Playbook: Difference between revisions

If we take it as a given that a playbook methodology of using set instructions to delegate administrative tasks to unskilled personnel, is fit for purpose only within the bounds of normal operating conditions.  

For example, Risk Control Department ''A'' has stipulated a starting position ''X'', but  has recognised that if a Client B does not agree to ''X'', a satisfactory compromise may be found at ''Y''. The playbook accordingly “empowers” the negotiator to offer that compromise. Only if Client B should also not agree to ''Y'' will there be an [[escalation]], back to Risk Control Department ''A'' who may sanction a further derogation from standard terms to ''Z''. There may then follow an extended firefight between senior risk personnel representing either organisation — albeit conducted through their uncomprehending negotiation personnel in Bratislava — which will culminate at final agreement at position ''Z'''.

But look at this from above: Risk Control Department A is stipulating position ''X'' where in reality it will accept position ''Z'' or even ''Z'''. The playbook, and all those wonderful systems and controls, in play only for the the portion of the negotiation between ''X'' and ''Y'', being a position a mile behind enemy lines.

No doubt middle management will regale any [[Steerco]] or [[Opco]] that will listen about the magnificent [[management information and statistics]] it has about the negotiation process. But all these gears are involved, and all all the systems is running over a part of the process that presents zero risk to the organisation. Negotiation for ''all'' clients takes longer, and now the portfolio will be distributed over a range of points between ''X'' and ''Z'', making practical control portfolio more difficult.

The client will not enjoy the negotiation process any more than you will, if you are presenting your client with its first experience of your organisation as the image of impersonal bureaucracy. With the greatest respect for our friends in the Slovak Republic, your new clients would prefer to be hand-held by a salesperson and in London than a school leaver in a call centre in Bratislava.<ref>Granted, in this day and age, your client is almost certainly housing its negotiation probability out of Acorn centre in Bratislava too. </Ref>

What to do?  Negotiation difficulties will generally fall into two camps: 1, the client (or its negotiation team, which also has been outsourced to Bratislava) won’t ''understand'' your document and will therefore insist on changing it. 2, it will find your legal terms fundamentally unreasonable.

Both scenarios are likely; often at once: it’s highly likely people in your own organisation won't understand your documents, so it is a bit rich expecting your clients to.<ref>Best example is the [https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php%3Ftitle=Hypothetical_broker_dealer hypothetical broker dealer] valuation terms in a [https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php%3Ftitle=Synthetic_equity_swap synthetic equity swap].  </ref> The answer to both lies in product [[design]] and consideration of [[user experience]].

For the confusing and misunderstood x, the answer is straightforward, but difficult: ''simplify'' them. This is a matter of not just language, but logical structure, though by simplifying language often convoluted logical structures become easier to see and therefore easier to fix. And while capital markets drafting is famously dreadful, there is emerging technologies that may help.  

Run your templates through a GPT-3 engine and ask it to simplify them. It almost certainly won’t be perfect and almost certainly will make errors, but ''it is free''. Checking for errors and running quality control is what ''you'' are there for. It will break the back of an otherwise impossible job.