论文部分内容阅读
邮电部门历来把“人民邮电为人民”作为宗旨,把“质量第一、用户第一、社会效益第一”作为服务方针,确切地说,质量是通信企业的生命,是企业存在和发展的重要支柱,也是维护“人民邮电”崇高信誉的可靠保证。但是,就目前邮电支局、所承包经营中的忽视质量问题,有必要给予充分的关注和重视。一是目前的承包内容,主要以考核经济指标为主,而通信质量只作为“挂钩”指标来考核,对承包者的经济利益虽有触及但无“否决权”。实际上是把质量放到次要位置。二是个别单位的领导通过承包,把“不好管”的质量问题“挂钩”包出去了,“一包了之”,“以包代管”,放松了质量管理工作。三是由于上述两种思想的影响,使质量管理(检查)人员无“钩”可挂,“例行公事”,缺乏责任感,或是重于事后的调查处理,放松了事前的监督检查。出现上述问题的主要原因是:在通信企业这个特殊行业中实行承包经营还处在推行阶段,没有现成经验可供借鉴,部分同志对通信企业实行经营承包误解为“经济承包”,只
Posts and Telecommunications Department has always been “People’s Posts and Telecommunications for the people” as its purpose, “quality first, customers first, the social benefits of the first” as a service policy, to be precise, the quality of communication is the life of enterprises, the existence and development of enterprises is important Pillars are also a credible guarantee to safeguard the lofty credibility of “People’s Posts and Telecommunications”. However, it is necessary to give adequate attention and attention to the current quality problems neglected by the post and telecommunications branches and contractors. First, the content of the current contract is mainly based on the examination of economic indicators, while the quality of communications is only assessed as a “pegged” indicator. There is no “veto” over the economic interests of the contractors. In fact, the quality of the secondary position. Second, the leadership of individual units through contract, the “bad management” quality problems “linked” package out, “a package of”, “package management” relaxed the quality management. Third, due to the influence of the above two kinds of thinking, quality control personnel can not be hooked, routine work, lack of sense of responsibility, or emphasis on investigation and handling afterwards, and have relaxed the prior supervision and inspection. The main reason for the above problems is that the implementation of contractual management in this special industry of telecommunications enterprises is still in the implementation stage with no ready-made experience for reference. Some comrades misunderstood the management of telecommunications enterprises as “economic contract” and only