Super rich taxi driver. They are some sort of high level executives in their previous jobs before deciding to retire and instead of spending time doing nothing, they drive taxi. Simply as filling up their time. These drivers are generally of full praise of the government.
2. Normal taxi driver. They are simply driving taxi to earn a living. Nothing like the type in no.1. Perhaps since generally they are in the middle income range or slightly below middle income that they are the complaining type. Most rant about how the Government doesn't care about the people, how Singapore is terrible place to live, how things has become quite expensive.
3. The silent one. They are simply ignoring you and aim to put you where to go with the slightest conversation as possible. They just want to make their ends' meet.
I think the drivers embodies typical Singaporeans. It is quite interesting to see how diverse the view that people have of the governance in Singapore. It is also a good description and wake up call that nothing is perfect in this world.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Clean room testing and containment laboratories
I have been working in containment consultancy for few years and I still can't stop amazed by the confusion in the market between clean room and containment laboratories. Plenty times I have come across news and laboratories which are tested by clean room standards. Many times, the firms doing work in containment laboratories have been certified for clean room work, get the work in the laboratories for having such certification and well, deal with the laboratories as if they are clean room.
As a start, clean room is to keep things from going in, although generally there are some that also keep things going out. However, the first and foremost key issue is to keep things from going in. On the other hand, containment laboratories (BSL3/4) are intended to keep things from going out. Although there are some BSL3 that also provide means to keep their facilities clean either with the intention to improve work quality or simply to improve indoor air quality (arguably unnecessarily at times). Hence, the key principles between clean room and containment laboratories are rather different (or opposite, if you like). Therefore, one has to be careful in choosing contractors to ensure that safety and not quality is the focus of the work in containment laboratories.
Unfortunately, clean room is heavily regulated with plenty of standards while containment labroatories are something new without many technical standards guiding it. For a start, the website of NEBB, a popular accreditation body that provide certification to firms doing work in clean room, does not list Biosafety Cabinet (BSC) in their testing list. BSC is in fact, arguably the most important equipment in a containment laboratory, providing protection to the personnel, product and environment. I have seen places where only the HEPA in the BSC and the BSC is called as "certified" although popular BSC standards such as NSF 49, JIS K 3800 or EN 12469 call for other tests such as downflow and face velocity, smoke test, etc. for the cabinet, both in factory and on site! There is also a separate BSC certification scheme organized by NSF which an owner of BSC has to take note of. Therefore, BSC is not simply the HEPA filters installed. The airflow performance has to be tested as well. This is a second issue which many firms dealing with clean room are not familiar with.
The third issue is with the HEPA certification. Clean room has plenty requirements for HEPA and such facility puts a lot of scrutiny to the HEPA, which is good and similar to containment laboratories. However, sometimes, some clean room requirement would allow particle testing using atmospheric air. Owners of a containment laboratory should take note that such testing is not something acceptable for a containment laboratory! Acceptable HEPA leak testing in containment laboratories include DOP / PAO testing, scan tested or by overall penetration. Owner has to be clear as well that the testing is to establish a leak level and appropriate testing standards and methodologies acceptable to containment laboratories have to be specified by the testing firm. Unfortunately, technical standards for HEPA in containment laboratories do not exist. Many biosafety guidelines would refer to acceptable leak level but now how they are to be tested. Canadian guidelines goes one step further and require adherence to IEST standard which is essentially a clean room standard. However, the guideline is clear about the type of testing required and I can vouch that atmospheric testing is not something commonly accepted for containment laboratories.
Last difference is on the sampling of indoor air. Sampling of bacteria in the air is not something commonly practiced in containment laboratories. Gaseous decontamination of containment laboratories also uses biological indicator to validate. The biological indicators are mostly in the form of spore strip or other proprietary products. However, clean room at times uses bacterial sampler. Again, this is a different practice.
In conclusion, clean room testing standard is not directly applicable to containment laboratories and owners of a laboratory should question which standard they would want to comply with. Some testing commonly accepted in a clean room facility may not be acceptable in a containment laboratory setting.
As a start, clean room is to keep things from going in, although generally there are some that also keep things going out. However, the first and foremost key issue is to keep things from going in. On the other hand, containment laboratories (BSL3/4) are intended to keep things from going out. Although there are some BSL3 that also provide means to keep their facilities clean either with the intention to improve work quality or simply to improve indoor air quality (arguably unnecessarily at times). Hence, the key principles between clean room and containment laboratories are rather different (or opposite, if you like). Therefore, one has to be careful in choosing contractors to ensure that safety and not quality is the focus of the work in containment laboratories.
Unfortunately, clean room is heavily regulated with plenty of standards while containment labroatories are something new without many technical standards guiding it. For a start, the website of NEBB, a popular accreditation body that provide certification to firms doing work in clean room, does not list Biosafety Cabinet (BSC) in their testing list. BSC is in fact, arguably the most important equipment in a containment laboratory, providing protection to the personnel, product and environment. I have seen places where only the HEPA in the BSC and the BSC is called as "certified" although popular BSC standards such as NSF 49, JIS K 3800 or EN 12469 call for other tests such as downflow and face velocity, smoke test, etc. for the cabinet, both in factory and on site! There is also a separate BSC certification scheme organized by NSF which an owner of BSC has to take note of. Therefore, BSC is not simply the HEPA filters installed. The airflow performance has to be tested as well. This is a second issue which many firms dealing with clean room are not familiar with.
The third issue is with the HEPA certification. Clean room has plenty requirements for HEPA and such facility puts a lot of scrutiny to the HEPA, which is good and similar to containment laboratories. However, sometimes, some clean room requirement would allow particle testing using atmospheric air. Owners of a containment laboratory should take note that such testing is not something acceptable for a containment laboratory! Acceptable HEPA leak testing in containment laboratories include DOP / PAO testing, scan tested or by overall penetration. Owner has to be clear as well that the testing is to establish a leak level and appropriate testing standards and methodologies acceptable to containment laboratories have to be specified by the testing firm. Unfortunately, technical standards for HEPA in containment laboratories do not exist. Many biosafety guidelines would refer to acceptable leak level but now how they are to be tested. Canadian guidelines goes one step further and require adherence to IEST standard which is essentially a clean room standard. However, the guideline is clear about the type of testing required and I can vouch that atmospheric testing is not something commonly accepted for containment laboratories.
Last difference is on the sampling of indoor air. Sampling of bacteria in the air is not something commonly practiced in containment laboratories. Gaseous decontamination of containment laboratories also uses biological indicator to validate. The biological indicators are mostly in the form of spore strip or other proprietary products. However, clean room at times uses bacterial sampler. Again, this is a different practice.
In conclusion, clean room testing standard is not directly applicable to containment laboratories and owners of a laboratory should question which standard they would want to comply with. Some testing commonly accepted in a clean room facility may not be acceptable in a containment laboratory setting.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Precious little family
Family is something precious. We hear that very often and it is something that we rarely stop to think why it is stated as such. Never have I reflect that point until recently when my parents left for home (some 1.5 hrs flight away) after coming here for a few days to attend my sister's wedding. I have never felt the feeling of "missing someone" but when my mother texted me to inform me of them reaching my hometown, I feel the surge of a sad feeling. The feeling that I will not see them for some time. Despite my constant quarelling with them for many little petty things and despite knowing those things and actions I dislike was there because of their loving me, it is not easy to imagine that I will miss them somehow. Yet, here I am realizing that they have made an impact in my life with just a couple of days being with them in the same house, without even mentioning that I only see them few hours a day since I am working! This really show me how much a human can make an impression on others regardless of what they are doing. Just simply having a chat and even those quarelling can really give a deep impression. In case of parents, talking to them face to face after separating for few months can be very insightful. Realizing how much things have happened back at home, what has happened to them when they are away, etc. are a mind opening experience. Hey, they do help me clean my house, cook and tend to my boy. They are not exactly big stuff. I still don't like them straining themselves over those "dirty" (few specks of dust) window. But their just being there is simply enough to change and indicate that there is something different. After taking them for granted, their leaving for home just strikes me as something I would feel sad. How much we as human can take our lives and family for granted is beyond comprehension. I vouch to be more aware of people's presence in my lives especially my parents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)