tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post5262364669018537279..comments2024-01-25T22:12:21.504+08:00Comments on Inhuman Resources: 人治部與垃圾桶C.M.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10020937080260646187noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-68902683272628418302008-11-25T23:21:00.000+08:002008-11-25T23:21:00.000+08:00>>以往做數好整齊,auditor就會鬆手d絕對係。所以(Errr,唔好意思,nothing per...>>以往做數好整齊,auditor就會鬆手d<BR/><BR/>絕對係。所以(Errr,唔好意思,nothing personal)審計時,永遠問得最多問題既,係audit新手,而唔係老將。<BR/><BR/>>>不過如果你ICQ寫到都好亂,咁佢可能懷疑你公司入數都係咁亂咁者<BR/><BR/>哈哈,寫到亂又點走位呢?嗯... 太純品勒你。(小瓶子咁勁,我出盡十八般武藝都過唔到佢果關喇...)C.M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10020937080260646187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-38741869813868538662008-11-25T19:40:00.000+08:002008-11-25T19:40:00.000+08:00c.m:但如果太多帳目,依阿sir話如果個間公司以往做數好整齊,auditor就會鬆手d...你估a...c.m:<BR/>但如果太多帳目,依阿sir話如果個間公司以往做數好整齊,auditor就會鬆手d...你估auditor真係盤盤數都咁認真咩<BR/><BR/>不過如果你ICQ寫到都好亂,咁佢可能懷疑你公司入數都係咁亂咁者<BR/><BR/>或者啦,我紙上談兵,我都未做過,問小瓶子啦~佢做過啊!佚名https://www.blogger.com/profile/14509094988929620934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-51959380718705120592008-11-24T13:17:00.000+08:002008-11-24T13:17:00.000+08:00小佚:>>或者做ICQ者本身有欺詐成份,auditor未必能check 到~.~嘻嘻,所以我咪對於 ...小佚:<BR/>>>或者做ICQ者本身有欺詐成份,auditor未必能check 到~.~<BR/><BR/>嘻嘻,所以我咪對於 ICQ 個執行有疑問囉。(呢個咪就係"走位"既意思囉)<BR/><BR/>所以我覺得做 Auditor 既首要態度係:不信任態度。若果一路以信任態度去 audit,咩 ICQ 都冇用。C.M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10020937080260646187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-40963314195741373382008-11-22T22:15:00.000+08:002008-11-22T22:15:00.000+08:00c.m:當然方便喇,而且對於雙方個要求都會清楚好多。-->雙方得益?但都要做ICQ清晰,做得好...c.m:<BR/>當然方便喇,而且對於雙方個要求都會清楚好多。<BR/>-->雙方得益?但都要做ICQ清晰,做得好個ICQ先有用,否則做左等於無做<BR/>或者做ICQ者本身有欺詐成份,auditor未必能check 到~.~<BR/><BR/>不過呢,亦都比左好多提示我呢類奸仔去走位同談判囉。<BR/>-->哦?c.m走左d咩位啊?借勢出擊?佚名https://www.blogger.com/profile/14509094988929620934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-79730708799195307732008-11-22T20:34:00.000+08:002008-11-22T20:34:00.000+08:00小佚:當然方便喇,而且對於雙方個要求都會清楚好多。不過呢,亦都比左好多提示我呢類奸仔去走位同談判囉。...小佚:<BR/><BR/>當然方便喇,而且對於雙方個要求都會清楚好多。<BR/><BR/>不過呢,亦都比左好多提示我呢類奸仔去走位同談判囉。C.M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10020937080260646187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-29453649435236476642008-11-21T17:17:00.000+08:002008-11-21T17:17:00.000+08:00c.m:ICQ?我都填過唔少,不過,係咪真係有用架...-->我諗對於auditor來講會方便...c.m:<BR/>ICQ?我都填過唔少,不過,係咪真係有用架...<BR/>-->我諗對於auditor來講會方便d掛佚名https://www.blogger.com/profile/14509094988929620934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-18501547842490525672008-11-21T03:05:00.000+08:002008-11-21T03:05:00.000+08:00Opps!Sorry 囉!I meant CM!Opps!<BR/>Sorry 囉!<BR/>I meant CM!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-41690033117075120302008-11-21T03:02:00.000+08:002008-11-21T03:02:00.000+08:00Who is CK?Who is CK?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-71355860237288295272008-11-21T01:12:00.000+08:002008-11-21T01:12:00.000+08:00Holly:唔知CK 佢睇唔睇到你個用心良苦呢?Karen:簡化d講,算係生產管理既問題...哎呀,...Holly:<BR/><BR/>唔知CK 佢睇唔睇到你個用心良苦呢?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Karen:<BR/><BR/>簡化d講,算係生產管理既問題...哎呀,你唔提起我都唔記得,查實香港都有manufacturing架!(food manufacturing 嘛)<BR/><BR/>另外,(聽講)有部分神秘顧客個收入與工作量不成正比,咁,真係唔明d神秘顧客可以交到份似樣既report囉。C.M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10020937080260646187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-75221395099402545372008-11-20T19:34:00.000+08:002008-11-20T19:34:00.000+08:00先講KFC: 單係相片同文字未必足信, 影埋兼放埋有聲的片就可信性大大增加(雖則壹仔有些報導真係好誇...先講KFC: 單係相片同文字未必足信, 影埋兼放埋有聲的片就可信性大大增加(雖則壹仔有些報導真係好誇大, 但間野肯放蛇兼影埋證據就可以提高可信性, 例如HKXE同"香港冰"被學員話誇大課程內容和恐嚇學員唔俾退錢, 終於要CEF當局出手取消部份課程入claimCEF錢名單)。<BR/><BR/>>>片段沒有聲音,對話不明<BR/><BR/>或者錄影那部機係手機, 關掉錄音功能。<BR/><BR/>我的影響應該唔會大, 因為我只愛其蜜糖燒雞翼(2隻)和雞軟骨(1對), 以及我是在下午買。<BR/><BR/>關於"主任沒有貫徹始終地表演下去,把食物端上給客人", 我諗係時間和人手不足的關係。<BR/><BR/>關於"既然未關門,為何提早要把食物丟掉?放在一旁不可嗎?"<BR/><BR/>提早把食物丟掉, 如同賣Sushi店在將近關門前的一小時就把有剩的食物倒去一樣----食物易變壞加不衛生之餘, 不排除員工想早d收工, 於是提早做。<BR/><BR/>不放在一旁, 可能怕有客仔見到好礙眼。<BR/><BR/>但係, 若然間公司係行5S(其中一個係唔浪費, 做法如同海皇粥店買料的package可以細盒d一樣), 可以避免浪費。至於電話外賣單在收舖前落, 咁就要再諗下先。<BR/><BR/>至於海皇粥店用了5S變了減人手的case, 個人認為, 放蛇唔係只放一次就係結果, 其實可以找神秘顧客不時去監察下(尤其係所謂空檔時間太多的問題), 否則就得不償失。Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15788812591792361018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-21708651360743231542008-11-20T00:45:00.000+08:002008-11-20T00:45:00.000+08:00CK:感! 不要動!CK:感! 不要動!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-44766465348555444792008-11-19T23:52:00.000+08:002008-11-19T23:52:00.000+08:00篤撐兄:哈哈,我都覺得係。班miss查實未必按理出牌(父母以為之理)。好多小朋友只需要真真實實,唔刻...篤撐兄:<BR/>哈哈,我都覺得係。班miss查實未必按理出牌(父母以為之理)。好多小朋友只需要真真實實,唔刻意,咁反而機會仲大。(某d要睇埋父母人品出身者例外)。<BR/><BR/>要小朋友講大話?唉。要子女入學不擇手段,咁desperate,真係陰功。<BR/><BR/>小佚:<BR/>ICQ?我都填過唔少,不過,係咪真係有用架...<BR/><BR/>Holly:<BR/>多謝曬(感動)!<BR/><BR/>哈哈,跳出框框尋找自己既歡樂,懶理世人勸你悲哀喇。開心! >3<C.M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10020937080260646187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-22699558555306091292008-11-19T03:52:00.000+08:002008-11-19T03:52:00.000+08:00謝謝您加我的鏈接到您博客上!這篇文章寫給你的!Hope you can sign in my gue...謝謝您加我的鏈接到您博客上!<BR/>這篇文章寫給你的!<BR/><BR/>Hope you can sign in my guest-book!<BR/><BR/>http://hollycowplanet.spaces.live.com/default.aspx?_c01_BlogPart=blogentry&_c=BlogPart&handle=cns!8C175A4F3A013628!502Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-71444961150916012052008-11-15T16:42:00.000+08:002008-11-15T16:42:00.000+08:00c.m:我讀Auditing & management information system...c.m:<BR/>我讀Auditing & management information systems入面有教有一種叫Internal control questionnaires<BR/>c.m.有冇聽過啊??佚名https://www.blogger.com/profile/14509094988929620934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-88305201252451192782008-11-15T01:02:00.000+08:002008-11-15T01:02:00.000+08:00報幼稚園, 我有經驗ar,經驗就係冇得操, 學校主要睇個細路明唔明同埋乖唔乖乖性我個女in 果陣, ...報幼稚園, <BR/>我有經驗ar,<BR/>經驗就係冇得操, <BR/>學校主要睇個細路明唔明同埋乖唔乖乖性<BR/><BR/>我個女in 果陣, <BR/>人地叫佢唱歌唱到佢打死都唔出聲明<BR/>最後, 回答人地: 我唔想唱歌唱<BR/>一樣得左右<BR/><BR/>仲有, 唔好教佢講大話題<BR/>因為會令佢confused, 影響表現篤篤篤撐https://www.blogger.com/profile/05359701414730104570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-66590486385904458832008-11-15T00:49:00.000+08:002008-11-15T00:49:00.000+08:00尹公:恭迎恭迎。查實今次小弟單根據短片,雖然有其疑點,但我傾向認為 KFC(至少該次)應曾作此行。K...尹公:<BR/><BR/>恭迎恭迎。<BR/><BR/>查實今次小弟單根據短片,雖然有其疑點,但我傾向認為 KFC(至少該次)應曾作此行。KFC 今次麻煩矣。(好彩我淨係鍾意食佢d早餐遮)<BR/><BR/>疑點一:片段沒有聲音,對話不明。(是報館為了保護來源,所以故意刪除嗎?)<BR/><BR/>疑點二:主任沒有貫徹始終地表演下去,把食物端上給客人。<BR/><BR/>疑點三:既然未關門,為何提早要把食物丟掉?放在一旁不可嗎?(清潔工人要下班嗎?) <BR/><BR/>不過,這些疑點,於我,不足以讓我覺得 KFC<BR/>無辜。C.M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10020937080260646187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862247.post-19541555042564602792008-11-14T15:45:00.000+08:002008-11-14T15:45:00.000+08:00Good Guess!Let see what KFC reply to this matter.Good Guess!<BR/><BR/>Let see what KFC reply to this matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com