The Jolly Contrarian

Playbook: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Playbook (view source)

Revision as of 14:31, 3 January 2023

1,266 bytes removed ,  3 January 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
A comprehensive set of guidelines, policies, rules and fall-backs for the [[legal]] and [[credit]] terms of a {{t|contract}} that you can hand to the itinerant [[school-leaver from Bucharest]] to whom you have off-shored your [[master agreement]] {{t|negotiation}}s.  
A comprehensive set of guidelines, policies, rules and fall-backs for the [[legal]] and [[credit]] terms of a {{t|contract}} that you can hand to the itinerant [[school-leaver from Bucharest]] to whom you have off-shored your [[master agreement]] {{t|negotiation}}s.  


She will need it because without it, she won’t have the first clue about the [[Subject matter expert|ISDA]] [[negotiation]]s, and will need to consult it to decide what do to should the counterparty object, as it certainly will, to the preposterous terms her [[risk controller|risk]] team has insisted go in the first draft of the {{t|contract}}.
She will need it because otherwise she won’t have the first clue what do to should the counterparty object, as it certainly will, to the preposterous terms your [[risk controller|risk]] team has insisted go in the first draft of the {{t|contract}}.


Playbooks derive from a couple of mistaken beliefs: one, that a valuable business process can be “solved” and run as an [[algorithm]],<ref>This is a bad idea. See {{author|Roger Martin}}’s {{br|The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage}}.</ref> and two, that, having been solved so that it no longer needs an expensive expert, it makes sense to have an ''in''expensive ''in''expert do it, rather than a machine.
A well-formed playbook ought, therefore, to be like assembly instructions for an Ikea bookshelf, except that Ikea bookshelves do not answer back.  


In most cases, using a machine is ''also'' a bad idea — just less bad than using a human.<ref>Assumption two in fact falsifies assumption one. If it really is mechanistic, there is no reason to have a costly, capricious human “helping to manage” — i.e., ''interfering in'' the process.</ref>
=== Triage ===
As far as they go, playbooks speak to the belief that ''the main [[risk]] lies in not following the rules'': they are of a piece with the [[doctrine of precedent]]:  go, until you run out of road, then stop and appeal to a higher authority. By triaging the onboarding process into “a large, but easy, boring bit” — which, in most cases, will be all of it — and “a small, but difficult, interesting bit”, playbooks aspire to “solve” that large, boring bit by handing it off to a school-leaver from Bucharest.  


=== Playbooks as “business as usual” ===
It should not, Q.E.D., need an expensive expert: just someone who can competently follow instructions and, if she runs out, ask for more. This is tilled, tended and fenced arable land: boundaries have been drawn, tolerances set, parameters fixed, risks codified and processes fully understood.  Thus, you maximise your efficiency when operating within a fully understood environment.  
Playbooks can handle “business as usual”: they map out the known world: tilled, tended, fenced, arable land upon whose fertile soil one will find no conundrums, mysteries or perplexities. Boundaries have been drawn, tolerances set, parameters fixed, risks codified and processes fully understood.


Playbooks maximise efficiency when operating within a fully understood environment. They are inhabited exclusively by [[known known]]s. They are like assembly instructions for an Ikea bookshelf, with the exception that Ikea bookshelves tend not to answer back.
=== Escalation ===
 
So, no [[playbook]] will ever say, “if the customer will not agree, do what you think is best.” All will say, “any deviations must be approved by [[litigation]] and at least one [[Credit]] officer of at least C3 rank.”
As far as they go, playbooks speak to the belief that ''the main [[risk]] lies in not following the rules'': they are of a piece with the [[doctrine of precedent]]: when you run out of road, you must appeal to a higher authority.
 
So no [[playbook]] will ever say, “if the counterparty will not agree, do what you think is best.” All will say, “any deviations must be approved by [[litigation]] and at least one [[Credit]] officer of at least C3 rank.”


Thus you [[escalation|escalate]] to a [[control function]], the idea being that the [[control function]] will further develop playbook to deal with each new situation, the same way the [[common law]] courts do — ''[[stare decisis]]'' — and will feed its decision down into the playbook of established [[process]].<ref>This rarely happens in practice. [[Control function]]s make ''[[ad hoc]]'' exceptions to the process, do not build them into the playbook as standard rules, meaning that the [[playbook]] has a natural sogginess (and therefore inefficiency).</ref> In practice, this does not happen because no-one has any time or patience for playbooks.
Thus you [[escalation|escalate]] to a [[control function]], the idea being that the [[control function]] will further develop playbook to deal with each new situation, the same way the [[common law]] courts do — ''[[stare decisis]]'' — and will feed its decision down into the playbook of established [[process]].<ref>This rarely happens in practice. [[Control function]]s make ''[[ad hoc]]'' exceptions to the process, do not build them into the playbook as standard rules, meaning that the [[playbook]] has a natural sogginess (and therefore inefficiency).</ref> In practice, this does not happen because no-one has any time or patience for playbooks.


===Playbooks, design and user experience===
===Example===
Bearing in mind a playbook uses fixed instructions to delegate administrative tasks to unskilled personnel, it only works within normal operating conditions. As long as clients are predictable, and compliant, all will be well.
For example:  
 
For example:


:Risk Control Department A has stipulated starting position ''X'', but allows that if Client B does not agree to ''X'', a satisfactory compromise may be found at ''Y''.  
:Risk Control Department A has stipulated starting position ''X'', but allows that if Client B does not agree to ''X'', a satisfactory compromise may be found at ''Y''.
:The playbook accordingly “empowers” the negotiator to offer ''Y'' without resorting to A for permission. Only if Client B should not agree to ''Y'' will there be an [[escalation]], back to Risk Control Department A who may sanction a further derogation from ''X'' to ''Z''.  
:The playbook accordingly “empowers” the negotiator to offer ''Y'' without further permission. If Client B should not agree to ''Y'' will there be an [[escalation]], back to department A, who may sanction a further derogation to ''Z''. The negotiator trots back to the client with ''Z''.  
:Should Client A not accept ''Z'' either, there will then follow an extended firefight between risk personnel representing either organisation — albeit conducted through their uncomprehending negotiation personnel in Bucharest — which will culminate at final agreement at position ''Z'''.
:Should Client A not accept ''Z'' either, there will follow an extended firefight between risk personnel from either organisation — conducted through their uncomprehending negotiation personnel — which will culminate at final agreement at position ''Q''.


By codifying this process, so the argument goes, not only may we engage materially cheaper negotiation personnel, but we effectively triage our clients and improve our systems and controls over the previous process, whereby the onboarding team just made it up as they went along.
By codifying this process, so the argument goes, not only may we engage materially cheaper negotiation personnel, but we can triage our clients and improve our systems and controls.


We have certainly added to our systems and controls; no doubt about that.
=== Design and user experience ===
We have certainly ''added to'' our systems and controls; no doubt about that.


But look at this from above: only positions ''X'' through ''Z'' are in codified. Risk personnel still had to improvise to make the key decision, ''Z'''. The playbook, and all those wonderful systems and controls, were in play only for a portion of the negotiation between ''X'' and ''Y'', being a position a mile behind what turned out to be the front line.   
But look at this from above: only positions ''X'' through ''Y'' are codified. Risk still had to improvise to make the key decision, ''Q''. The playbook, and all those wonderful systems and controls, were in play only between ''X'' and ''Y'', which turned out to be a mile behind what the front line.   


No doubt this will generate copious [[management information and statistics]] with which middle management can regale their superiors with Gantt charts, [[dashboard]]s and [[traffic lights]] about the negotiation process. But all these gears are involved, and all all the systems is running over the uninteresting part of the process.  
No doubt this will generate copious [[management information and statistics]] with which managers can regale their superiors with assorted [[Gantt chart|Gantt charts]], [[dashboard]]s and [[traffic lights]]. But all these gears are engaged, and all the systems and controls are running, ''over the boring bit'' of the process.  


At a cost: gathering all this data occupies working days and takes time: 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.
And, at a cost: following this byzantine process and gathering this data over the boring part of the exercise occupies personnel and takes time: negotiation for ''all'' clients takes longer, and the gears, rules and triage are ''not'' engaged exactly the data set might get interesting: the exceptions.


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 respect for our friends in Romania, your new clients would prefer to be hand-held by a salesperson in London than a school leaver in a call centre in Bucharest.<ref>Granted, in this day and age, your client is almost certainly housing its negotiation probability out of a call centre in Bucharest, too. </ref>
The conundrum: since we know our walk-away position is Z (and, at a push, Q) why are we starting at X? Why expend effort mechanising an area of the battlefield behind your opponent’s lines which you have no realistic expectation of occupying?


=== Form and substance ===
=== Form and substance ===
Line 76: Line 72:
Why deliberately aggravate your clients just for the opportunity to [[performative]]ly climb down at the first objection? How does that create a better impression (off-market, disorganised, weak) than presenting a clear, coherent and fair document in the first place?
Why deliberately aggravate your clients just for the opportunity to [[performative]]ly climb down at the first objection? How does that create a better impression (off-market, disorganised, weak) than presenting a clear, coherent and fair document in the first place?
===[[Legaltech]] as enabler of sloppy thinking===
===[[Legaltech]] as enabler of sloppy thinking===
And here is where the great promise to legaltech stumbles. It offers the capacity to do clerical jobs faster. It opens the door to infinite variability, optionality, within your standard forms. Tech can now accommodate any complications in your standard forms that you can be bothered dreaming up.  
And here is where the great promise to LegalTech stumbles. It offers the capacity to do clerical jobs faster. It opens the door to infinite variability, optionality, within your standard forms. Tech can now accommodate any complications in your standard forms that you can be bothered dreaming up.  


''You do not want compllination''
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Process]]
*[[Process]]
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/70373"