82,891
edits
Playbook: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
===Example=== | ===Example=== | ||
For example: | For example, illustrated in the panel above: | ||
: | :A playbook stipulates starting position ''X'', but allows that if a customer of type B does not agree to ''X'', a satisfactory compromise may be found at ''Y''. | ||
:The playbook “empowers” the negotiator to offer ''Y'' without further permission. | :The playbook “empowers” the negotiator to offer ''Y'' — some way yet from any sort of reasonable market standard — without further permission. | ||
:Should | :Should customer B not agree to ''Y'', there must be an [[escalation]], to a junior risk officer, who may sanction a further derogation to ''Z —'' still unnecessarily conservative, but no longer laugh-out loud preposterous. The negotiator trots back to the customer with ''Z''. | ||
:Should customer 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 with escalation to sales people on either side, and if that doesn’t do the trick, senior relationship management will be wheeled in, who will cave instantly to the client’s demand and broker a craven surrender at position ''Q'', some way ''past'' anything remotely necessary or reasonable. | |||
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. | 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. | ||
But ''really''. | |||
=== Design and user experience === | === Design and user experience === | ||