Monday, November 02, 2009

Better, faster and more

Someone asked my views about the slogan "cheaper, better and faster" to ensure that the workers in Singapore will continue to have jobs in the competitive global environment.

My first thought was, "this is an innovative slogan". However, on further analysis, I am worried about this slogan. If our workers can be cheaper, better and faster, surely this will lead to more profits. Will the workers have any share in this profit? But the slogan said that the workers will be "cheaper", i.e. earn less.

I think that the slogan should be "better, faster and more". "More" means that the workers can earn more by helping to produce the increased profits when they are "better and faster".

I also believe that there should be a balance between "working harder" and "have a better quality of life". There is no point in working too hard at the expense of health and family.

Tan Kin Lian


Anonymous said...

I am a shareholder of a company that employs 4.5 million people.

The company believes in paying top dollar for the best available talent to run the company.

Lately I hear from senior management that future success comes from;
a) more hard work
b) cheaper, better, faster workers

I seem to be able to find the same advice in the self-help section of bookstores and libraries.

The cost of these books are;
a. "free" in the library
b. about $50 on average from the bookstore

What is the cheaper, better, faster way for me to continue to receive such nuggets of wisdom in the future?

Anonymous said...

heartlanders are told to go for CBF i.e. cheaper, better and faster.

How much faster or better or cheaper if you earn $1,000 to $2,000 a month?

I can think lots of ways to achieve CBF for ministers drawing millions a year....

Talk is cheap but why always happen on workers while the cabinet is drawing many more than the US administration? I think it is a joke...

Ron said...

We cannot be 'cheaper,faster,better'
We were doing that 20 years ago.

Now China, Vietnam are doing it.
They are definitely cheaper and they can do it faster and the products are better.

I had thought that we have moved to a 'knowledge' based economy? Does that mean we should be 'cheaper'? What about the vision of " swiss standard' of living?

We cannot be cheaper.. our land cost is high. Our transport costs are highest. To be cheaper would mean lower pay for all workers, which means more foreigners.

It is getting ridiculous. Cheaper?
Lets all work for free then.The Gov will provide us with everything else.

Unknown said...

I cannot help but to agree. However where I used to come from, the general stand is work hard and enjoy hard - makes a mockery of what is actually done per se.

The work-life balance is more often seen as 'the juniors work, the seniors get a life'

Unknown said...

I fully agree with Mr Tan's views. We cannot just look from the financial angle and expect the workers to work harder and be cheaper. We should ask what we actually want and look for something that strives for a work-life balance. Make our work force a "happy, committed and hardworking" one instead of "cheaper, better and faster".

Anonymous said...

The problem is I am getting 'dearer, smaller, slower' deal with wholelife insurance.
I pay more premium for lesser coverage and return and slower break even point.
The management and insurance agents are getting 'bigger, quicker and richer' remuneration.
How can I match them with cheaper, better and faster. At the end of the day I am earning for them

Anonymous said...

How much more "cheaper" can we get, with the rising cost of living in Singapore, it will be madness if the wages of Singaporeans be lower than what it already is.

We CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be competing based solely on cost. If the government is thinking of reducing cost, then cut the other cost which seem to be ever rising.

As Ron mentioned, they have been championing a "knowledge based economy", but it seems like they have gone desperate/lack of ideas on how to attract investment, so we have to suck it up to go back to being a cheap labour force ??

Not surprisingly, why the ministers never put their wages on the line and say that they can be cheaper, better and faster; considering that they seem to be more expensive, not as good as the old guards (eg Mr Goh Keng Swee, Mr Toh Chin Chye) and not fast enough to react to changing times.

Parka said...

I agree with Ron.

For those who studied Sun Tzu's Art of War, there's a stratagem that advocates choosing your own battlefield.

Do not fight on that cheaper-better-faster battlefield or you'll die miserably because others are fighting too.

If you can, choose to fight (or compete) in the upmarket battlefield. The pie is bigger, and there are less competition.

A Singaporean said...

Cheaper, Better, Faster isn't exactly a new mantra. It has long been used in projects, such as software and engineering projects. Further, it has been recognized that in most of the projects, among Cost, Quality, Speed, you can have only two out of the three, and not all three of them. I don't think Cheaper, Better, Faster will work in our people, it's like our leaders having a pie and eating it.

Anonymous said...

Reference "A Singaporean"'s post.

Cheaper, Better, faster. You can only have 2 out of 3.

Now this sounds more reasonable.

An American politician can be cheap and good ... but not very fast.

A Fast and Good politician ... but not very cheap.

A cheap and fast politician ... but not very good.

A Singaporean said...

NASA Report: Too Many Failures with Faster, Better, Cheaper

Khiat Han Hwee Adrian said...

Proactive, Productive and Proficient?

Anonymous said...

How to be cheaper, better and faster when your premium is spent even faster than you could pay. View the link below and see for yourself.
Ask yourself is it where your bonus went to.

Anonymous said...

So now we know where our bonuses gone to and why the return of our policies has dropped too.
To let these people partying at resorts with their families.

Anonymous said...

It makes no sense for our workers to be "cheaper, better and faster" in order to be competitive in the global market

Our competition mainly come from China, not only now but also in the future. If the level of pay of our workers is cheaper than the average level in China, it will cause our workers to starve to death now, not to mention about the future.

In my opinion, the slogan should be meant for our products and construed as follows:

price is cheaper
quality is better
delivery is faster

The one who came up with the slogan should explain explicitly its implications

Richard Koh

Anonymous said...

While he gets fatter bigger and faster salary and gets to see his CPF every month , he tell others to be cheaper, better and faster? Is he getting his salary faster?

Blog Archive