Having a system with "Illinibucks" would surely be interesting with its fair share of logistical kinks. I believe one of the most crucial yet potentially problematic components of this idea would be that every student receives the same amount of Illinibucks. If different students received different amounts of Illinibucks, there would be issues of fairness and the value of Illinibucks per unit would be unstable. On the flip side one could argue that giving every student the same amount of Illinibucks is unfair. It's a fact that not all students value school equally and not all students perform equally either. If one student values and prioritizes school over all else and another student is unmotivated and dreads going to class, it's not unreasonable to say that they would value their Illinibucks differently. Despite how much they personally value their Illinibucks they still have the same amount which perhaps isn't entirely "fair".
One of the most stressful processes all students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign go through is the registration process. All students have specific classes they want to take and it can be frustrating when those classes reach full capacity. The Illinibucks system could potentially be used in this scenario. Students could "pay" with their Illinibucks for a spot. However a new set of problems would arise such as not having enough teachers to accommodate popular classes. Often times the reason classes fill up is because the demand of students wanting to take the class is larger than the supply of teachers available to teach the class. A possible way to solve this would be by removing the "pre-specified price set by the campus" parameter and allowing students to bid on classes with their Illinibucks and the students who bid the highest are given a spot. If all students are given the same amount of Illinibucks to use, a bid system would allow for students to show how much they want or need to get into a class. However, students generally don't only need one class and if they spend too much of their Illinibucks in one place they will be left dry in others.
Even though it may seem fair to use an equal Illinibucks system, priority systems aren't void of logic. It's true that registration may seem unfair because some students have advantages, however aside from specific cases such as ROTC students and athletes the priority system does operate on some logic. Students with higher standings (i.e. more credits) have higher priority and get to register sooner which makes sense because a senior, who may NEED a few classes to graduate that year, should be given that priority to make sure they finish their college career. Complaining underclassman will eventually get their chance to register before the underclassman a few years later so it balances out.
As I continue to meet more and more people in college I've come to realize not all students value school at the same caliber. Giving students the same allocation of Illinibucks completely disregards this fact. I believe there aren't many practical candidates of use for Illinibucks because first come first serve and priority "things" either push students to strive for the top and show their dedication or reward students for their efforts. An example of this would be the job and internship market. Students that are punctual and show early interest or have high GPAs should be prioritized as a result of their efforts. Ideally you shouldn't be able to "pay" your way to success (even though this is the case in many aspects of life). While it's true that sometimes first come first serve or priority systems can be unfair, students that work hard to be first or gain priority would have their efforts to reach the head of the line diminished by Illinibucks. Having an Illinibucks system where you are given the potential for advantage simply because you are a student at the university doesn't seem earned and devalues hard work and effort to an extent.
If there was an inevitable Illinibucks system I would spend my Illinibucks on thing related to class performance and grades. Perhaps if there was a way to spend Illinibucks to allow for extra credit opportunities or private tutoring those would be my top priorities of use. Even being able to be skip the line at office hours to receive the attention of the teacher faster would be useful. Of course, this could cause problems such as students who didn't work as hard receiving higher grades because of their Illinibucks usage or there not being enough teachers to hold private tutoring despite student demand and willingness to spend their Illinibucks. However, in an ideal and hypothetical world I would spend all my Illinibucks to increase my grades. Extra credit opportunities, private tutoring, and office hours priority seem to be the best use of a university granted and exclusive currency.
Considering the parameters of all students receiving the same allocation of Illinibucks and that all prices are pre-specified and non-negotiable, different issues would arise if administered prices were too low or too high. If prices were set too low, students would be able to spend their Illinibucks frivolously without consequence and theoretically just be receiving handouts and unearned advantages which is arguably a disincentive to working hard (a priceless internal ability). In addition, if prices are really low and students feel no usage consequence then everyone will be "moving to the head of the line" and it's a clear paradox for everyone to be at the "front of the line". I imagine a long line at the bookstore where the person at the back uses his Illinibucks to get to the front, but then the new person at the back of the line does the same and so on until the person who first used his Illinibucks to get to the front is shifted to the back again. On the other hand if prices were set too high students may feel like their purchasing power is weak and wont be able to gain very much from their usage. This would devalue the Illinibucks and if prices were set very high relative to how much students are allocated then Illinibucks may seem valueless.
Friday, September 30, 2016
Friday, September 23, 2016
Teamwork and Organizational Structure
During my Sophomore year in college I was hired by the Division of Public Safety to work as a Student Patrol Officer for the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The organization was composed of 36 students who were divided into three teams: A team, B team, and C team. The organization wanted one team on duty every night so the year was structured such that the teams would alternate making it so individual teams would work every third night. This was a crucial element to the organizational structure because student patrol officers are students by nature and thus have other important obligations such as school work and clubs. In addition, working every third night gave us time to recuperate as our hours (9pm to 3am) were rather long as well as mentally and physically demanding.
Even though there were 36 student patrol officers I only got particularly close and comfortable with 12 because my team, C team, consisted of 12 students. Every 3rd night my team would meet at 9pm to be briefed on crimes that had taken place recently, what areas to be specifically mindful of, and to address the concerns we were having with regards to how our team operated. After briefing we were partnered into 6 pairs and given specific areas on campus to patrol. Our team would map out the entire campus and divide it into zones of different sizes based off amount of activity, student density, and traffic. Each pair was given a zone to patrol and everyone on the team was required to remember who was in each zone.
The true test of our team coordination began when we separated and each pair went to their respective zones. Every student patrol officer was equipped with a vest for identification and travel purposes as well as a radio in order to communicate with other student patrol officers and the police department. Even though we were all equipped with the same gear our shifts were generally very different due to the differences in what we came across. Even though we had 6 pairs, only 5 pairs were on the ground patrolling. The 6th pair consisted of our team leader and his assistant for the night whom were both driving around campus all night in a university vehicle.
It was important for our team leader to be "detached" from the rest of us because this allowed him to focus on campus as a whole rather than being confined to a specific zone. Even though all of our radios were connected to the police department's informational traffic, it gets very difficult to interact with people on our patrol while filtering what information is useful to us at the same time. To counteract this, our team leader was in charge of absorbing all the information from the police station, decide which pair is in the correct position to handle and make use of that information, and then relay that information to whomever is capable of taking action.
In chapter five of "Reforming Organizations" Bolman and Deal talk about fundamental team configurations. "One Boss", "Dual Authority", "Simple Hierarchy", "Circle Network", and "All-Channel Network". In my opinion the student patrol organization works very smoothly and successfully almost entirely as a result of our team organization. I believe every night's team configuration is a combination of the "Simple Hierarchy" and the "All Channel Network". The "Simple Hierarchy" model creates a middle manager between the boss and everyone else and supervises everyone accordingly. In the case of student patrol's team configuration our team leader would be our middle manager. Our team leader reports and listens to the police station and communicates those details with the rest of us.
While the "Simple Hierarchy" may characterize our team configuration in a general scope it's not a completely accurate depiction of our team configuration. This is because even among us "regular" student patrol officers we are able to communicate to each other through our radios and have input as to how each other should act separate from the middle manager or boss. The "All-Channel Network" accurately models our communication paths to each other. A combination of the "Simple Hierarchy" and the "All-Channel Network" would be the most accurate depiction of our team configuration. Even though we are all able to communicate with each other and give each other input like the "All-Channel Network" models, in the end we are still subject to our team leader's orders and final decisions. Our team leader is similarly constrained to the decisions of the "boss" or the police station.
I believe a few of Katzenbach and Smith's key features of highly functional teams were very pivotal in the success of my team at student patrol. In the book there are six characteristics that are highlighted, but the ones that I found to be the most evident in my team were that high-performing teams are "of manageable size" and "develop a common commitment to working relationships". If our team was much bigger than 12 it's possible that we may have been able to cover more ground each night, but at the cost of the high level of communication necessary to make each night successful. Having a small team size made it easier to keep track of each other so that we could all move with coordination and efficiency.
In conjunction, having a small team made it easier to get to know each other and understand who is good at what. Our working relationships were extremely important because some people were better at certain tasks than others. What made us functional and efficient was knowing who possessed the correct skills to handle particular situations. However, I also believe that the fact that we enjoyed one another as people and as friends also played a crucial role in our team's abilities and behaviors outside of team configuration and structure.
Even though there were 36 student patrol officers I only got particularly close and comfortable with 12 because my team, C team, consisted of 12 students. Every 3rd night my team would meet at 9pm to be briefed on crimes that had taken place recently, what areas to be specifically mindful of, and to address the concerns we were having with regards to how our team operated. After briefing we were partnered into 6 pairs and given specific areas on campus to patrol. Our team would map out the entire campus and divide it into zones of different sizes based off amount of activity, student density, and traffic. Each pair was given a zone to patrol and everyone on the team was required to remember who was in each zone.
The true test of our team coordination began when we separated and each pair went to their respective zones. Every student patrol officer was equipped with a vest for identification and travel purposes as well as a radio in order to communicate with other student patrol officers and the police department. Even though we were all equipped with the same gear our shifts were generally very different due to the differences in what we came across. Even though we had 6 pairs, only 5 pairs were on the ground patrolling. The 6th pair consisted of our team leader and his assistant for the night whom were both driving around campus all night in a university vehicle.
It was important for our team leader to be "detached" from the rest of us because this allowed him to focus on campus as a whole rather than being confined to a specific zone. Even though all of our radios were connected to the police department's informational traffic, it gets very difficult to interact with people on our patrol while filtering what information is useful to us at the same time. To counteract this, our team leader was in charge of absorbing all the information from the police station, decide which pair is in the correct position to handle and make use of that information, and then relay that information to whomever is capable of taking action.
In chapter five of "Reforming Organizations" Bolman and Deal talk about fundamental team configurations. "One Boss", "Dual Authority", "Simple Hierarchy", "Circle Network", and "All-Channel Network". In my opinion the student patrol organization works very smoothly and successfully almost entirely as a result of our team organization. I believe every night's team configuration is a combination of the "Simple Hierarchy" and the "All Channel Network". The "Simple Hierarchy" model creates a middle manager between the boss and everyone else and supervises everyone accordingly. In the case of student patrol's team configuration our team leader would be our middle manager. Our team leader reports and listens to the police station and communicates those details with the rest of us.
While the "Simple Hierarchy" may characterize our team configuration in a general scope it's not a completely accurate depiction of our team configuration. This is because even among us "regular" student patrol officers we are able to communicate to each other through our radios and have input as to how each other should act separate from the middle manager or boss. The "All-Channel Network" accurately models our communication paths to each other. A combination of the "Simple Hierarchy" and the "All-Channel Network" would be the most accurate depiction of our team configuration. Even though we are all able to communicate with each other and give each other input like the "All-Channel Network" models, in the end we are still subject to our team leader's orders and final decisions. Our team leader is similarly constrained to the decisions of the "boss" or the police station.
I believe a few of Katzenbach and Smith's key features of highly functional teams were very pivotal in the success of my team at student patrol. In the book there are six characteristics that are highlighted, but the ones that I found to be the most evident in my team were that high-performing teams are "of manageable size" and "develop a common commitment to working relationships". If our team was much bigger than 12 it's possible that we may have been able to cover more ground each night, but at the cost of the high level of communication necessary to make each night successful. Having a small team size made it easier to keep track of each other so that we could all move with coordination and efficiency.
In conjunction, having a small team made it easier to get to know each other and understand who is good at what. Our working relationships were extremely important because some people were better at certain tasks than others. What made us functional and efficient was knowing who possessed the correct skills to handle particular situations. However, I also believe that the fact that we enjoyed one another as people and as friends also played a crucial role in our team's abilities and behaviors outside of team configuration and structure.
Friday, September 16, 2016
Opportunism
When I was in high school I competed for my high school track and field team. To me, as well as to many of my teammates, winning events and races was of top priority. All varsity runners on the team did everything they could to improve their chances of winning everyday by training hard during practices, eating healthy, and watching videos of professionals. We would prepare weeks in advance for meets against other schools with nothing on our minds other than winning our events for the team. Often times members of our team would suffer academically because of how heavily we valued our sport over everything else.
Before one of the last meets of the season our coach pulled me and a couple of other varsity runners from our team aside and told us this was the meet to show everyone what we've got. He knew there wasn't enough time left in the season to get faster or stronger than we currently were and wanted us to qualify for Illinois state competitions by running our events in qualifying times. Among us was my good friend Mason who was the shining star of our team. Everyone on the team knew how hard Mason trained. It was no surprise that no one could ever beat him in his respective events. We all believed Mason would use this specific track meet to qualify for state competitions and then regional competitions afterwards.
One of Mason's most signature events was the 200 meter dash. None of us on the team had ever seen him lose in the 200 meter dash event all season so when he stepped up to the starting blocks to race against the best from the other schools we expected him to win. Everyone at the meet watched silently as the participating runners prepared themselves and after a brief delay the referee fired a gun to signal the start of the race. As expected, Mason was towards the front of the pack running as fast as we had ever seen. When the runners reached the final 100 meters of the race, Mason was shoulder to shoulder with another runner in a blue uniform. For a sprint event they had created an incredible distance between them and the prospective 3rd place runner.
With only 50 meters left everyone on our team was cheering for Mason at the top of our lungs, but neither him nor the boy in blue could get an inch ahead of each other. All of a sudden the runner in the blue uniform that was running neck to neck against Mason began to wobble and fell to the ground. In track and field because the 200 meter dash event is so short and all the runners are so fast if you stop for even a brief moment against equal runners you are for sure to lose. The boy who had fell knew this and instantly put his head in his hands and began to cry. While it's unlikely for runners to slip up in a short race it's also not incredibly uncommon.
Especially since it was such an important race everyone watching felt for the boy. However, the most incredible thing happened moments after the boy had fell. Mason, who was guaranteed first place after his only rival had fallen, stopped running, turned around, and began to walk towards his competitor. As he walked towards the runner in blue all of the other runners in the event passed him towards the finish line without batting an eye. None of us will ever forget the sight of Mason holding out his hand and helping his "enemy" up to his feet with a smile on his face regardless of him knowing he had given up the chance of winning the race.
Mason could have acted opportunistically by taking advantage of the fact that his only true competitor in the race had fallen and thus he was guaranteed first place and the fastest time at the meet for the event. However, Mason didn't want to win that way. He valued fairness more than he valued winning and later told me he would have felt like the biggest loser if he had won that race because of someone else's misfortune. Mason taught me in that moment that the "reward" received by taking advantage of circumstances may be of less value than the personal morals we choose to live by.
Before one of the last meets of the season our coach pulled me and a couple of other varsity runners from our team aside and told us this was the meet to show everyone what we've got. He knew there wasn't enough time left in the season to get faster or stronger than we currently were and wanted us to qualify for Illinois state competitions by running our events in qualifying times. Among us was my good friend Mason who was the shining star of our team. Everyone on the team knew how hard Mason trained. It was no surprise that no one could ever beat him in his respective events. We all believed Mason would use this specific track meet to qualify for state competitions and then regional competitions afterwards.
One of Mason's most signature events was the 200 meter dash. None of us on the team had ever seen him lose in the 200 meter dash event all season so when he stepped up to the starting blocks to race against the best from the other schools we expected him to win. Everyone at the meet watched silently as the participating runners prepared themselves and after a brief delay the referee fired a gun to signal the start of the race. As expected, Mason was towards the front of the pack running as fast as we had ever seen. When the runners reached the final 100 meters of the race, Mason was shoulder to shoulder with another runner in a blue uniform. For a sprint event they had created an incredible distance between them and the prospective 3rd place runner.
With only 50 meters left everyone on our team was cheering for Mason at the top of our lungs, but neither him nor the boy in blue could get an inch ahead of each other. All of a sudden the runner in the blue uniform that was running neck to neck against Mason began to wobble and fell to the ground. In track and field because the 200 meter dash event is so short and all the runners are so fast if you stop for even a brief moment against equal runners you are for sure to lose. The boy who had fell knew this and instantly put his head in his hands and began to cry. While it's unlikely for runners to slip up in a short race it's also not incredibly uncommon.
Especially since it was such an important race everyone watching felt for the boy. However, the most incredible thing happened moments after the boy had fell. Mason, who was guaranteed first place after his only rival had fallen, stopped running, turned around, and began to walk towards his competitor. As he walked towards the runner in blue all of the other runners in the event passed him towards the finish line without batting an eye. None of us will ever forget the sight of Mason holding out his hand and helping his "enemy" up to his feet with a smile on his face regardless of him knowing he had given up the chance of winning the race.
Mason could have acted opportunistically by taking advantage of the fact that his only true competitor in the race had fallen and thus he was guaranteed first place and the fastest time at the meet for the event. However, Mason didn't want to win that way. He valued fairness more than he valued winning and later told me he would have felt like the biggest loser if he had won that race because of someone else's misfortune. Mason taught me in that moment that the "reward" received by taking advantage of circumstances may be of less value than the personal morals we choose to live by.
Friday, September 9, 2016
Experience with Organizations and Transaction Costs
During my Sophomore year at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign I worked as a Student Patrol Officer on campus for the Division of Public Safety. Our objective was to assist the University Police Department with campus safety at night. To accomplish this Student Patrol Officers would patrol around campus in teams of two from 9PM to 3AM. We were required to make sure secure buildings were locked, street lights were functional, and that students were able to get home safely in the night.
The "Student Patrol" program is funded by the University of Illinois. In order to enable us to do our jobs, we were constantly given relevant training such as Bystander Intervention training, Awareness training, basic medical training, and many other sessions related to observation and interaction skills. While we weren't expected to be replacements for police officers, we were expected to be the "eyes and ears" for the police department. Each student patrol is equipped with a reflective vest and a radio that is directly connected to the police department as well as to other student patrol officers. Student Patrols are constantly trained and tested in radio proficiency such that in the case of an emergency each Student Patrol would be confident and calm enough to relay important information to whomever is properly equipped to handle particular situations.
The training Student Patrols received was very structured. Everything including how we were trained to communicate and act was very specific in order to be as efficient as possible. However, the job is very situational due to the fact that emergencies are generally unique in some way. Most of the job was being able to think calmly on the spot while still being quick to act. For example Student Patrols are trained to report hit-and-runs to specific radio channels, but information that we report to that channel are very specific to the situation such as the models of the vehicles involved, the location of the incident, and the direction of travel the runner heads in. Being unable to relay proper information in the right manner to the correct recipients could result in unfortunate events. The organization was structured in a such a way that we were trained during our time off the field so that we may be able to handle the unpredictable situations that we encountered on the field. In application, the "Command and Control" gave us as much information and knowledge as they could without having the information that we, "Boots on the ground", received by physically being at the event of interest.
During the job one of the most valuable limitations Student Patrols are met with in the face of an emergency is time. While time isn't a physical currency its value is made very notable when a Student Patrol is only given a short window of time to report and handle an emergency. For example a Student Patrol must be able to get the licence plate and description of a fleeing vehicle as well as the street it's on and the direction of travel should a hit-and-run ever occur. Or, in the case of an assault or ongoing fight, describe all parties in action as well as the exact location. Both situations call for rapid observation and communication abilities. A fleeing vehicle isn't going to wait for you get a good look at the vehicle and driver before leaving and assault victims would prefer help to arrive as soon as possible. The transaction cost here is the time the Student Patrol spends communicating through the radio. Ideally, the situation would move much more efficiently if a Student Patrol is able to minimize "transaction costs" by being proficient and articulate when relaying information. While it would be ideal for the time (transaction cost) that it takes to communicate important information to be instantaneous, we are only able to reduce this transaction cost as much as possible.
Sunday, September 4, 2016
Oliver Williamson Econ 490 Bio Sketch
Oliver Williamson, born on September 27 1932 in WI, USA, is a professor of the Graduate School and Edgar F. Kaiser Professor Emeritus of Business, Economics, and Law at the University of California, Berkeley. Throughout his career Professor Williamson has been granted a multitude of awards including the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009 for his theory of why some economic transactions take place within firms and other similar transactions take place between firms.
Professor Williamson's work in the field of Economics has pushed education and our knowledge of how economic governance works. I didn't know who Oliver Williamson was before I was assigned this alias, but after reading about him I believe many areas of his work will be relevant for the economics in this course.
Links:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2009/williamson-facts.html
http://facultybio.haas.berkeley.edu/faculty-list/williamson-oliver/
http://groups.haas.berkeley.edu/bpp/oew/bio.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)