• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Get control of your email attachments. Connect all your Gmail accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize your file attachments. You can also connect Dokkio to Drive, Dropbox, and Slack. Sign up for free.


The Service Sector

Page history last edited by Brian 11 years, 6 months ago

Hey Guys,

 So, I thought about our service dilemma over the break and here's what I came up with:


  • I think the the VP of Service and the Service Commitee should be the philanthropic arm of the club, focusing on providing goodwill to Cache Valley.
  • That being the case, potential projects should evaluated based on (1) their potential to provide learning and (2) on how much "good" they do.
  • Projects that provide many oppertunities for learning but don't to as much "good" should be in the domain of the VP of Education; projects that don't provide much learning but do a lot of "good" should be in the domain of the VP of Service. Since most projects will fall somewhere in the middle, the VPs of Service and Education can meet (formally or informally) to decide which branch will take on what project(s).
  • The criteria for evaluating projects will have to be determined, specifically, how do we decide what "good" is and who should be the recipiants?
    • Some thoughts I've had are: What are the end results of the project?
    • Who will the project affect?
    • How many people will the project affect?
    • How long will those effects last?
    • Does it affect anyone's quality of life (work life or life in general)?
    • How badly are the outcomes needed?
  • Alternatively, we could focus our service on helping local organizations on their path towards becoming "Lean".
    • The evaluation criteria would be based on doing "good" within the context of Lean principles (ie, How Lean does the project help the orgainzation to become?) as opposed to doing "good" in general.
    • The number of potential projects would significantly decrease and there would be only a small difference between Service projects and Education projects.
    • The projects might be viewed as more "in step" with the goals of the club.


Some thoughts I've had regarding exploitation of the club are:

  • Only NPOs could be eligable for service.
  • For-Profits could be limited to one service per year, NPOs--no limit.
  • Developing criteria for evalutating "need", taking into consideration the capacity of the organization to help themselvs and the organization's contribution to Cache Valley.


Since one of the 7 wastes is underutilization of employee (clubmember) creativity and experience, I'd like everyone who has any thoughts/feelings on the above to let me know. BGParrott@gmail.com



Comments (2)

Brian said

at 2:28 pm on Jan 6, 2009

Instead of sending comments to my email address, it might be more beneficial to post them here on the wiki.

abk said

at 4:14 am on Jan 14, 2009

I think we should not necesarily place any emphasis on POs and NPOs, we should emphasize any company or group who wants to become Lean and wants to work with our club in doing so.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.