| ||
Many purists will promote the argument that good quality performance results in good financial performance. My observation however is; should the question be:"is, or may, good financial performance be achieved at the expense of quality?" In other words, can we have good financial performance and poor quality? And, if we do, who really cares? The impetus for these weighty questions arises from the two undisputed facts in the public domain recently. They relate to the Royal Mail, the UK postal service. After several years of appalling financial losses and gradually reducing levels of quality performance the Royal Mail has now 'turned the financial corner' and got itself back into the black. At the same time it has failed to achieve many of its quality targets. The following questions may justifiably have been put: o Has financial performance been achieved because of the sacrifice of quality issues? Too many questions and not enough answers to be answered in this short article but one may legitimately question if the monopoly enjoyed by Royal Mail has contributed to its apparent surrendering of quality values for perceived financial gain? Would McDonalds be where it is if it was not for Burger King? Would Hertz and Avis not have achieved their size but for the competition offered by each other? The euphemism of "Snail Mail" has arisen since the advent of e-mail but is the protected market of this monopoly really just a well deserved nail in its coffin? Should we not now be referring to the outdated protectionism of this market as "Nail Mail"?
|
 |
 |
 |
