Seven wastes of negotiation: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 17: Line 17:
*Even where the contract is executed, the revenue that accrues is not a function of executing the contract, but ''trading'' under it. A {{tag|contract}} that is concluded but rarely or never traded under is an example of [[over-production]]. Again, Sales should be responsible for identifying good quality potential revenue, and should be [[incentive|incentivised]]<ref>This means penalised for costs the same way Sales is rewarded for revenues.</ref> not to introduce poor prospects into the funnel.
*Even where the contract is executed, the revenue that accrues is not a function of executing the contract, but ''trading'' under it. A {{tag|contract}} that is concluded but rarely or never traded under is an example of [[over-production]]. Again, Sales should be responsible for identifying good quality potential revenue, and should be [[incentive|incentivised]]<ref>This means penalised for costs the same way Sales is rewarded for revenues.</ref> not to introduce poor prospects into the funnel.


'''summary''': {{wasteprov|Overproduction}} is generally a [[sales]] problem. It is not easy to fix as it involves predicting the future, but the costs can at least be allocated to sales (in the same way that revenue is!)
'''Summary''': {{wasteprov|Overproduction}} is generally a [[sales]] problem. It is not easy to fix as it involves predicting the future, but the costs can at least be allocated to sales (in the same way that revenue is!)


===2. {{wasteprov|waiting}}===
===2. {{wasteprov|Waiting}}===
Whenever goods are not moving or being processed, the waste of {{wasteprov|waiting}} occurs.  
''Over to you, Chuck''<br>
Whenever no-one is actively handling work in progress, in the sense of marking it up, or arguing with someone (internally or externally) about it, it is ''{{wasteprov|waiting}}''. In a typical [[negotiation]] that is likely to be more than 90% of the time.<ref>I totally made that up, but I think it is conservative. Over a three-month ISDA [[negotiation]], if you aggregate actual time physically editing a document, typing escalation emails and speaking to internal [[stakeholder|stakeholders]] and the client on [[Skype]] about the content of the document, would that be 24 hours? Highly doubtful. but let's be a little crazy and call it 48 hours. Forty eight straight hours - six full working days — of doing nothing but typing, editing and discussing. ''Over a three month period, 48 hours is 2.1% of the total time. So waiting time is 97.9% of the process.''</ref>
*'''Drafts out to client''': The negotiation process requires client input. {{wasteprov|waiting}} on that is wasteful and is largely outside our control? Largely but not entirely: the ''easier'' and ''less objectionable'' we can make the client’s review, all other things being equal, the faster it will come back.  How to make it easier and less objectionable?
*'''Drafts out to client''': The negotiation process requires client input. {{wasteprov|waiting}} on that is wasteful and is largely outside our control? Largely but not entirely: the ''easier'' and ''less objectionable'' we can make the client’s review, all other things being equal, the faster it will come back.  How to make it easier and less objectionable?
:*'''Make it ''shorter''''': the fewer words to read, the faster you read it.
:*'''Make it ''shorter''''': the fewer words to read, the faster you read it.