Efficiency in Customer Service - Assignment Example

Part 1

Case Study Example 1

Efficiency-Effectiveness and customer service

Questions

• Which representative is more efficient? Which one is more effective? Which one do you prefer and why?

In answering this question, there needs a brief definition of efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency refers to the quality or state of accomplishing something with the least wastage of time; thus, competency in performing your duties. On the other hand, effectiveness infers to the degree to which something successfully produces specific desired outcomes/results (Brunet, 2005).

In this case, the first representative is efficient because he does not waste time on the customers answering unnecessary questions. Still, instead, he goes direct to customer problems with the company's services. The second representative is more effective because he serves the customers’ needs, even those not connected to the company services as long as they are satisfied.

I prefer the second representative because he shall yield many customers to the company, whereby they shall be returning to the company for their services. Invitation of his friends to the company services is a good move towards attaining its goals and objectives.

• Are there instances when a government should prefer efficiency over effectiveness? Or effectiveness over efficiency?

There are instances when the government would prefer efficiency to effectiveness. This is mostly in sectors providing essential services such as health. The government will ensure efficiency in such cases because the public needs health care urgently, and it cannot be postponed (Brunet, 2005).

In some sectors, the government, such as education, whereby all the citizens should get the same education, also prefers effectiveness to efficiency. Brunet (2005) argues that no one should be prioritized in education more so those attending public sponsored schools because it shall be inequality.

• What if we changed “customer service rep” for “social worker”? Would your answers change? Why or why not?

Yes, the answer would change because a social worker is not after any monetary gain, but rather it is volunteer work; hence should be more effective. Social workers cater to families, individuals, or communities to enhance social functioning and overall well-being (Bardhan, 1996). The end should be self-reliance of the person taken care of by the social worker and not profiting company or the worker.

• What if we changed “customer service rep” for “social security administrator”? Would your answers change? Why or why not?

Here, a social security administrator should be efficient because many people are attending after this service, and listen to everyone, thus not attending to the many people.

Case Study Example 4

Effectiveness-Equity & HIV Prevention

Questions:

• What is meant by “common norms of equity”?

This is an assumption that everyone is sensitive (equally) to both inequity and equity. This means that everyone has experiences of the same level of tension if they experience the same inequity levels. Even at the workplace, the workers will evaluate their efforts, output to others, and then view their treatment as either fairly or not.

• Should the U.S. government continue to allocate according to equity considerations or change its policy to be more cognizant of cost-effectiveness benefits? Defend your answer.

The government should change its policy to be much cognizant of the benefits of cost-effectiveness. The reason behind this is the multiple goals by the health systems. The core reason behind these goals is usually improving health. There are health systems with the same levels of health expenditures per the capita that displays variations in the outcome of a specific population. A part of the difference could be explained by differences in the non-health system factors inclusive of education (Bardhan, 1996). I prefer cost-effectiveness in preventing HIV because it indicates the various interventions that offer the highest value for the money. With limited resources, it is advisable for the government to use cost-effectiveness analysis. This move will utilize the available resources hence working in prevention measures for many but using the least amount.

In contrast to the equity-based approach in preventing HIV, cost-effectiveness analysis needs the extent to which potential and current interventions improve the health of a particular population; effectiveness. In addition, the resources required for implementing the available costs; hence, the government needs the only budget for such a move. In this covid-19 pandemic, the United States' government is supposed to integrate a cost-effective approach into the health system because the available resources are scarce, and health is the number one priority to the citizens. The impact of this intervention on the United States population is vital. In the future, when the economy has stabilized, then it would be important to determine the role of other interventions in contributing to desirable goals, inclusive of inequalities in health.

Case Study Example 9: Efficiency, effectiveness, and Equity & Democracy

Questions:

Which option is more efficient? Defend your answer.

Option 1 is more efficient because of the complexity of many issues which are difficult to be understood by the average voter. Issues to do with politics are, at times, much complicated, and it takes time for these representatives to come to a concrete solution (Bardhan, 1996). Educating the electorate would be difficult. The voters choose the representatives thus know whatever they went to do in the parliament or congress. Most of the time, the representative will dedicate themselves to relaying their skills so that they can retain their seats in the next campaigns.

Which option is more effective? Defend your answer.

Direct democracy is much effective because the citizens understand their daily struggles, unlike the representative. Having a stake in the policies ensures the citizens represent their issues at all levels of governance. Possessing the right to decide on various matters means that the citizens who pay the bills have a long-term interest in their decisions. Direct democracy helps the citizens work on their problems as a group and ensure no project is stalled (Bardhan, 1996). Contrary to representative democracy, the citizens are accountable for their development actions; hence cannot blame anyone of the fund's mismanagement. In its truest form, direct democracy is a one-party system. It is neutral, with policies directed towards benefiting the majority of the people. Scrutiny by the public makes direct democracy effective because it shall make correct decisions for the whole society.

Which option is more equitable? Defend your answer.

Representative democracy means that electors chose people in congress to steer their needs. It is much equitable because the representatives are the representation of the persons in the community. An example is the representation of persons with disabilities, the women, people of color, different sexual orientations, among others. This ensures the needs of everyone in the country are catered for. In addition, the representation is gazette in the constitution hence a real picture of fairness and justice for the citizens.

Part 2

Balancing equity, effectiveness, and efficiency is a struggle. I suspect there is a viewpoint existing amongst many leaders that equity is a cost itself, which is good to interfere with the public administration, which might keep these leaders out of the news and take up a deal of time in disseminating service to the public. Deep in the executive's heart, I believe there is a view that for a public service to be effective, then there must have efficient and frugal in the bookkeeping in its use of the tax payer's funds. In the example 1 case study, the government should use efficiency where the public has absolute authority over such resources. An example is the health sector, whereby it has resources; experts and medicines used in treatment. Due to the majority of public accessing health care, the government should prioritize treating as many people as possible rather than ensuring one person is checked on all his or her health issues. It is better to treat 100 people than treating all ailments of five people and leaving the 100 for a later appointment. Equity in such cases should be handing out healthcare to all the citizens without discriminating against their race, religion, education level, or social class. Effectiveness in handing out healthcare service is ensuring the professions at health centers are qualified for their various roles. Through this, the health services rendered will not be substandard.

From the readings, I have noted keenly that it is true that an effective public service is one responding well, and timely to the demands by the public, and processes which incur low costs, transparent, fair, and meeting interests of the citizens. And herein lies connections between effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Equity is a tool insinuating people gets jobs on merit, and that public policy offers choices and opportunities for citizens, which is its ultimate function. Equity in such case ensures the public policies are effective. For the survival of democracy, there needs embracing diversity whereby everyone has the same chance of securing good education, health care, and even jobs, making sure no one is discriminated against. Equity should be a national goal that has to do with fundamental rights to citizens. Being a citizen, I believe I hold the right to choose my leader of choice. These leaders represent my proposals on various issues affecting my environs. In a period of four years, I will choose to cast for the same leader or not based on whether he or she was efficient in relaying the proposals, effective in ensuring most of the proposals were executed, and inclusive (equity) in implementing the proposals to the citizens.

As a student in the United States, I presume sponsorship of education as a fair and equitable process because I get a part of the fees from the government bursaries. This is formal equity, meaning that as citizens, the government gives us the opportunity and leaves the funds to school leaders (Board of Directors) to make the most out of it. So, in this same way, the state funds education in the public learning institutions, hence everyone gets the same chance to a decent education.

• What if we changed “customer service rep” for “social security administrator”? Would your answers change? Why or why not?

Here, a social security administrator should be efficient because many people are attending after this service, and listen to everyone, thus not attending to the many people.

Case Study Example 4

Effectiveness-Equity & HIV Prevention

Questions:

• What is meant by “common norms of equity”?

This is an assumption that everyone is sensitive (equally) to both inequity and equity. This means that everyone has experiences of the same level of tension if they experience the same inequity levels. Even at the workplace, the workers will evaluate their efforts, output to others, and then view their treatment as either fairly or not.

• Should the U.S. government continue to allocate according to equity considerations or change its policy to be more cognizant of cost-effectiveness benefits? Defend your answer.

The government should change its policy to be much cognizant of the benefits of cost-effectiveness. The reason behind this is the multiple goals by the health systems. The core reason behind these goals is usually improving health. There are health systems with the same levels of health expenditures per the capita that displays variations in the outcome of a specific population. A part of the difference could be explained by differences in the non-health system factors inclusive of education (Bardhan, 1996). I prefer cost-effectiveness in preventing HIV because it indicates the various interventions that offer the highest value for the money. With limited resources, it is advisable for the government to use cost-effectiveness analysis. This move will utilize the available resources hence working in prevention measures for many but using the least amount.

In contrast to the equity-based approach in preventing HIV, cost-effectiveness analysis needs the extent to which potential and current interventions improve the health of a particular population; effectiveness. In addition, the resources required for implementing the available costs; hence, the government needs the only budget for such a move. In this covid-19 pandemic, the United States' government is supposed to integrate a cost-effective approach into the health system because the available resources are scarce, and health is the number one priority to the citizens. The impact of this intervention on the United States population is vital. In the future, when the economy has stabilized, then it would be important to determine the role of other interventions in contributing to desirable goals, inclusive of inequalities in health.

Case Study Example 9: Efficiency, effectiveness, and Equity & Democracy

Questions:

Which option is more efficient? Defend your answer.

Option 1 is more efficient because of the complexity of many issues which are difficult to be understood by the average voter. Issues to do with politics are, at times, much complicated, and it takes time for these representatives to come to a concrete solution (Bardhan, 1996). Educating the electorate would be difficult. The voters choose the representatives thus know whatever they went to do in the parliament or congress. Most of the time, the representative will dedicate themselves to relaying their skills so that they can retain their seats in the next campaigns.

Which option is more effective? Defend your answer.

Direct democracy is much effective because the citizens understand their daily struggles, unlike the representative. Having a stake in the policies ensures the citizens represent their issues at all levels of governance. Possessing the right to decide on various matters means that the citizens who pay the bills have a long-term interest in their decisions. Direct democracy helps the citizens work on their problems as a group and ensure no project is stalled (Bardhan, 1996). Read More