Discussion

Dash Riprock is a cost analyst with Safe Insurance Company. Safe is applying standards to its claims payment operation. Claims payments is a repetitive operation that could be evaluated with standards. Dash used time and motion studies to identify an ideal standard of 36 claims processed per hour. The claims processing department manager, Henry, has rejected this standard and has argued that the standard should be 30 claims processed per hour. Henry and Dash were unable to agree, so they decided to discuss this matter openly at a joint meeting with the vice president (VP) of operations, who would arbitrate a final decision. Prior to the meeting, Dash wrote the following memo to the VP:

As you know, Henry and I are scheduled to meet with you to discuss our disagreement with respect to the appropriate standards for the claims processing department. I have conducted time and motion studies and have determined that the ideal standard is 36 claims processed per hour. Henry argues that 30 claims processed per hour would be more appropriate. I believe he is trying to 'pad' the budget with some slack. I'm not sure what he is trying to get away with, but I believe a tight standard will drive efficiency up in his area. I hope you will agree when we meet with you next week.

Discuss the professionalism of the memo to the vice president. Is this deemed appropriate, why or why not? Should this have been worked out between the two employees? Between Dash and Henry, which side are you on? Support your thoughts and reasoning. How does ethics play a role in this situation? What about the discrepancy in the number of claims (30 versus 36)? Is there a problem there also?