!. Ownership of the current process: we waste time an energy because a Sr. Executive backs a project etc. No objective review. Example NCM (piloted to 18 months, implemented nationwide with major flaws, abandoned without a word or an effort to debrief and lean from mistakes
2. The Managers are implementers of HQ projects and monitors of reps. There is no real mechanism to critically review process changes, they are discouraged from providing any valuable feedback (because, nothing exists to provide the feedback-giving it to DCO is not productive, same is true at the rep level). The Veeva system is REDUCING productivity because the focus is monitoring activity, example monitoring the location for sample delivery does NOTHING to improve compliance. But if it could give a WARNING that the GPS location and the location selected in Veeva could or better yet, loading the correct address. Also if "compliance" is a priority, then why are there so many incorrect addressees in the database and why hasn't it been fixed?
3. Lack of accountability for anyone above the rep level in the organizational hierarchy. The Sr. Executive that pushes a project through, does not monitor it success except on the "scorecard". The scorecard does not measure productivity but skewed estimate of sales performance. There is no accountability because there is no way to validate the information presented. There is a religious tone to how the data are presented and people are rewarded for moving into a "high performing" territory and punished for being assigned a low performing territory. Others continuing in a territory can watch their performance plummet between December and January or dramatically improve. How is it possible to identify "best practices" in such a system?
2. The Managers are implementers of HQ projects and monitors of reps. There is no real mechanism to critically review process changes, they are discouraged from providing any valuable feedback (because, nothing exists to provide the feedback-giving it to DCO is not productive, same is true at the rep level). The Veeva system is REDUCING productivity because the focus is monitoring activity, example monitoring the location for sample delivery does NOTHING to improve compliance. But if it could give a WARNING that the GPS location and the location selected in Veeva could or better yet, loading the correct address. Also if "compliance" is a priority, then why are there so many incorrect addressees in the database and why hasn't it been fixed?
3. Lack of accountability for anyone above the rep level in the organizational hierarchy. The Sr. Executive that pushes a project through, does not monitor it success except on the "scorecard". The scorecard does not measure productivity but skewed estimate of sales performance. There is no accountability because there is no way to validate the information presented. There is a religious tone to how the data are presented and people are rewarded for moving into a "high performing" territory and punished for being assigned a low performing territory. Others continuing in a territory can watch their performance plummet between December and January or dramatically improve. How is it possible to identify "best practices" in such a system?
Why improving processes is so difficult
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire