Trips and Bangladesh Pharmaceutical Industry
ACCONTABILITY IN PROJECT EXECUTION
The structuring of work and delegation of authority for execution of the project would not automatically ensure achievement of the objectives of the project. Authority empowers one to make decisions for results in relation to the work at hand. Hence, one who is delegated authority must take decisions and those decisions must product results. But some individuals may not take decisions and also may not be concerned about results; delegation of authority to such individuals or agencies would be disastrous for the project. It is meaningless to delegate authority without ensuring that the individuals or agencies will strive for results. When an individual does so on his own he is said to be responsible. In such a case he commits himself morally to the achievement of the task whenever he undertakes an assignment or accepts delegation of authority. An individual can also be made responsible by being held accountable for results. When an individual assumes moral responsibility he holds himself accountable to his own conscience. But when he accepts responsibility for fear of withdrawal of authority or sanctions of any other form for non-achievement of results, this type of responsibility can be classified as contractual responsibility.
Authority, therefore, accompanies responsibility and in the business world it has to be tied up with accountability. Everyone naturally clamours for authority but it should be delegated only if accountability is accepted. Authority devoid of accountability merely infates egoes, causes hindrances and ultimately retrogrades progress of work.
When examined in the context of accountability, many of the organizational alternatives may not be found helpful for the achievement of the project objectives. Table 3.1 makes an analysis of the organizational alternatives discussed so far in the context of authority and accountability. It can be seen that except for arrangements 4, 5 and 6 no one, either singularly
The structuring of work and delegation of authority for execution of the project would not automatically ensure achievement of the objectives of the project. Authority empowers one to make decisions for results in relation to the work at hand. Hence, one who is delegated authority must take decisions and those decisions must product results. But some individuals may not take decisions and also may not be concerned about results; delegation of authority to such individuals or agencies would be disastrous for the project. It is meaningless to delegate authority without ensuring that the individuals or agencies will strive for results. When an individual does so on his own he is said to be responsible. In such a case he commits himself morally to the achievement of the task whenever he undertakes an assignment or accepts delegation of authority. An individual can also be made responsible by being held accountable for results. When an individual assumes moral responsibility he holds himself accountable to his own conscience. But when he accepts responsibility for fear of withdrawal of authority or sanctions of any other form for non-achievement of results, this type of responsibility can be classified as contractual responsibility.
Authority, therefore, accompanies responsibility and in the business world it has to be tied up with accountability. Everyone naturally clamours for authority but it should be delegated only if accountability is accepted. Authority devoid of accountability merely infates egoes, causes hindrances and ultimately retrogrades progress of work.
When examined in the context of accountability, many of the organizational alternatives may not be found helpful for the achievement of the project objectives. Table 3.1 makes an analysis of the organizational alternatives discussed so far in the context of authority and accountability. It can be seen that except for arrangements 4, 5 and 6 no one, either singularly