R 爆頭（我係都鍾意鑽牛角尖）
（多得肥龍兄，如果唔係我就一定... ）
各位好友請諒小弟連日失蹤，因為呢幾日R 爆頭，係度諗，Peter Drucker 曾經講過，企業既首要功能/目標就係：
「創造顧客。」
O, I luv Drucker.
咁，若果係 NGO，佢地個首要目標又係咪「消滅顧客」呢？
又，如果係「消滅顧客」，咁佢地去爭取更多funding 又會唔會代表佢地個「消滅顧客既方法/策略」有問題呢？
又又，如果佢地個「消滅顧客既策略」冇問題，咁點解要爭取更多 funding 呢？
又又又，佢地其實係咪需要進入建制，或者參與政治，先至可以真正能達到佢地個「消滅顧客既策略」呢？
又又又又，NGO 其實係咪算在野政黨呢？
又又又又又，NGO 個首要目標又可唔可以「創造顧客」呢？
（查實我都係無野搵野黎講，醒目既就當我無到）
20 comments:
(開中我果瓣;甘冒「唔醒」之大不諱!)
1.
服務對象vs顧客
2.
姐咁
創造顧客=創造同路人得唔得
3.
ngo有好多種
服務亦可推而廣之
i.e. 做完衣個地方做下個地方
好野下次大把野傾!
Hi CM,
If disabilities are the clients, you can both reduce them and increase them at the same time, I supposed. Increase them by earlier intervention for preventive or better management of the quality of life etc associated with the disabilities, as well as the caring the carers. Reduce the problems/ net social cost caused by the disabilities. The question is where is the balance point under the current policy - lump sum grant - a kind of limited budgeting from the government points of view. Basically, the gov is viewing it as a cost center. I guess there is some way to turn it into a profit centre as a whole, e.g. leading to an accumulation of related scientific advancement, and profitable services and products. But it seems that it is too difficult a task as the basic culture in Hong Kong doesn't seem to favour the development of knowledge based services, which doesn't look directly related to money earning (in short term). As such, it is quite difficult to create client, create knowledge, create quality of life,reduce burden of carers, reduce loss of working hours, etc into a overall positive balance sheet. Afterall, many are the services now are limited to an attitude of taking care of the problem, rather than learning from the problems - hence creating value.
However, overall, I think NGO are doing their job in helping Hong Kong functions well as a whole.
:)
危樓姐姐：
呵呵
等緊你丫
1.
嗯
2.
姐又咁
若果同路人=Sponsor
咁
同路人咪=Supplier
甚至Investor？
不過又咁
若果同路人=服務對象（即1）
咁
即係話服務對象要越來越多
咁
又係咪代表接受服務者最好重覆不斷地接受服務？
3.
>>做完衣個地方做下個地方
呢個係喇
又唔怪得咁多NGO要猛寫新proposal攞funding喇...
BRAVO!!!!!!
Bravo:
To me:
In quantitative terms, NGO "should" aim to reduce the "number" of clients.
i.e., Reduce clients = reduce the no. of clients being served
..OR..
= replace them under other service areas
And if you increase "them" by earlier intervention, well in this sense, you are actually reducing potential clients before they become "actual" clients.
Under your view, to reduce the problems/ net social cost caused by the disabilities - it may not be what NGOs are aiming at, I guess - though this area of service is effective on the whole, NGOs may view it as the responsibility of the govt/profit organizations and may think "disabilities are not problem sources". Well, they may think discrimination are. But this idea fits in my view of reducing clients.
The balance point you've mentioned... the govt (HK for instance) is treating NGOs not part of her policy. Therefore, the govt views them as cost centres. To turn them into profit centres, the govt may have two things to do:
1. align NGOs' effort with city's development strategy/policy
2. measure the performance of NGO on their abilities to reduce clients (i.e. inverse proportionally)
NGOs can also be viewed as "profit-generating" as well, but the profit becomes a function inversely proportional to cost. This cost is also measured for the society as a whole or for an area of service specifically.
Creation of knowledge/awareness... yes, it was done, and people is likely educated... BUT, if the effect is not "noticable", to me, the high cost is NOT justified.
What NGO should do is to develop measurement techniques on "rate/amount of reduction of clients" (though it also paves way for fraudulent information) and not just on "amount of fund raised", "qty of participants"...
N.B. "Reduction of clients" may also mean "Reduction of those clients that accept particular kind of service".
If "quality of life" is created, we may say "hardship is alleviated". On the one hand, we can say the money can provide shelters for 1000 elders. On the other hand we may (should) say 1000 less elders are in need of govt provided shelters.
The former gives the public an idea that giving shelter means an unlimited contribution. But the latter may be viewed by the public that money are used properly.
Being a mediocre public, I see social funds should be used to create value through solving problems (counting the number of problems solved) instead of through telling me there are still a number of problems to be solved.
... Suddenly, I don't get it.
(Thanks, Bravo!)
C.M.兄，
NGO有好多不同種類喎...依道講緊既應該係單止扶貧滅赤果種吧...
AK咁睇...政治，又或者政府既其中一個基本功能，在於透過稅收及福利政策，進行財富再分配，從而提升整體社會既生活水平...
只不過係，財富再分配...即係以有形之手影響市場...所以，政策一定有傾斜，偏差亦難免...
以扶助弱勢為重點既NGO，正係因應政府政策傾斜下出現既問題而產生既...所以，如果NGO A入左政府建制，成功影響政策，就會有代表另一班弱勢社群既NGO B出現...
AK並不否定NGO，只係認為，佢地既存在，有其必然性...可以講，因為有Government Organization，所以就有Non Government Organization...一體兩面，蘭蕙雙生...
嘩我好多野想講呀
唔打得唔得
又
師倒x咁早喎
AK兄：
NGO 當然有好多種，但係云云眾多NGO種類中，有冇邊 d 個目標唔係“消滅顧客”既呢？（我呢度assume消滅顧客係佢地既Objective）...呢，比d提示小弟丫...
小弟心目中既NGO，唔一定係滅赤扶貧既，但大概會係屬於Non-profit organizations果類。
而我緊呢類既NGO，係由機搆本身替顧客付出“代價”，所以NGO要不斷“消滅顧客”先可以維持運作。
假設政黨屬於NGO，咁佢地既顧客就可以係果d未有支持呢個政黨既廣大市民。咁消滅左呢批反對/不支持既市民，變成政黨既支持者，就係呢個NGO既目的。到時呢個NGO就唔需要再提供服務將佢地變成支持者。（Oops，不過呢個例子好似唔係太對路，因為中間太多利益關係。）
>>一體兩面，蘭蕙雙生
嗯。好說好說。
危樓姐姐：
講丫
講丫
唔……滿腦子sIn/deadly/vanity/pride大雜亂中…(係時候去教堂"靜坐"一下)
消滅顧客係目的, 成效如何, 條數要take out每年既總顧客量增長黎計…
On兄！撐住！
因為NGO既顧客基本上唔需要付出成本/代價，所以有不少顧客會“食髄知味”，放棄自主能力，而要求再次享受服務。
總顧客量，會有機會包括 Repetitive clients。而 Repetitive clients 或許正正反映 performance 不足。咁...
Repetitive clients... I see!
咁條數又唔係咁計了...
小9心中, 只當左CHARITY為NGO, 宣明個D渣播~~~ :)
我同伯伯通左電話
唔得閒理你
ngo,好多野想講,不過遲d得閒先。
要講NGO, 就要先define何謂NGO。
CM, 你講得有點複雜(所以都唔係咁明), 或者把NGO定義搞得清楚一點, 也許更好。
問下七十姐姐或者會比我更清楚何謂NGO, 不過誠如On弟所言, NGO多是做慈善和公眾福利(例如老人服務, 青少年服務等)居多, 所以又名志願機構。
"咁NGO其實係咪算在野政黨?" 除非NGO有既定的政治立場甚至有黨綱等, 否則不能定為在野政黨。
有些人更認為一些半官方機構(例如職安局)都係NGO, 但我反而覺得這類機構, 納入為法定組織(Statutory body)可能更合適。
咁，若果係 NGO，佢地個首要目標又係咪「消滅顧客」呢？
你可以咁睇:
1. NGO所提供的服務, 有特定的對象, 對象可能係無能力去paid(例如拿綜緩人士), 但只要機構不是謀利的話, 政府或者善長人翁等都會資助甚至捐款給NGO去提供有關服務。
2. 不過, 又有一些服務係由NGO舉辦(例如搞訓練課程或者日間服務等), 若然公眾係有能力去paid和興趣參加的話, 呢班人可以被視為顧客(Customer)。
NGO某程度上同私人公司一樣, 都要生存(survival)。 但不同的係, NGO的目標係「創造顧客」之餘, 但亦要顧及無能力的「顧客」的需要; 消滅呢D無能力的「顧客」是很長遠的事, 但NGO亦要因應不同的社會環境而作出配合甚至轉變。
"因為NGO既顧客基本上唔需要付出成本/代價，所以有不少顧客會“食髄知味”，放棄自主能力，而要求再次享受服務。" 呢一點其實好似有些本來有能力工作人士, 去社署"呃"綜緩。但NGO不是社署(政府), 不能阻止呢D事發生。
政府現在對NGO一筆過撥款，我想遲早都會採取衡工量值，再調整個別NGO整筆撥款數目。
對NGO衡工量值，是很有趣的事情。如果靠顧客（福利受惠者）滿意程度調查，越受顧客歡迎，則列為服務最佳的話，就更鼓勵NGO找尋“食髄知味”的顧客。
如果按NGO能處理的個案數目撥款，又是否鼓勵重量不重質的服務，以求取得更多撥款？
這些困難問題，還是留給「不人道資源部門」去解決。
On兄：
呢條數唔容易計，但唔係無可能。查實就算企業各部門，包括HR，亦可能需要以Repetitive clients 為量度表現的準則。
最普遍的一樣就是“Handling Complaint”，對嗎？越少complaining clients 就代表成功。消滅顧客，其實唔係NGO專利。
危樓姐姐：
真係要咁？（Well，我又估估下，估中左唔好讚我醒，唔該）
波老闆：
哈哈，對此你我應有同見也！
雖然近日小弟很少留言，但你寫的東西，不少都很精辟，令小弟佩服。
Karen：
>>就要先define何謂NGO
咩係 NGO嘛，唔...
>>除非NGO有既定的政治立場甚至有黨綱等
我初步既想法係，若果機構個立場係，通過修改法例或教育市民，從而改善民生，咁可唔可以算係“政治”立場？
>>納入為法定組織(Statutory body)可能更合適
Thanks!
>>對象可能係無能力去paid
咁NGO既工作，係咪要盡力令到呢批對象獲得服務，獲得滿足，但之後，又會唔會希望呢批對象持續獲得同樣服務呢？
>>若然公眾係有能力去paid和興趣參加的話, 呢班人可以被視為顧客(Customer)
之所以要消滅顧客，是因為呢批顧客無能力支付服務費用，所以要盡力消滅他們，以維持機構運作。
但對於呢d有能力去paid for 興趣既“顧客”，呢類 NGO既角色會變得相對“牟利”。而這個“牟利”角色，當然要創造顧客。但當考慮到消滅顧客，這並非小弟最初心想希望探討的 NGO （即非牟利 NGO）。
不過你講到教育這部分，很有意義，發人深省。
若然你說的興趣班 NGO 旨在教育大眾，那NGO的成功不只在“吸引”到大眾去接受教育，更是使他們接受教育以後毋須再獲得有關教育。雖然好像是雙贏，但當大眾需要付出代價比NGO所需的多，那創造顧客的需要，將會比消滅顧客的需要大。想到香港現行的九年免費教育制度，雖然還有付出成本接受教育，但因為法例的指令和免學費的制度，讓學生的成本下降，消滅顧客的需要（e.g. 令學生們不斷獲得升班、不鼓勵留班、甚至以最方便的評核方式 -- 考試制度來決定“顧客”的去留 -- 一般來說，只去不留。）會比創造顧客的需要大。
我會以同樣方式去理解香港的醫療制度。（e.g. 公立醫院的醫生，更要專業，因為醫不好，會增加病人重返醫院的機會。）
>>NGO某程度上同私人公司一樣, 都要生存(survival)。
在我而言，以濟世扶貧的NGO為例，他們的終極目標不是生存，而是死亡。要維持營運，只是為了找到更多顧客（或許，會理解“找”為“創造”，但於我理解，這些顧客例如窮人本漫山遍野，無須創造），然後加以消滅。
因為這些 NGO的創立是基於“社會/政府”無法解決的特別需要，但當NGO達成任務（即回到原先創立的原因），NGO當應解散。NGO 的贊助者，於我來說，不是“顧客”。他們只是像危樓姐姐所講的同路人，有共同理念的人。當這些人與NGO有共同理念，他們根本不是顧客，因為他們將會不請自來。NGO只需要把理念傳播，召集同道。理念最有共鳴的，自然會提供各方面的支持。或許，單是為了公司形象，或自己的面子而去支持NGO的，就是NGO要努力創造的顧客。
>>但NGO不是社署(政府), 不能阻止呢D事發生。
若以我的理念，NGO... 絕對可以！！而且是絕對須要阻止呢d事！！我今次要說的，就是這一點。
NGO把原先應該獲得服務的人，給了其他不應該獲得這些服務的人。在有限的資源來說，是浪費。這個浪費，就是 NGO under-performance 的一面。NGO之所以能夠維持，是一班同道中人，但若把這些同道的資源，“故意”交付給了“不應該”的人，這 NGO 就是背棄了同道。
雖然浪費不可免，但應該盡力避免。
好長...
（每當Da Da 看到那左擰右擰的紫色頭，她都會樂翻天。）
Post a Comment