WL>  WL> I just read an article in Fortune magazine on "who is the 
WL>  WL> customer." In the business context, it was the fad a while
WL>  WL> ago for departments
WL> 
WL> This article is about the abuse of the metaphor "internal customer" 
WL> to
WL> describe services between departments of large companies.  I
WL> introduced it into this thread because the article had jolted an
WL> awareness that you and Dale were using the term "customer" 
WL> differently.
    "Internal customers" in private industry have a different relationship 
with "internal suppliers" than anything existing in the public schools, 
because there is no equivalent to the taxpayer's right to quit paying (by 
voting down school tax hikes), set payment (the same way), or get the service 
elsewhere (private school, homeschooling, Sylvan).
WL>  MS> I admit to not having seen the article.  
WL>  MS> But AT&T cannot coerce payment from MCI users in the way public
WL>  MS> schools  have the right to coerce full payment from those 
WL> choosing 
WL>  MS> private schools,
WL> 
WL> But corporate IT Departments (used to be MIS, and before that DP)
WL> can force payments from the budgets of line departments that buy
WL> their own computers and computer and support, and they do it all
WL> the time in big companies
    There's still no similarity to how the public schools' "customer" 
(taxpayer) can unilaterally set compensation terms.  
    There's also still no similarity in a profoundly-different way.  AT&T 
line departments have no freedom to leave AT&T for better suppliers elsewhere 
in the kind of cases you cite: they cannot hire EDS for data processing.  
Taxpayers, the "customers" of the schools, can and do choose what school to 
use...even if often at a high price.  AT&T line departments may have to put 
up with lousy service, but the taxpayers don't...and that translates into 
defeated tax referendums.
--- Simplex BBS (v1.07.00Beta [DOS])
 -=> Quoting Matt Smith to William Lipp <=-
 WL> I just read an article in Fortune magazine on "who is the 
 WL> customer."
 WL> This article is about the abuse of the metaphor "internal customer" 
 WL> to describe services between departments of large companies.
 MS> "Internal customers" in private industry have a 
 MS> different relationship with "internal suppliers" than 
 MS> anything existing in the public schools, because there is 
 MS> no equivalent to the taxpayer's right to quit paying (by 
 MS> voting down school tax hikes), set payment (the same way), 
 MS> or get the service elsewhere (private school, 
 MS> homeschooling, Sylvan).
Now your arguments are more cogent.  It is amusing, though, that a
few posts back you were arguing the the article was irrelevant because
public school's customers DON'T have any option about paying, and now
you are arguing the article is irrelevant because public school
customers DO have an option about paying.  And both without ever
reading the article to find out what it really says!  I gotta admire
that kind of flexibility.
The third argument is still wrong - all kinds of services nominally
available in house are contracted for out of house all the time.  But
I've wandered kind of far from the topic of Educators, so I'm going
to drop the thread.
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------