“Cognitive Overhead”
I came across one of the most informative and clear explanations I’ve ever encountered about why customers may not always react the way we hope they will. It’s called “Cognitive Overhead”.
Simply put, it’s how much they have to think and/or do something to take action to get something. The easiest way to understand this is to think about two simple examples:
The words “click below to subscribe”.
The word “subscribe” used as a direct link (known as a “Uniform Resource Locator” or URL) to a page to fill in details.
In the first case, a customer reads the instruction and then must find a link somewhere below (maybe lower than the part of the screen they can see). In the second, they simply click on the word “Subscribe”. This may seem simple but the fact is that the first example requires two steps whilst the second only requires one.
If we imagine our processes in a similar way, how many steps do customers have to go through to obtain a product or service through our website? There will be a minimum number, but the question is how low will that be?
Sometimes customers have commented that they didn’t follow a process through because it was either:
- “Too long”
- “Too complicated”
- “Unintuitive” or
- All of the above.
If the third (let alone the last) answer comes back too often, our business has a serious problem. All it’ll take is one competitor with processes that are shorter, less complicated more “intuitive” or all three to take our customers from us.
As an example, my wife and I have both found that installing eSIMs from a certain provider comes under the “all three” category. We’ve given up using their eSIM.
As businesses, we need to minimise the “cognitive overhead” for our customers. As technology and complexity grow in our world, this is going to become harder. Developers need to understand how the customer works and how to blend this with how their business works.
The first question we should always be asking ourselves is, “Will this process benefit the customer?”. If the answer is “not much” then we shouldn’t institute it. People will try to justify complex processes for reasons like “legal requirements”, “regulations”, or similar. All businesses are subject to rules, but building processes around these rules or around what the business needs isn’t the way to go.
In short, “the simpler the better” is the way to go. Our problem is, how do we get there?
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Customer Care, Productivity, Selling, Strategy
24/7 Service?
I recently used a UK bank’s “24/7” online messaging service to help resolve a problem.
To be fair, when I initiated the conversation, my location was eight hours ahead of the UK. The AI or automatic agent did respond immediately but, once it became clear that my needs required “human intervention” it needed to pass me to one of its “human” colleagues.
The system very kindly advised that it might take up to 30 minutes for a “human” to contact me. This may have been for several reasons including high numbers of enquiries. Unfortunately, I didn’t have 30 minutes to wait online whilst the “system” dealt with me.
I’ve no complaints about the “virtual agent” (read AI bot) being used. After all, this bank has probably discovered that many queries can be answered through AI. The problem comes when one does need human intervention.
My question: if you advertise a service as 24/7, is the customer entitled to assume that:
It does indeed function 24/7?
They will receive “human intervention” in a timely manner?
In my opinion, a 30-minute delay isn’t “timely”. I might just as well have called their hotline and resolved the issue within five minutes if it had been “time sensitive”. As luck would have it, it wasn’t.
AI is being touted as the answer to everything. However, it still has a long way to go as we can see from the above example. Ironically, the reason I was forced to contact the so-called 24/7 service was because I had received a message from that bank which told me I would be able to use its internet banking service or mobile app to apply. Unfortunately, the message didn’t include precise instructions on the steps required.
I fully understand that one must assume a basic level of “intelligence” in people from time to time. The problem is that every bank’s internet banking service (and other non-banking services) are laid out differently by people who follow their own logic in terms of website or app design as well as local regulations. What may be “intuitive” to one person may not be to the next.
In short, if we as businesses offer a “24/7 service”, we need to make sure it’s a full service that responds to all customer needs. This means that, as leaders, we need to test our systems to ensure they’re fit for purpose and do “what it says on the tin”.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Customer Care, Productivity, Strategy
The Importance of Deadlines
Our lives are about getting things done – either by ourselves or (as leaders) through others.
One of the aspects of leadership and task management that receives less attention than it deserves is setting deadlines. We’ve probably heard the phrase “they want it done yesterday!” meaning that (senior management - or whoever) want something done as soon as possible.
Not setting deadlines has a significant impact on how people prioritise. If the deadline’s close, they’ll put it at the top of their list. The human mind naturally focuses on tasks with deadlines versus tasks without. As a result, they prioritise what’s “urgent” but not always “important”. This phenomenon has been well documented in what’s known as the Eisenhower Matrix which provides a graphic representation of the differences on how we should handle tasks that are:
- “Urgent and important”
- “Urgent but not important”
- “Important but not urgent”
- “Neither urgent nor important”
We tend to focus on the “urgent” tasks, whether they’re “important” or not at the expense of the “important but not (yet) urgent” tasks.
Setting deadlines is vital to all our activities as leaders. Some leaders are excellent at giving deadlines for every task delegated (and sometimes the deadline is even realistic!). Others, however, just describe the task but not when they need it done. A week later they come back asking “why haven’t you done it?” Or “is it ready yet?” Of course, the person to whom the task was delegated may well answer in the negative as they didn’t realise that that task needed to be completed within (say) a week.
Another practice I came across when delegating tasks was for a leader to say, “unless I say otherwise, I want things done within a week.” Giving this kind of guidance saves time on both sides.
Equally, we as team members need to get into the habit of asking “what’s the deadline?” if none is specified (and if our leader tends not to set deadlines).
My (unspoken) guideline for responses to emails that I send is latest seven days of the date of that email (unless I specify otherwise). I diarise to chase after a week, so that the recipient knows I’ll be keeping an eye on them. Is this fair? Perhaps not, but it does work for me and means that I stay “on top” of things.
A common email fault is people prefacing emails with “urgent” (often in capitals followed by two exclamation marks!!) The problem is that if this is their habit, recipients will realise very quickly that most messages from that person aren’t “urgent’ and won’t prioritise them in as such.
Setting expectations in terms of deadlines as a leader is critical to the smooth functioning of our team. New team members should be told that we expect them to respond to a delegated task within (say) one week unless specified otherwise. We should also be explaining to them that, if they run into problems, they should let us know so that we can arrange support.
Another issuing encountered was a team member’s perception that everyone else’s deadlines weren’t important (let alone urgent). It wasn’t until I explained that often, when I set them a deadline, it was so that information could be gathered to pass onto another senior manager who had to consolidate that information with other information before submitting it to a more senior manager within that senior manager’s deadlines. This resulted in a “lightbulb moment” for that colleague who’d clearly never considered this. Once they knew how to distinguish things that might be urgent and what their potential remedy was, they were able to plan their day as well.
I explained that if this person felt that the deadline was unrealistic, they should say so and explain why to allow us to ask for an extension if possible (or at the very least explain why meeting the deadline might result in substandard information being supplied).
Like “urgent” emails, this only works if it’s applied sparingly. If it becomes a habit, you’ll only gain a reputation of being disorganised, incapable, a poor planner, bad at prioritising or whatever people care to describe you as.
(Interestingly, I’ve observed that human beings also tend to meet deadlines which are important to them, aside from those that are perceived as urgent and imposed by others.)
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Productivity, Teamwork
The "Automation Paradox"
In previous articles, I’ve discussed the role that human beings play in business, along with concerns over AI and others.
I’ve recently been introduced the concept of the “automation paradox”. What this says is that the better the machines get, the more we struggle when they fail.
Ever have your car’s satnav lose its signal at that critical point where, if you make the wrong turn, you end up miles from your destination?
Businesses all over the world have some degree of automation. Whereas, in the “old days”, banks used to keep ledger books, everything’s now computerised. Even our statements are either emailed to us or sent via a mobile app.
But what happens when “things don’t work”? I see articles in the press about how banks are embarrassed by their mobile apps failing at critical times (usually when salaries are paid). We’ve also heard of “cyber-attacks” on various services, rendering an organisation’s ability to deliver products or services non-existent.
Even car engines are so computerised now that, if something goes wrong, it must be towed to the nearest service centre for the computer to be reset.
In any plan for automating services or systems, we need to be fully aware of the consequences of what might happen if the technology fails. What’s our contingency plan? I remember a delightful occasion when, talking to a banker in Moscow about whether Y2K (remember that?) would impact them, his answer was along the lines of “We’ve only recently automated, and if things do go wrong there are still plenty of people who remember the manual processes!”
Humour aside, that gentleman had the answer. If automation fails, are we able to implement a semi-automated or even fully manual workaround until the problem can be fixed?
As well as being judged on how they deliver their products and services, organisations are also judged on how they handle crises. As leaders, our job is to work out “what could go wrong” and find a way around it. If we rely on an external or third-party to deliver part of that product or service, do they have a contingency in place in case things go wrong for them?
As technology advances, it usually improves our lives but when it fails, we realise how much we’ve come to rely on it and struggle when this happens. As leaders, our job is to identify possible areas of failure, their likelihood and how we’re going to sort them out.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Crisis Management, Customer Care, Leadership, Productivity, Risk
Renew your Subscription
One thing I’ve noticed over the last few years is that more of the “apps” that we use on our devices now charge a subscription fee to use them. In the past you just paid a one-off price.
Whilst we’re used to annual subscriptions for newspapers, journals, professional bodies, subscriptions for “apps” are still relatively new.
If anyone provides a business or service, they need cashflow to sustain and improve that business. App developers are discovering this and need to show investors that they have “sustainable income” to bring them on board.
This episode doesn’t concern an app, but a yearly subscription for a newspaper that my company recently renewed. We’d been subscribing for some five years and in the past, the newspaper used to remind us when our subscription was due for renewal.
This time, nothing happened.
We renewed anyway but it made me think: how often are we all guilty of forgetting to send reminders about renewing subscriptions, paying fees, paying a bill that’s overdue, meetings and appointments (the list goes on)?
Assuming we weren’t the only ones who didn’t receive a subscription renewal reminder, other subscribers were in the same boat. They might have renewed, forgotten or decided not to renew as a deliberate act.
When our revenues depend on regular payments or subscriptions, we need to make absolutely sure that we have the processes in place to remind people when they need to pay. Businesses often fail because they run out of cash not because of poor management (although that’s another good reason). For a small business, this generally means a diary system of some sort, although off-the-shelf systems now exist that can often generate reminders for us (and no doubt our subject to subscription charges!)
Business conditions change all the time. If we forget to send timely reminders, we lose money – and it’s our own fault.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Financial, Productivity, Strategy
The “Funnel Effect”
I received an email from a client at he beginning of this year announcing new legislation in their country. It contained one short sentence: “Please find attached letter regarding XXX reforms that will now come into effect in February 2025“.
I got it some three weeks before the “reforms” were due to come into effect. Not much time to react…
Attached to the email was a “Supplier Letter” containing links to various websites.
Instead of explaining the changes this might require for our relationship, the sender left all recipients to work things out for themselves. They deal with multiple small suppliers in different countries. Not all of these speak good English and have little time to decode the complexities of (in this case) UK legislation.
This is a great example of “funnel management” in action. The organisation concerned thought, no doubt, that they had done their job by sending this letter but I suspect that many of their counterparties won’t read it and will wait until they are told what action to take. I wrote back thanking them for the letter and asking them to explain the impact it would have on our relationship. I still haven’t received a response half way through the year.
We’re all busy, I know. However, I suspect that this particular organisation will find that it’s potentially storing up more problems for itself than it solves in the long run.
It’s within our gift to make things work by being as clear as possible. Our colleagues, customers and counter parties will thank us for it. Letting others work things out for themselves may be a recipe for more problems further down the line.
How do we as leaders ensure that our people and counter parties get timely information in a form that is easy to understand and act on?
How often are we guilty of the same error as the counterparty in this story?
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Customer Care, Leadership, Productivity, Risk
WhatsApp: Blessing or Curse?
Many of us now use the well-known messaging service WhatsApp - an app that performs across platforms whether they be Android or iOS.
WhatsApp allows us to communicate both with our nearest and dearest, our friends and groups that we’ve set up or of which we’re members. Rather like email however, there is in my opinion a proper way to use it.
First things first: we need to remember that when we send a WhatsApp message, we’re “intruding” into someone else’s “private space”. We may have agreed that we’ll WhatsApp them (for example, when they’ve asked us for information).
The problem comes when people want to start a conversation and fail to plan it. By this I mean, they need to compose in their minds what they want to say and then type it out in full. How many times have we all received messages like this?
“Hello/hi there/good morning”
“I wanted to ask you something”
“Can you let me know…?”
“TVM”
It’s only with the third sentence in the above message that we get to the crux of the matter. I’ve developed a habit of sending my message or question in full. If the other person can answer it, right away, great. If not (and it’s not urgent), I can wait.
Do you have a “WhatsApp Etiquette” that you’ve developed for your business and/or for yourself?
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Customer Care, Productivity, Teamwork
When They Go Quiet
Have you ever been in a situation where you noticed that suddenly, a colleague who was always keen to suggest ideas or improvements or comment on a project of some sort suddenly "went quiet"?
You can tell a lot about an organisation by whether they encourage people to “speak up” or whether other people’s ideas are squashed. Some call this the “Yes Culture”. Whatever it is, if someone who was always willing to say something (assuming it was always intelligent or constructive) suddenly stops contributing, that should be a concern for the organisation.
I’ve worked in cultures that slavishly followed the “Yes boss” philosophy as well as others in which contributions were encouraged, heard and given due respect. In some military cultures, the rank and file are encouraged to dissect an officer’s plan to see whether they (the officer) have forgotten something or whether things could be improved.
The problem with encouraging a “Yes Culture” is that we end up with an “echo chamber” in which the team simply parrots the boss. This is not only toxic for those concerned, but also highly risky for the organisation as people may be lead down the wrong path. It’s characteristic of governments where power is concentrated in one individual. There are at least four such governments in the world at present.
From experience, I can safely say that it hurts when people “tear apart” the plan or project I’ve worked on for so long. As long as the tearing apart is constructive and results in a better plan or project, it’s worth it (and we learn what to look out for in future). If it’s simply to score points then again one has a toxic culture.
It takes only one person to destroy an open, trusting and proactive culture. I ’ve seen with my own eyes where an employee (not the “boss” themself) acted as a “happiness vampire”. When we asked for ideas or comments in a meeting, everyone else would look to that member of staff who usually sat there with a face like a thundercloud!
In the end we had to let that person go. The effect was electric! The next day everybody walked in with heads held high and were laughing, chatting and from then on suggesting ideas or commenting on discussions or plans.
The next time we see someone “go silent”, it’s time to find out why.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Leadership, Productivity, Strategy, Teamwork
A Technology Update
I’ve started using the new iPad Mini 7. I chose this after finding that my trusty iPad Pro 11” was too awkward to carry around and hold in one hand for long periods of time.
Sometime ago, I wrote about my experiences with the iPad Pro 12.9” iPad. I bought this when it first came out to see whether it could replace a desktop computer and concluded that, whilst it could duplicate and perform many of the tasks I do on my desktop, it lacked the functionality for full-time office work of the type I do. As a temporary tool for going off on weekends or even week-long trips it was fine, but any “demanding” work (e.g.: creating, formatting or manipulating complex spreadsheets, documents or presentations) was beyond it. It was also still a heavy device.
I downsized to the iPad Pro 11” and found that it had the same limitations as the 12.9”. Whilst lighter and less cumbersome than its big brother, it was still “just too heavy” after a while.
I then saw a video in which the presenter made a great point: when it comes to iPads, we’re either content creators or content consumers. My eyes were opened! I realised that, for “heavy duty” work, I used my MacBook for content creation. When it came to content consumption, that was when I used my iPad. So now I knew. Creation: MacBook; consumption: iPad.
So far, the iPad Mini 7 has proved worth the investment. This latest in the Mini series introduced welcome changes such as a faster processor (eliminating the “jelly scrolling” that many complained about with the Mini 6), more storage (the Mini 6 offered either a paltry 64GB or 128GB; the Mini 7 offers storage of 128GB, 256GB or 512GB).
It has no SIM tray, unlike its predecessor but instead is programmed for e -SIMs. For me, this isn’t a problem as I generally “hotspot” off my iPhone if I’m in a no Wi-Fi zone. My iPhone is always with me!
So what about portability and functionality? Well, no complaints about portability. The Mini 7 fits in a jacket pocket quite happily (and even trouser pockets – just). It’s also far lighter than the iPad Pro 11” for obvious reasons. I find myself reaching it continually without thinking.
Note taking on Goodnotes is also much more like taking notes in an A5 notebook as the two are roughly similar in size.
Yes, the screen’s smaller than the iPad Pro 11”, but it still provides a reasonable amount of “real estate” to read with ease and I haven’t had a problem reading news websites, “The Economist Magazine" and our local newspaper on it (I do occasionally have to zoom in though!). Other content (Facebook, LinkedIn, email) is also still comfortable to read.
General web browsing and movie viewing on YouTube or Netflix is also fine (although I do miss having a larger screen here!)
What else would I like to have seen? Apple could have integrated Face ID into the Mini 7. The touch ID button at the top right of the screen is fine, but when one’s used to Face ID on both iPhone and larger iPads, it comes as a surprise. Equally surprising was that they moved the volume buttons from the top right-hand side of the screen to the top edge. I think this is because the Mini 7 takes the new Apple Pencil Pro which would get in the way of volume buttons on the side. Obviously, they had to compromise somewhere.
Brightness is also lower than the iPad Pros and iPhone, which is a disappointment.
Conclusion? The iPad Mini 7 ticks the boxes for portability, weight and general convenience. It still provides clear viewing for both readable as well as video content.
The only real criticism I have is the lack of Face ID. Some have grumbled about the lack of a faster chip, but the current one is adequate for my modest consumption needs (I’m not a gamer so can’t comment on this).
Apple has done the bare minimum to satisfy demand for an update but could have done more. The iPad Mini will always be the “poor cousin” to the larger models - possibly what Apple wants? After all, why “cannibalise” the market for the Pro series by introducing a Mini that might be “too competitive”?
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Leisure, Productivity
Handling Replies
In this age of 24/7 email, it’s all too easy for us to be “deluged” with emails from any number of people.
When I first started using email back in the 1990s, all I had were my corporate email (and that was an “in-house only” system, which did not allow us to send emails to people outside the employer’s network until later) and my personal “public domain” email.
Since those days, I’ve added two more personal email addresses (for different purposes), my own consultancy business email and my other business email, bringing me to a total of two corporate email addresses and three personal ones!
I receive email in each. Some require responses, some are for information only and others are “junk”. The trick is in handling responses.
One of my former employers had a standard for responding to email requests: two working days if no deadline was specified. Even if we could only send a “holding reply”, at least the sender knew we had received their message and were acting on it. This was considered “professional”. Not only is it “professional”, it’s also courteous and shows the sender that we take them seriously. Personally, if I feel someone doesn't take my requests seriously, I move on to someone who will.
Fast forward to the current age and things seem to be very different. Part of the problem seems to be caused by email systems sending emails from “unknown senders” to one’s “junk” or “spam” folders. This can be for any number of reasons which I won’t go into here.
From a customer service and professional point of view, we should have both corporate and personal standards for replying. My personal standard is that, if I need a response by a certain deadline, then I ask for it by that deadline. If I email someone without giving them a deadline in which to respond, I will generally chase after one or two weeks, depending on the urgency. Luckily I have a highly evolved follow-up system to ensure that I do chase.
For all of us in service industries, we should have response standards. Some organisations send out an automated response to every email stating that it will be handled within a certain number of working days. This is fine, provided that said follow up does occur. My experience is that most of the time, it does.
Does your organisation have “standards” for responding to emails with or without deadlines? If not, how might you change things?
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Customer Care, Leadership, Productivity, Selling
Working With Entrepreneurs
I’ve been lucky enough to work for two global finance organisations as well as with numerous entrepreneurs in my consultancy roles.
Large organisations are, very different to a small business (usually headed by the founder). I continue to learn from entrepreneurs but can say now that there are several commonalities amongst all of them.
The first is a burning desire to bring something to market. It could be a product, a service, a solution to a problem, a way of doing something better cheaper faster or whatever. Whatever it is, they’ve found a way to do it and to do it well enough that people are prepared to pay for it. The thing is, only they really understand what it is they’re trying to achieve.
Following on from the above, once an entrepreneur has defined what it is that they want to do, they go “all out” to see their vision come true. They’ll work 24/7 to make it happen.
Another is what many of us may call “absent mindedness” or “inability to concentrate for long periods of time”. Entrepreneurs’ minds work very differently from those of their workers. They’re thinking about different things continuously and re-prioritising as they go. They may be accused of “forgetting what you said five minutes ago” but usually what’s happened is that something more urgent has appeared on their “radar” (unbeknown to you) and they need to deal with that. The key: keep your interactions short and to the point. Don’t waffle.
Not only are they thinking about the immediate present and what needs doing, they’re thinking about the future. They’re chairman of the board, director, CEO, chief finance officer, head of sales, head of product development, head of manufacturing and even head of logistics!
Many (but not necessarily all) entrepreneurs are also extremely flexible and patient (when they need to be). They have to be if their business is to flourish. Whilst their workers may have the “luxury” of getting impatient with others, entrepreneurs appreciate that often they have to “suck it up” if they’re to get the business. They’re great at finding solutions and ways around a problem.
Another trait that many have is they’re consummate salespeople. Again, this may not apply to all but it does to those with whom I’ve worked so far. Even if they have to take on someone as a “professional” sales person, they still have to “sell” their idea, product or service to that person.
Entrepreneurs aren’t always good when it comes to the details. That doesn’t mean they “don’t do detail” it’s just that they tend to have the idea first and worry about details as they go along. I’ve been amazed at the level of detail into which some of the entrepreneurs with whom I’ve worked have gone, but equally there are others who need others to “make it work”. It’s a case of “have your people call my people”.
Are you an entrepreneur and do you see yourself in any of these? Would you add more?
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Productivity, Selling
Are We Going "App-Happy"?
I read once “somewhere” that apparently 80% of a business’ users will look to access its services or products on their mobile (read smartphone) device. Small wonder then that the development of apps has grown exponentially over the past years.
There are apps, however, and there are apps.
Rather like those department stores that promise to sell us (almost) anything and everything apps are now doing the same job. As I go through life, I find more organisations, businesses and such like who “have an app for that”. Sooner or later, I suspect that even our tiny little six-person business will be forced to pay someone to develop an app for us (we don’t have the expertise to do it ourselves).
What I've found in a number of cases though is that when interacting with an app, firstly I risk tapping in the wrong place with my (some might call them large) fingers. Many apps also seem to require at least two levels of security. These are usually a username and/or password and/or One Time Password (OTP) sent to the user. Often the OTP is sent to their mobile phone number. That’s great if that user doesn’t travel outside their country or keeps their SIM in their mobile device even when travelling (incurring the sometimes outrageous data costs that this entails). Luckily, smartphone manufacturers have found a partial way around this through using facial recognition (although there are still some suppliers with whom I deal who insist on sending an OTP to my phone).
My real question is: how many apps can we truly deal with? In the end, I suspect that people will stop dealing with certain suppliers if they don’t buy their products regularly or if they’re just fed up with so many apps on their phones.
My personal experience is that, as I’ve aged, I prefer (and indeed need to!) access apps or services from a larger screen, such as a tablet or desktop computer. For young people with good eyesight and slim, nimble fingers, the mobile phone is great. For others it may be a curse.
Worse still are organisations who insist on transacting only through their app (they don’t even have a website). Again, if they’re interacting with the younger generation this shouldn’t be a problem but I wonder whether they’ll start to lose business as customers advance in years. No doubt there'll be others to take their place.
In the end, I suspect the decision will boil down to “Do I really value this product, service or supplier and, if so, is it worth continuing using their particular app?”
Only time will tell. Meanwhile, if we as businesses want to develop our own app, how are we going to make sure that it will be as “user-friendly” as possible?
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Customer Care, Productivity, Selling, Strategy
When is “Good Enough” “Good Enough”?
I’ve had the privilege of watching several entrepreneurs building their businesses over the years. What interests me most is their approach to what we might call “getting it right“.
For some, “perfection” is the only standard. For others, “good enough” will do and they then refine the product or service.
Both have their pros and cons. “Perfection” means that a lot of work will go into producing a product or service that genuinely meets customer needs. Inevitably, a number of elements have to be combined to make this happen: concept, assembly (if it concerns an actual product), delivery to customer and after sales service.
The downside is that getting to that final stage of perfection can take an awfully long time and delay product or service launches.
In some cases, perfection must be mandatory. We see this in buildings, automobiles, aircraft, bridges where if the product fails, a considerable number of lives can be lost.
On the other hand, especially in the IT industry, “good enough” will do. A programme or service can be launched and then, as customer feedback filters back, it can be “tweaked” to refine the product or service until it meets needs.
In some cases, “good enough” may be preferable both to take the market lead and to make sure that the product can be scaled or changed as needed. A very simple example would be the Apple Watch. Apple were by no means the first in the smart watch market, but when they entered some years after competitors such as Pebble and Samsung, they brought a totally superior product to the table. They’ve continued refining it as well (although battery life still seems to be their main hurdle).
For every entrepreneur among us, deciding when “good enough” is “good enough” and when to strive for perfection is very much a personal and business decision. For example, can Ford afford to aim for perfection every time? When should it do so? Power and transmission (engines) and safety issues such as indicators, lights, airbags, brakes and seatbelts need to be perfect. However, “small” refinements like tone of dashboard colour may mean they miss taking the market lead by getting the product out there faster, earning some money, and then improving it based on feedback. Look at every iteration of the same model every year – does the basic design change? Of course!
My personal view is that it depends on circumstances. If one has the resources and time available to achieve perfection, why not? In a fast-changing business and competitive landscape, being “second past the post’ may be the difference between success and failure. It will be for each and every business owner to decide for themselves.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Customer Care, Leadership, Productivity, Selling, Strategy
Customer Perception = Reality
Kate Zabriskie coined the above term which neatly encapsulates what is often the main cause of tension between customers and suppliers.
We’ve all heard phrases such as “The customer is not an interruption of your work, they are the reason you have work,” and so on but it was only when I saw this that light dawned for me.
Many businesses are organised “Around themselves”, that is, they produce goods or services according to processes that they have designed to deliver those goods or services.
Only a few think about how the customer may want to obtain or access those goods or services. This is where the “customer experience” concept comes in. Its objective is to make life as good as possible for customers using the following criteria:
- The product or service must meet the customer’s needs.
- It must be easy to use.
- The customer should enjoy using the product or service.
The problem is that, if we’re lucky, the product or service will meet our needs.
Easy to use? How do we have to fill in? How many fields do we need to complete online? How many steps to complete the process? Does our password need a minimum of 8 characters, at least one of which should be an uppercase letter, one a number and one a "special symbol"?
Enjoyable? How do we feel after completing endless forms and waiting in a queue for 30 minutes?
Very few organisations can achieve all three.
Once we know what the customer wants, and how they want it, we’re on our way. The only way to get this information is to talk to customers themselves. Unfortunately, the way many organisations do this is to use “focus groups” or “market surveys” that aren’t designed to elicit what the customer wants so much as to reaffirm that the processes are “right”. Even the use of the latest trend – “persona” that are meant to represent the “typical buyer” (there’s no such thing, buy the way) of that product or service look at the buyer from the business’ point of view rather than the buyer’s.
Once we get our heads around the difference that’s needed, we can start to understand how customers want to engage with us, what products they need to do what, and how they want to access them.
Until business leaders realise this, there’ll always be a conflict between their perceptions and those of their customers.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Customer Care, Leadership, Productivity, Selling, Strategy
Blame Games
It always interests me to see how people react when things go wrong. Do they try and shift accountability to someone else or do they accept that, perhaps, they may also have been at fault?
The phrases I most often hear are “You should have told me that,” or “That should be in your contracts”.
Every interaction involves risk. In some jurisdictions, organisations are expected to be completely “transparent” in terms of the goods or services they offer, the conditions on which they will offer them, pricing and any exceptions that may result in a different outcome.
In others, the old Latin adage “Caveat Emptor” (let the buyer beware) is more applicable. In these cases, the opposite happens: product or service providers volunteer little information and let the customer ask the questions.
In a culture where “fairness” rules, one expects more of the “transparency ethic”. In that most recently described, one must learn fast or be disappointed/lose money until one learns better.
Going back to how I started, when we deal with a new party, we need to:
- Understand exactly what we want.
- Understand what expectations we have concerning service standards from the other side.
- Develop a list of questions designed to elicit from the other party that what we want is achievable.
- Be ready to ask the questions and to continue probing until satisfactory answers are received.
In our business, we’ve seen a few episodes where, in hindsight (that marvellous thing!) we could or should have asked certain questions. In these cases, all we can do is “chalk it up to experience” and learn our lesson for the next time.
What many fail to accept is that, whatever happens, there will always be new situations and new suppliers with whom we deal who may not understand or appreciate the standards we expect. Some larger organisations have developed a complex process to assess any new supplier, usually one that revolves around asking a lot of intrusive questions. Such processes are cumbersome and time-consuming both for new suppliers and for the organisation that then has to go through the answers to ensure that their standards will be met.
Where does this leave us? Honestly, the more experience we gain in dealing with new suppliers, the better. Most of them are looking for profitable and (they hope) long-lasting relationships. A minority are out to grab whatever they can get before moving onto the next “victim”.
As long as one does not become the latter in too many cases, I’d consider that a win.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Customer Care, Leadership, Productivity, Risk, Strategy
