-=> Quoting Matt Smith to William Lipp <=-
Hello, Matt,
Is this as frustrating for you as it is for me?  Let me tell you how it
feels to me.  It feels like we are not having a dialogue at all.
It feels like we are have alternating monologues.  In particular, it
feels like you read until you see the word "customer," and it sets off
a rage about how public schools mistreat their metaphorical customers.
It feels like you then let vent to that rage and write about this
mistreatment for a while.  End of your monologue.  I read your post
and see that it has nothing at all to do with my post, except that they
both used the word "customer."  I get angry at being ignored, so I write back
full of pique and vinegar, that you're completely off base.  I write that
this thread has nothing to do with that sense of the word
"customer."  Of course, you see that word again, and it sets off
another round.
Are you still with me?  Or have I triggered another round by recklessly
including the "c" word in my first paragraph?  I'm going
to try another time.  I'll try to keep the pique and vinegar under
control.  
 WL> I just read an article in Fortune magazine on "who is the 
 WL> customer." In the business context, it was the fad a while
 WL> ago for departments
This article is about the abuse of the metaphor "internal customer" to
describe services between departments of large companies.  I
introduced it into this thread because the article had jolted an
awareness that you and Dale were using the term "customer" differently.
You were both finding "customer" to be a metaphor between schools and
other parties.  But you had picked different aspects of the relationship
"customer" to generalize, and you had therefore picked different parties
as the "customers" in your metaphor.  You both had valid insights from
your generalizations, but you were too busy arguing about the validity
of your own insights to step back and see the other fellow also had a
valid but different point.
 MS> Fortune's article is 
 MS> in the context of total customer choice
This was an assumption on your part, probably based on the knowledge that
Fortune is a business magazine.  This assumption fit in nicely with
the point you were making, so you didn't stop to question it or
check it.
 WL> Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Wrong 
My pique at being ignored.
 WL> Either you didn't read the article, or you are
 WL> completely clueless about what it's like to work in a large company.
And my vinegar.
 MS> I admit to not having seen the article.  
 MS> But AT&T cannot coerce payment from MCI users in the way public
 MS> schools  have the right to coerce full payment from those choosing 
 MS> private schools,
But corporate IT Departments (used to be MIS, and before that DP)
can force payments from the budgets of line departments that buy
their own computers and computer and support, and they do it all
the time in big companies.  Similarly, Training Departments can force
payments from the budgets of the departments that never use the 
internal trainers, and instead contract outside the company for
training, and they do it all the time in large companies.  Part of the
Quality movement in corporations was to use the metaphor of customer
and describe the line departments as the customers of the IT and
Training departments.  The article is about how this metaphor of
internal customers has outlived its usefulness, and lead to some
new abuses.  
 MS> "Customers" of the Fortune 500
Have nothing at all to do with this article.
 MS> due to the near-zero rights 
 MS> of public school "customers"! 
Just like the internal customers.  Originally, I hadn't really thought
the article was all that relevant except as an example of the different
meanings of "customer," especially in metaphorical uses.  The more
you explain why the article should not be relevant, the more clearly
relevant the article seems to schools.
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------