Before I left the office I saw the train waiting on the track down below and the train stood there for more than 20 minutes. The service got back to it worst again I said to myself and I was right when reached the platform. The Seremban train was already there on the platform and I knew instinctively I did not have to rush. Once inside, the train had to wait for another 10 minutes or so below it was given permission to depart. No announcement, probably I had missed it, and I just assumed they had a electrical ‘technical problem’. The best and often used taxonomy that KTMB had ever came out with. Soon the term going to be its middle name - Keretapi Tanah ‘Technical Problem’ Melayu Bhd.
Technically, no pun intended, speaking that technical term is misleading term to generalize every problem that they faced. And I would like to suggest for them to break it down further to create better understanding to their stakeholders. Let me suggest this:
Service Interruption (Main Theme)
Breakdown (2nd L evel)
Technical (2rd Level)
You see based on my suggestion Technical problem is not even the Main Subject Term. It is only the third level and if we look closely we could even break it down further. Well, based on KTMB’s performance that would not be too difficult to list down. See not only KTMB limitation is their quality of service or competency but their issue is also their classification of issues that must make them difficult to understand the difficulty faced by their stakeholders. How could they understand the problems if they themselves could not classify their problems properly. When they generalize the problem to ‘Technical Problem’ they will think that is normal and because it happens too many times it is no big deal. Analysing the problems also would be difficult that could lead to wrong analysis and eventually decision. This is what I call they have problem with the Economic of Taxonomy. Ha ha ha is there such a term?