82,882
edits
Onboarding: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
====What is the ''point'' of onboarding'''?==== | ====What is the ''point'' of onboarding'''?==== | ||
It not only resembles a production line but ''is'' one. You are manufacturing a product for delivery to your client. But your revenue profile is different: you don’t make your money upfront, but only once the client has its product. You are selling a ''relationship'', not a ''chattel''. This means: | It not only resembles a production line but ''is'' one. You are manufacturing a product for delivery to your client. But your revenue profile is different: you don’t make your money upfront, but only once the client has its product. You are selling a ''relationship'', not a ''chattel''. This means: | ||
*'''Cut out the [[waste]]''': You want the onboarding process to be as quick, efficient, pleasant and commoditised as possible. Here the [[Toyota | *'''Cut out the [[waste]]''': You want the onboarding process to be as quick, efficient, pleasant and commoditised as possible. Here the [[Toyota Production System]] that spawned lean manufacturing techniques is a hearty analogue, and we commend our [[seven wastes of negotiation]] article. But note ''efficiency'' — in [[Taiichi Ohno|Ohno]]-sensei’s lexicon, ''[[muda]]'' [[waste]], not ''cost'', is the watchword. If you save cost but introduce inefficiency — ~''cough''~ [[outsourcing]] — then you are getting it wrong. Most people are getting it wrong. | ||
*Build for the Future: Your optimal outcome and your client’s is the same: ''years of trouble-free motoring''. Over the years your relationship will grow and the environment in which you do business will change in utterly unfathomable ways. You cannot anticipate these developments, but you can plan for them: design your relationship documents to be standard as possible, as simple as possible, as uncomplicated as possible, and as flexible as possible. | *'''Build for the Future''': Your optimal outcome and your client’s is the same: ''years of trouble-free motoring''. Over the years your relationship will grow and the environment in which you do business will change in utterly unfathomable ways. You cannot anticipate these developments, but you can plan for them: design your relationship documents to be standard as possible, as simple as possible, as uncomplicated as possible, and as flexible as possible. | ||
*'''Design in ''interoperability''''': Design for the positive development of your relationship in directions you didn’t expect. Make your documents as adaptable as possible. Your client may open business and wish to move to Europe. It may start trading FX and move to equities. Have a platform that allows a client to quickly add services, or switch. | *'''Design in ''interoperability''''': Design for the positive development of your relationship in directions you didn’t expect. Make your documents as adaptable as possible. Your client may open business and wish to move to Europe. It may start trading FX and move to equities. Have a platform that allows a client to quickly add services, or switch. | ||
*'''Make structural change easy''': Design in a facility to bulk-amend to cope for inevitable regulatory changes. MiFID 3, ahoy! | *'''Make structural change easy''': Design in a facility to bulk-amend to cope for inevitable regulatory changes. MiFID 3, ahoy! | ||