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
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
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
Learning Through Mistakes
I’ve come to realise that you can’t develop leaders and good decision-making without also allowing people to make mistakes and (preferably) learn from them!
The best way to learn is to make mistakes. None of us remember learning to walk but if you ever watch an infant learning, you’ll notice that they’ll keep falling over and picking themselves up until they “get it right”.
Whilst it may be dangerous (financially and – or for health and safety reasons) to allow people to fail too often, learning from one’s mistakes provides the best experience for the next generation of leaders. As that famous philosopher “someone “said, “Good decisions are the result of experience. Experience is the result of poor decisions.”
The skill of the leader who’s bringing up the next generation is to know when they can be allowed to fail (without provoking disastrous consequences) and when to give them closer guidance. What many notice is that, in the beginning, a fair degree of “hands on” instruction and guidance is necessary, but as the “apprentice” gains in experience, confidence and commitment to the organisation and shows they are capable of either thinking things through or, at least, knowing when to ask for help or advice then one can slowly “let go the reins”.
Not only will this develop a capable generation of leaders, but it also allows their leaders to spend time on other important tasks, adding value to the organisation. The culture of the “blame game” where aspiring leaders are allowed to fall flat on their proverbial face is neither building nor likely to develop leaders. Indeed, it will only serve to develop a generation of risk avoiders who when faced with a crisis, either “pass the buck” or are likely to lead the organisation to disaster.
I have seen the results described above in a number of cases. All decisions as a result are referred “up the line””.
Scientific studies have shown that humans are mentally conditioned to avoid action that could result in a loss, more so than to take a risk that may result in a substantial gain to them or their organisation. This is probably due to our old “survival instinct” from man’s early days. Whilst it may still be applicable in certain situations, it doesn’t apply to all.
We’ll never eliminate risk entirely unless we refuse to take any action with any degree of risk. We can however coach the next generation of leaders to think for themselves in such a way that they examine a situation critically, consult with others and take the most well-considered and informed choice available to them based on experience.
How is your organisation set up for this?
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, Risk, Teamwork
Communication and Customer Service
One of my recent experiences showed me how crucial good and clear communication can be in providing quality customer service.
As the world “goes global”, we find ourselves dealing with call centres outside our own country, with people whose first language may not be our first language, all combined with the bureaucracy that’s part and parcel of large organisations (particularly financial services) in today’s world.
I finally realised something was wrong when email communication with the particular individual resulted in exactly the same email with exactly the same wording coming back to me every time that I thought I had explained and clarified something. Finally, I called the company’s Customer Service Hotline and was able to clarify exactly what the individual was trying to tell me.
Not only did this show me how vital clear communication is in providing service to others, but it also showed me that it will continue to be a problem that we need to understand and to deal with. Despite the best intentions of “the other person”, misunderstandings can and will occur.
The trick is being able to resolve the situation quickly. It did take me a while to realise something was very wrong with the communication between me and “the other guy”. Once I worked it out, I was able to devise a solution and achieve the expected result.
Some may say, “Surely it was up to the company and the company representative to devise the solution for you the customer?” In answer: yes, one could take that attitude but then would it actually, move me further towards the goal I had set myself or would it simply turn into a game of “saving face”?
How can we as “Customer Service” businesses ensure that our communication is as clear as possible and, at the same time, devise processes where there is clearly an issue?
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, Risk
What If…?
At the beginning of August 2024, I read an article about how everyday tasks considered “simple” suddenly became time-intensive and needed considerable effort.
What happened? Answer: the Internet went down. What were some of the consequences?
One of the first was that paying utility bills required users to go to the relevant utility provider’s office with cash.
Another was that digital and online banking payments were no longer available. Cash became inaccessible and everyday life became an issue.
People couldn’t pay their credit cards online and they couldn’t recharge their mobile phone accounts.
Streaming and other entertainment services ceased to be. Instead, people had to revert to terrestrial TV or radio (that is, assuming that they had “old-fashioned” radios that could pick up air bands, rather than a radio that relied on an internet signal).
People couldn’t book transport, flights, trains, hotels, or other travel and hospitality. Communications on a corporate and operational level were completely overthrown.
Ride hailing and food delivery apps were no longer available.
Before you ask, this wasn’t in the UK, US or other “developed” country but a “developing” one…
The result: many people had to look at how they lived their lives with fresh eyes. Should they keep a spare stock of cash at home? For those who didn’t have “landlines” should they install a telephone landline for at least the basic communication needs of their household? What about an “old-fashioned radio”?
All this shows how dependent modern society is on internet services and their continuing and reliable supply. Modern life is, thanks to this phenomenon, more “fragile” and leaves us more dependent on the internet than in the past.
One of the good things, though, to come out of this was that people spent more time together, renewing friendships as opposed to staring at a screen. Some discovered former long forgotten pastimes and hobbies.
People were given a hard lesson in taking the internet for granted and making sure that in future, should it go down, they were not left as vulnerable as on this recent occasion.
There’s a reason that broadband internet is now known as “the fourth utility”. It has become as necessary to daily life as water, electricity and gas.
How can we as business leaders ensure that not only our businesses, but also our workers and families are best equipped to deal with an internet outage? It’s almost like preparing for another pandemic that forces us to stay at home (hopefully with the convenience of internet!).
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: Crisis Management, Customer Care, Leadership, Productivity, Risk, Strategy
When "IT" Goes "OUT"
The July 2024 IT “outage” caused by a flaw in a Content Validator Component sent out by a cyber security company caused a degree of chaos throughout the world.
Businesses in industries ranging from aviation to finance to medical care using Microsoft operating systems were affected. Fixing the problem took time with, apparently, any device affected having to be restarted up to 15 times before it could work.
Flights around the world were cancelled and airports saw chaotic scenes with some passengers being presented handwritten boarding passes. Hospital appointments systems failed to function.
Whilst technology is, in theory, making lives easier, episodes such as this show how heavily reliant we are on interconnected systems. As with the global financial crisis of 2008 - 2012, where interlinked banks had to be bailed out by taxpayers or left to fail, so a wide variety of institutions and organisations were affected by this episode.
Although we’re told that the cause was a “defective update”, no one knows whether this will happen again. Even if security companies improve their processes to ensure that critical updates are “bug-free”, there’s still room for error.
This isn’t the first “once in a blue moon” episode of a defective program being released. We’ve already had plenty of examples of malicious “hacking” of government and industrial systems designed to spread chaos. This case seems to have been due to human error.
I’m lucky. I use a Mac! My business (which uses Microsoft) also wasn’t impacted. But how many of our partners might have been? What of the class action suits and cases for damages that will now be brought? Does the company concerned have a future?
It got me thinking: whilst IT’s designed to benefit us in the long run, there are still plenty of potential hazards that can impact global business. Is there anything we can do to mitigate this? There’s no way we can avoid future occurrences. Not many companies, unless they’re global multinationals, will be in a position to insert penalty clauses into agreements with security software companies which say that, if the client suffers loss as a direct result of errors or omissions by that company, the security company will compensate them. In these cases, security companies would most likely go out of business very fast, leaving the world potentially a more vulnerable place.
What can we as business leaders do to minimise the impact of such an event? We need to examine our processes and determine how many are reliant on functioning IT. Once that’s been done, is there a “manual workaround” that can be used? Can our counterparties, particularly our “vital suppliers” do the same? What would happen if their systems suffered a similar occurrence? Could they still continue to supply us with the goods or services needed for our business?
Each and every business and its leaders will need to develop their own solutions in order to reduce potential impacts the next time (and there will be a next time) this happens.
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: Crisis Management, Customer Care, Leadership, Productivity, Risk, Strategy, Teamwork
A Radical Idea?
I took a short trip (2 ½ days) overseas and found myself debating whether to take a tablet or laptop with me to check and respond to emails.
It made me think: we’re so dependent on computers and on being available 24/7. We see business travellers working on their laptops in airport lounges, hotel foyers, on trains or in their own hotel rooms. The larger hotels have Business Centres and even “Executive Floors” specifically for business travellers.
So… could hotels start thinking about linking remote access to the TVs in every room? With all the brains out there in the world, we should be able to develop a secure system to enable us to access office email, office intranets and filing systems, and our own personal email, as well as the inevitable social media. There’ll be all sorts of security concerns (cross-border data accessibility, ID theft, industrial espionage, and so on), but I suspect that these can be overcome, if there’s a will to do so.
In my case, my trip saw me arrive at my destination late in the evening on a Thursday (after a day’s work anyway) and depart early morning three days later on Sunday. The trip was actually a pleasure trip rather than for business and the only time I could reasonably be expected to be online to answer “critical” emails would be the first full day of the trip (Friday), and half of the second (Saturday). The temptation was simply to go with my smartphone and trust to that to answer any “urgent” emails that needed to be dealt with. Another way would simply have been to leave an “Out of Office” message saying I’d be offline. I think I’m entitled to be unavailable for 2 ½ days (1 of which is half of Saturday and half of Sunday).
Remote delivery of all services is, in my opinion, the next stage in the evolution of the business trip. It would result in less baggage for businesspeople and increased usage of locations (whether hotels or remote offices) that offer full remote access capabilities. Should one have need of particular files from the office, they could be carried on a pen drive/memory stick/thumb drive (whatever they’re called in your area) and carried with us, taking substantially less space and weight than a laptop or tablet computer.
Apple computers have gone some way towards this with the Mac Mini model that they produce. This is simply a CPU (19.7 x 19.7 x 3.58 cm or 8” x 8” x 1.5”) which can be connected to a keyboard, mouse and monitor (say office and home setups). The downside is that one can’t use it in any location where the latter aren’t available. However, there are remote (Wi-Fi or Bluetooth), keyboards, mice, and portable screens that can be used. It could even be connected by cable to a hotel TV. My son has a set up with what is called a “Steamdeck” plugged into a portable monitor. Hotels could even offer the option of a keyboard and cable to connect to the in-room TV if so desired by travellers.
One might ask, “Why not just carry a laptop or tablet then?” Answer: if we MUST be attached to one of these devices 24/7, OK (or maybe we need to rethink our priorities). We’re too dependent on firing up the laptop whenever we need to do a quick change to that spreadsheet, report or presentation “on the fly”. If work, life balance really means something, disconnecting from the world is a good start. Some employers already operate a “disconnect” policy where staff may not receive/send emails of work-related SMS messages between certain times of day. Nowadays, with the “Voice Recognition” facility commonly found on many smart phones, we can dictate reports, messages and speeches into our phone for subsequent forwarding or formatting when we next use our computer. This article was drafted using such an app! Imagine: no more pen and paper or needing a typist. We need never fear losing that inspirational thought or idea again.
Yes, this is totally off the wall and may be viewed by some as completely impractical. For those who wish, a laptop or tablet remains an option. This applies particularly on extended business trips, where one may be away from one’s home-base for more than (say) two working days. However, with a bit of planning and organisation, I see no reason that this might not work.
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: Productivity, Risk, Strategy
AI – A Downside
A news article(that appeared in July, I think) reminded me of something I posted on artificial intelligence (AI) earlier this year, and whether it was a good or bad thing.
In the article, social media companies were using AI to remove postings that might contain offensive, harmful or indecent material. The problem was, the AI couldn’t distinguish between content that was harmful, offensive or indecent and content which showed war crimes or acts that violated human rights being committed.
This is one of the cases we find of “the law of unintended consequences.” Social media companies have been under the spotlight for allowing posts that contain hate speech or other content likely to be considered offensive. The fact that a lot seem to get through still is neither here nor there.
In response to the pressure to moderate effectively content posted, social media has naturally turned to one of the newest tools in the proverbial toolbox. Given the millions of postings every day on the likes on Facebook, “X”, Instagram, Snapchat, and goodness knows how many others, we have to accept that no human being or group of human beings (unless numbering in the millions) can successfully moderate content, removing that which is gratuitously and unnecessarily offensive or harmful whilst still leaving in place content which can be used in evidence in war crimes or human rights abuse trials.
One answer is simple. If someone is a witness to an event that might constitute a war, crime or abuse of human rights and photographs or films it, they need to have a site to which it can be sent. Rather than the “standard” social media sites, they may need to store it on their own personal cloud, Dropbox or whatever personal storage, they may have already.
The results of one particular war crimes content posting being removed was that a refugee applying for political asylum and giving danger to his own life as a reason for doing so lost his proof as, unfortunately, the video footage that showed him in the place where the incident took place had been erased by AI.
We are only just beginning to come to terms with AI’s strengths and weaknesses. Like many other aspects of life which we now take for granted (e.g. cars, trains, aircraft, broadband internet and others) it will be a case of time showing us what needs to be done. However hard people may try, they cannot legislate for everything all at once.
At best, they can look at the lessons of the past and decide where to apply them in the case of AI.
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: Crisis Management, Customer Care, Productivity, Risk, Strategy
The New Biological Warfare?
One thing that the coronavirus pandemic of 2020 to 2022 proved to us was that the ultimate weapon of mass biological destruction is Homo Sapiens, the human being.
The coronavirus (COVID-19) spread from “Ground Zero” (suspected to be in Wuhan) to other cities in China and around the world via people who were returning home to their families for the Lunar New Year celebrations, as well as those who travelled overseas to join or rejoin their families.
In his novel Executive Orders, author Tom, Clancy theorises that “one could infect an aircraft, say an international flight into Kennedy. The travellers would leave one aircraft and fan out into others… Maybe they’d be able to spread the disease through coughs and sneezes immediately, or maybe not. Many of them would fly again in a few days, wondering if they had the flu, and then they’d be able to communicate the virus, and so infect more.”
Our system of rapid, low-cost and plentiful international transport means that a government with malicious intent no longer needs to fire or drop a biological weapon from an aircraft or battleship stationed offshore. Simply infecting a few “human carriers” and letting them loose on international flights is sufficient.
One of the first things that happened was that, to control the spread of COVID-19, governments closed air- and seaports. No one was allowed in (except for returning citizens, and Australia refused even them!).
However, by the time and seaports were closed, it was in many cases too late. The coronavirus had to run its course whilst pharmaceutical companies frantically rushed to develop vaccines.
In the end, the combination of vaccination, isolation and testing paid dividends. The coronavirus epidermic was brought under control and, by 2022, most countries were able to resume “normal” life.
Be that as it may, we now know that one of the biggest risks is the global transportation system. If nothing else, governments have learnt that in the event of a pandemic being declared, they must take immediate and precipitate action to close down their countries.
Could we face another biological Armageddon? There are almost certainly laboratories, even now working on plagues and diseases designed to incapacitate (but not kill) a population. Whilst this may sound like a conspiracy theory, it perhaps also provides some comfort in that one no longer will need to resort to the threat of all-out nuclear war. Biological warfare, and in a less deadly form, will be sufficient to incapacitate a country, its institutions and population for sufficiently long to allow it to be taken over.
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: Crisis Management, Leadership, Risk, Strategy
Phones, Phone Numbers and Security
Many websites, particularly bank websites, now require what is known as “Two Factor Authentication” (TFA) to complete transactions access the website or to authorise activities.
This idea behind this is sound: with the increase in fraudulent online activity by felons who have managed to acquire innocent victims’ details, banks, merchants and other service providers need to take action.
The problem can be that, when users set up TFA, they are asked to give a phone number. On the face of it, this is a good idea. The problem is that the system then relies on that phone number for authorisation. This is great when users are accessible on that phone number. I have encountered situations, though, when I’ve been travelling and have replaced my (we’ll call it “local SIM card“ from the country in which I’m based) with a SIM card registered in the country I’m visiting.
This turns the TFA system upside down. If I need to access sites which rely on a telephone number to authenticate the transaction, my only choice is to replace one SIM with another for the duration of that transaction.
On the face of it, this is not a major effort. It is though, if the SIM card of the country in which I am based is from a provider who has no arrangement with a local mobile service operator in the country which I’m visiting. It’s also likely to cost me more to receive that call.
A better system which more suppliers and providers have identified is to have TFA based on a randomly generate security number which is done online via the internet, or to send an authentication code via email. In this case, it doesn’t matter where I am or which provider’s SIM card I have in my phone. As long as I can access the internet, I can obtain my random security number.
As more providers realise the benefits of TFA, through random security number generation online, dependence on a phone call will hopefully become a thing of the past.
There are, surprisingly, a number of large institutions, which have the time and resources (both financial and in terms of personnel and expertise) to implement such systems but haven’t. The only way to get them to get them to change will be through pressure from their customers.
Luckily, things are looking good on this front, and I believe that, in time, randomly generated security codes will become a norm as opposed to the return phone call for TFA.
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, Risk
Preparing for Disaster
The tragic losses in the aftermath of the earthquakes in Turkey and Syria, along with victim reports from other natural disasters, highlight one problem very clearly: government response to disasters is slow.
Go on any “prepper” website and one of the things they’ll tell you is not to expect any kind of relief for at least two weeks. Allowing for difficulties posed by not knowing where relief is needed, what relief is needed or difficulty in accessing remote areas where relief is needed, one might need to add more time.
Expecting “the government” to respond swiftly is, quite frankly, unrealistic. Put yourself in their shoes: you hear that there is an earthquake, flood, or other natural disaster in a particular area. What is the information you need? Who can get it to you and how? If phone lines are out, there will be no direct means of communication, except for sending an aircraft relying on the “mark one human eyeball” to assess the situation.
Added to this, weather conditions may make matters worse, preventing air rescuers from getting through or flooding vital roads. In Syria, we hear tragic tales of people with no shelter, out in the cold, because towns and villages have been all but destroyed. In this case, an additional handicap seems to have been government reluctance to allow international aid in.
When I was a small child in the 60s, I lived in Pakistan, where my parents were posted. At the time, civil riots and commotions were common and we were advised that we should keep a two-week supply of food, drink and the means to prepare it. This served my parents well following the 1986 hurricane that devastated the South of England. My parents lived in a remote part of the countryside, surrounded by trees. Three fell across their driveway, cutting off electricity and phone. A local farmer came with power saws and tractors and was able to clear away the trees, giving them access once more from the house to the road. Even luckier, I had borrowed my father’s car to stay with friends elsewhere that night and so we had one vehicle on the “right side” of the trees until they were cleared. With my parents’ two-week supply of food, the means to cook it and our own transport, we managed. 10 days later, electricity and phone had been restored (broadband internet didn’t exist in those days!)
The solution, unfortunately, is a high degree of self-reliance. The more remote a location, the longer it may be before aid in any significant amount arrives. One is therefore left with the task of “stockpiling” the essentials that will enable one to survive for at least two weeks. Just to add to the complexity of the situation, these stockpiles must be stored. What happens if that storage is compromised or destroyed by the natural disaster?
In business, whilst some of us may not run the risk of our business being swept away by floods or burnt to the ground by wildfires, we still need to have a plan in the event that things go wrong. Each business can assess for itself where the highest risks are. I remember discussing with one client what they would do in the event of heavy snow preventing them from getting to their place of work. Luckily, after that conversation, they all had a meeting and worked out for themselves what they could, would and should do.
What are the likely scenarios for your business, your staff, and your family? Are they likely to be the same or different? How well prepared are you (even at the most basic level) to carry on?
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. For strategic questions that you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610.
Labels: Crisis Management, Leadership, Risk, Strategy
Scanning Social Media
I’ve heard of cases of employers asking prospective candidates to provide their Social Media (SM) access details to allow said employer to scan the candidate’s SM accounts. This is a controversial subject in today's world.
Such access would be necessary if candidates limit viewing of their SM pages to “Friends/Contacts only”.
Yes, checking social media may give an insight into a candidate, but given that it's done by another human with their own inherent biases (cultural, educational and social), it can’t be taken as the be-all-and-end-all of any screening process. As others have pointed out, one can “clean up” one’s online presence to show only what one wants. How far back does one go to find something that may reflect negatively on the candidate?
Now let me play "Devil's Advocate": if employers are allowed to screen candidates’ social media, why not allow candidates to screen their potential boss' and co-workers’ social media? Many probably do anyway.
The answer is simple: be careful what you put “out there”. Even if you are, the sheer diversity of opinion in this world means that someone will still find something to dislike. Using social media as a crutch to validate one’s personal biases simply means we are willing participants in reinforcing others’ self-image and imperfect perception of the world. It may provide comfort in that a candidate has no “obvious” undesirable qualities or views at the time of scanning but does not mean that this won’t change over time (or that such views were deleted before the scan).
The real skill is in assessing candidates’ characters and potential face-to-face and by taking up references. In certain sectors (e.g. childcare, working with the elderly), “official” reports may be required.
In the end it still comes down to the fact that, when hiring, we are taking a risk that the candidate will prove a success (and this is the case in at least 90% of hirings). If we find that there’s am increasing trend of “problem employees”, there’s something wrong with our hiring system.
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. For strategic questions that you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610.
Labels: Career, Risk, Strategy
A New Era of Protectionism?
Recently, I asked whether global globalisation was finally in retreat. The retreat was mainly caused by the coronavirus pandemic of 2020 to 2022 which saw the worlds factory (China) close down because of coronavirus concerns. Even now China continues to pursue a “Zero-Covid“ policy.
On realising the downside of relying on overseas partners to produce strategically important products, many countries began to consider “re-shoring“ production previously outsourced overseas.
This is a perfectly natural and understandable reaction. The downside, however, is that it can also act as a justification for a new round of protectionism. At times this may have little significance. At others, especially in regions such as the EU, we may find that countries that compete in the same industries not only re-shore production, but also recommence handing out state subsidies in order to boost those industries’ strength vis-a-vis competing countries.
If coronavirus and the current events in Ukraine are taken in a certain way, it clearly makes sense to become once again self–sufficient in the production and distribution of strategically important goods and services. The problem comes when this morphs into protection and subsidisation of inefficient and outdated national champions who, in the “free market”, would be consigned to oblivion. This has been a constant refrain in the EU over examples such as farming subsidies which some see as benefiting inefficient producers using outdated methods but who must be kept happy to preserve governments.
China’s rise as an industrial superpower resulted in a number of small and medium-sized businesses not only competing against cheaper products, but also, at times, becoming customers of the very country that was putting them out of business. This is one of the drawbacks of so-called “globalisation”. It’s necessarily implies a re-distribution of production capacity and this is usually accompanied by a fall in demand for workers in the industry affected in the other country.
Offshoring has its benefits; of that there can be little doubt. Balance is necessary, as we have seen, to ensure that in an emergency, vital supplies can still be obtained. We none of us want to rely, for example, on another country racked with pandemic or that has become a political foe (as is the case with the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia) and can therefore “turn off the taps” as Russia has done with the flow of gas to Europe.
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. For strategic questions that you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610
Labels: Crisis Management, Customer Care, Financial, Productivity, Risk, Strategy
Payment Terms - Get Them Right
I had a fascinating discussion with one of our business clients. The issue was the meaning of “30 days“ payment terms.
Previous experience suggests that if one says that one’s practice is a 30-day payment period, then the person who is expecting payment should receive it on or before the 30th day after date of the invoice (or max. 30 days after invoice received). When I questioned the client on why their customer were quoting 30 days payments but then stating my client could expect payment after 44 days, the response was “they said management needs time to approve”.
Professionally speaking, when one asks for or states that one will pay within a certain timeframe, the timeframe should include sufficient time for all processes involved in the payment of an invoice to be carried out within the timeframe allotted.
It is not for me to judge, but I would consider it unprofessional to state payment will be made within 30 days but not to mention the fact that it might take an additional 14 days for management to approve the invoice. In this case it would be more professional (and dare I say, more ethical) to say that payment will be made within 60 days.
The reality of the situation, however, is that suppliers are more often than not in a weaker position. One can take the matter before the courts, but the likely outcome, even if you win, is that you will lose that buyer’s business. If it’s a large client who gives you high volumes and values of business, this would be an act of corporate self-destruction. The exception is, if you decide that it is preferable to lose that customer’s business.
I do however believe that a business is absolutely within its rights to:
Stipulate how long it is prepared to wait after the date of an invoice for payment to be received
Chase the Client once the deadline for that invoice has passed
As long as the chaser is polite, it should have the desired effect of reminding the customer (courteously) that they owe money and that payment has taken longer than expected. If one is diligent and can show a “paper trail” of reminders/equests for payment, then this reinforces the validity of the claim if the matter finally does go to arbitration.
Attempts at threats or penalties generally do not work unless one is in the position to make good on them (and to lose the business).
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. For strategic questions that you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610.
Labels: Customer Care, Financial, Risk
