its amazing what claymation childrens' stories can bring up. I think any reliance on a systematic approach to personnel management will only get you a 50-70% solution to your personnel requirements at best, and the larger the population combined with the more changes in the environment the more degredation that will be associated with that number.

Why do we often get more round pegs in round holes at the BN / lower levels? because we take the time to get to know our people better, and the consequences of our choices are ones we have to live with.

In order to get our number higher, we have to apply the same philosophy to personnel management on the institutional scale. Systems will not cut it because by their nature they establish walls and get comfortable with themselves. What is needed is a three part approach that provides understanding of changes in the environment, a way to look across your resources and understand which person best meets those requirements (or might if given some additional training or education) and the flexibility to choose that person or if that person is meeting a higher priority, the ability to choose someone out of the score or so most qualified.

I would also add there is value in accommodating self selection where possible. This is because people often know themselves and their situations better then an outsider.

We don't do any of these particularly well in my opinion. We prefer to believe that an _____________ (fill it in) will do as well as any other. Its comfortable to do so, but neither realistic or particularly effective.

Best, Rob