Category / Strategy

by Pusing Musing

The Future of Employment Post-COVID-19

COVID-19 has has forced many changes to daily life. But there is one word that is probably synonymous with COVID-19 as it emerges as COVID-19 spread, Zoom.

From an application that people hardly knew, the usage of Zoom has skyrocketed as people prefer to stay at home and need a way to communicate for work and social life.

Zoom is not the first video conferencing application in the market. We have BlueJeans, WebEx, Skype, GotoMeeting and other products. But Zoom is perhaps what most people know and use for collaboration.

Zoom is also the tool what many companies used (many for the first time) to enable their employees to work from home (WFH).

COVID-19 has forced the companies to do WFH, whether the companies were ready or not; and after few months many companies found that they could continue to function even with its employees WFH.

It is a revolution in the way office work works, but it is not new. Even before COVID-19, some companies have been practicing WFH. Automattic (the company behind WordPress), BaseCamp and GitLab, are few examples that have its workforces mostly WFH.

This will have a lot of impacts (and opportunities) on employment.

The effectiveness of WFH is still debated. Some companies like Automattic and Gitlab embraces it a big way and found no issue with productivity of its workforce. Twitter announced its employees could WFH as long as they would like. Other companies such as Netflix preferred to have its workforce to be in the office as it founds it could get more creative ideas from face-to-face collaboration.

With ‘forced experiment’ with WFH, companies start to realize that there is longer requirement for a space (or a big space) – called ‘office’ – to house its employee anymore. A significant cost could be saved by reducing office space or even eliminate it altogether.

However, the biggest impact is many companies now realize it could reduce the manpower cost.

Some companies, such as VMWare cuts the salary of professionals who are WFH from area outside the Silicon Valley area. It arguably fair to other professionals who choose to stay in Silicon Valley. Professionals who work in other states or area with lower cost of living as compared to the Silicon Valley should ideally have their salaries reflect the current local conditions.

However, the biggest impact is probably companies now realize it could also hire professionals from practically anywhere in the world and many countries have lower cost of living (which is translated to lower asking salary).

It is a boon for professionals from developing countries as they can market their talents to companies beyond what are available domestically. It potentially reduces unemployment in those countries and increase domestic economy.

However, it will be huge challenge for professionals from developed countries. Lowering their asking salary may not be a good option as the cost of living is significantly higher.

Productivity loss may be overcome by hiring more people. It is a rather crude solution. However, if hiring two or more offshore professionals in order to achieve similar productivity as one inshore professional and yet with lower cost for the former, then it is a rather simple math for companies.

Companies may also gain more by strategically hiring from different regions so that there is always a professional working in different time zones. A 24×7 operation is possible without incurring the extra cost to incentivise people to work at graveyard hours.

We may see the next wave of outsourcing and a rather different one.

Rather than outsourcing to other companies, companies may choose to outsource directly to individuals. It could get the best talents from various countries, with lower cost.

Companies may also exploit different law, favoring professionals from countries that have more lax employment protection or simply base its ‘physicals’ office in the country with lax employment protection and have all professionals (regardless their locations)hired by the companies to adhere to that country’s law.

Professionals, especially from developing countries, would have more opportunities. On the other hand, professionals from developed countries now run risk of losing jobs to other professionals from other countries.

As talent is now available globally, professionals would also need to compete globally. It is no longer sufficient to ‘shine’ locally; the professionals need shine globally.

For professionals from developed countries, with high cost of living, they also need to show they can provide more values with skills or capabilities that are difficult to get elsewhere, despite higher commanding salary.

It will be a different competitions, and probably a more intense one. There is less protection from local employment law in case there are disputes as companies could hire the professionals directly, bypassing local laws.

Rather than permanent jobs, employment would be more transient. Short-term contract may be a norm. This allows the companies to adjust its manpower requirements in short notice, for example when there is an economic downturn.

Professionals would have more options to choose from and could simply pick different companies. However, it also means there is less job security on employment.

Having transient workforce from various countries would also mean less bargaining power for employees. There is no collective bargaining power on the employee’s side as employees are scattered in different parts of the world.

Governments will also face issues. For developing countries, having its citizens to be employed by foreign countries would be a blessing. Rather than ‘exporting’ their population out, the professionals would remain in the country, contributing to local economy and indirectly growing other local talents.

However, if those countries do not have strong tax law, there is a possibility that its citizen would under-declare their incomes, resulted in less revenue from the income tax.

Similar issue with shrinking income tax would be even more visible for developed countries; the jobs went to other countries and its citizen faced downward pressure on the salary.

Countries would also face issue in attracting foreign investments. Typically such investments would require commitment from the companies to make certain amount of investment and commitment to hire local professionals. However, with ability to hire professionals from virtually anywhere, companies may be less keen to hire local professionals unless the country could provide more incentives.

It looks gloomy, however it is inevitable. WFH unintentionally forced companies to experiment with WFH and opened up other possibilities for the companies.

For professionals, especially for the next generation professionals, it will be a reality. Things will be different moving forward; each of us would compete globally. We should continuously develop ourselves, adaptable and build unique capabilities and values to remain relevant.

Image source: People vector created by pch.vector – www.freepik.com

by Pusing Musing

Process and Customer Experience at Economic Rice Stall

One of places I usually go for lunch in the weekdays is the food court at the Esplanade Link.  It is only a short walk from Raffles City complex, it has variety of foods, the foods are generally good and the price is reasonable.

My favorite stall in that food court is the Economic Rice.  This stall always has the longest queue during lunch time; and yet people don’t mind to queue.  Despite the long queue, the queue is surprisingly fast, thanks to the way they serve the customers.

The stall is in the corner, in “L” shape, something similar to the image below.  There were usually four stall keepers manning the stall, other than perhaps another two or three at the back who do the cooking.  The queue started from the stall keeper in the corner, marked with ‘1’.

Capture.PNG

The stall keeper ‘1’ main responsibility was to ask the customer what he wants: whether he wants rice or porridge and whether he wants to eat the food at the food court or to ta bao (take away).  He then scooped the rice to the plate or a take away box.  He was responsible to scoop the first one or two side dishes that are closest to his area.

The 2nd stall keeper, marked as ‘2’ on the picture above, would then take over the dish.  The customer move dto the left and continue to order side dishes from the area closest to the 2nd stall keeper. Meanwhile, stall keeper ‘1’ took new order.

Once completed, stall keeper ‘2’ handed over the plate or takeaway box full with the food to the 3rd stall keeper, marked with ‘3’ on the picture.  In front of this stall keeper there were two big bowls, one with gravy and another one with curry.  Stall keeper ‘3’ main responsibility was to ask the customer whether he wants curry or gravy to be added to the dish. If the customer ordered porridge, stall keeper ‘3’ would scoop the porridge to the bowl. He then put the dish in front of the 4th stall keeper.

The last stall keeper, stall keeper ‘4’, marked with ‘4’ on the picture, was mainly responsible to handle the payment.  He was also in-charge to put the takeaway box in the plastic bag.  Customer would then leave the stall.

As illustrated above, each stall keeper in the stall had a very clear roles and responsibility; and they followed it to the dot.  There was also a coordination between stall keeper ‘1’ and stall keeper ‘2’; the moment the 2nd stall keeper was free, he would immediately take the plate/box from the stall keeper ‘1’.

Putting the curry and gravy in giant bowls was also a brilliant idea. Without those bowls, if the customer wanted curry or gravy, the dish needs to move back to stall keeper ‘1’ or ‘2’, disrupting the order from other customers.

All of the arrangement above resulted in an efficient queue.  The customers would have a great experience as they could get their meals fast.  The customers would then willing to queue despite the long queue.  The stall also benefits, it could get more income as they could serve more customers within the same period.

However, the stall owner might realized that the arrangement could be improved further. For example, not all customers would want extra gravy or curry.  The 3rd stall keeper was not as busy as his colleagues.

The 4th stall keeper, the cashier, was busy with money (the stall does not accept cashless payment), worse if the customer gave him a big note. For takeaway, he need to close the box, get one plastic bag and put the box[es] in the plastic bag.  This was slower than the speed the first three stall keepers in serving the customers, caused a delay.  It was uncommon to see three to four customers waiting to pay.

Today,  I came to Esplanade Link’s food court again and I noticed the layout of the stall changed a bit and I noticed the queue was even faster.

There was no change in roles and responsibilities for stall keeper ‘1’ and ‘2’; however once stall keeper ‘2’ completed the order, he would hand it over to the cashier, who occupied the space originally meant for the big bowls of curry and gravy.

Customers would make the payment.  The cashier did nothing but accept the payment.  If the customer did not want to get curry or gravy, he would simply pick the dish and leave. For customer who want extra curry or gravy, he simply moved to the left and then scoop the extra curry or gravy himself from the giant bowls.

Stall keeper ‘4’ was responsible to put the boxes to the plastic bag or to get the porridge.

This simple improvement, swapping the role of stall keeper ‘3’ and ‘4’, is brilliant.  It removed bunching at the cashier – when the cashier was busy putting the takeaway box[es] into the plastic bag, which slowed down the whole process.

Customers who eat in the food court and who don’t want to get curry/gravy could immediately pay their meals and go.  The queue for them was faster; other than there was no bunching issue, they also skipped the gravy/curry step in the previous process.

For customers who want extra curry or gravy, they could get the curry/gravy themselves.  As there was no bunching, they could get the food faster.

For takeaway customers, the experience may be the same as before, or perhaps slightly better because there was no bunching.

This small improvement does improve customers experience, simply because the queue moved faster and they could get the food faster.

I am not so sure whether there is a financial benefit, too.  However, as the queue moved faster, it would lead to shorter queue, which may attract more customers.

Whether the stall owner realized or not, he had improved the process and customer experience. He also showed that such activities could be done even by small business like his.  Huge Improvements could be achieved by simple (and looked trivial) changes, such as swapping the stall keepers.

</>