Announce every day, but there is no opportunity to ask whether the quota has been met

“Well, today’s goal is 434. Everyone, please do your best to achieve our goal.”

As usual, the manager announces today’s quota. What I always wonder is why the target value is that number.
A few days ago it was 431, and another day it was 435. The numbers fluctuate slightly.

Are new ways always better?

Techniques or methods are constantly being improved. But I wonder if the new method is always great.
This is because new methods have inevitably not yet been tested for usefulness.
No matter how revolutionary the method is, it is impossible to shorten or eliminate the period required for its verification. Verification is the final check, so to speak.
Suppose a test proves the new method to be valid. But how many months was the verification period?

Maybe it’s just a computer approximation and someone approves it. The voice of the manager who announces the quota is low.
Quotas are announced every day, but there is no opportunity to ask whether the quota has been met. Perhaps the number of cases achieved is about half of the quota.
The manager’s workload has obviously decreased since the computer has come to estimate the quota. After all, it is impossible for ordinary people to make sales forecasts based on the previous day’s or the previous month’s data.
AI management is beginning to permeate the actual work of employees. The amount of work each person does is estimated by AI. Of course, AI abuses its employees.
The AI ​​seems to see through that everyone is taking moderate or frequent breaks. Therefore, the quotas given to employees are set to use their working hours as efficiently as possible.

Are new methods necessarily new?

The method that started working a few months ago is no longer called the new method. The world can change dramatically in just a few months.
So the latest method is always the old method.

Showing posts matching

What’s more, it’s eerie, but there’s a certain amount of leeway built into the AI-assembled procedures. It’s not a calculation error, it’s a deliberately calculated gap time.
And, surprisingly, that gap time is not enough to enjoy a cigarette or a cup of coffee. In other words, during that gap time, employees can only stop their bodies.
Fortunately, however, it is allowed to put the work management system on hold when an irregularity occurs. The AI ​​does not decide the terms of the suspension.
It goes without saying that employees are eagerly awaiting the sudden occurrence of irregularities.

Strikes at Ukraine nuclear plant prompt UN chief to call for demilitarised zone | Reuters… Ukraine’s Energoatom agency said the Zaporizhzhia complex was struck five times on Thursday, …

That’s all for today’s post. Thank you