82,891
edits
Template:Waiting: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
How do these waiting periods arise? Well, it’s not hard to understand. | How do these waiting periods arise? Well, it’s not hard to understand. | ||
*'''{{wasteprov|Waiting}} on the client''': The [[negotiation]] process requires client input. {{wasteprov|waiting}} on that is largely but not entirely outside your control — if the client doesn't read emails, there’s only a certain number of polite, passive aggressive reminders before you just have to shut up and wait.<ref>But see {{wasteprov|overproduction}} — a client who isn't answering your emails is disinclined — or maybe isn’t under that much pressure — to respond to you. What does this say about how much it values your business? Is that really the million buck prospect?</ref> But let’s say the client ''is'' looking at the document: the ''shorter'', ''easier'' and ''less objectionable'' your document is, the faster the client’s review, all other things being equal,and the faster it will come back ''and with fewer comments''. Each comment requires action and implies more waiting. Right? | *'''{{wasteprov|Waiting}} on the client''': The [[negotiation]] process requires client input. {{wasteprov|waiting}} on that is largely but not entirely outside your control — if the client doesn't read emails, there’s only a certain number of polite, passive aggressive reminders before you just have to shut up and wait.<ref>But see {{wasteprov|overproduction}} — a client who isn't answering your emails is disinclined — or maybe isn’t under that much pressure — to respond to you. What does this say about how much it values your business? Is that really the million buck prospect?</ref> But let’s say the client ''is'' looking at the document: the ''shorter'', ''easier'' and ''less objectionable'' your document is, the faster the client’s review, all other things being equal,and the faster it will come back ''and with fewer comments''. Each comment requires action and implies more waiting. Right? | ||
So, how to make your client documents easier and less objectionable? '''Make it ''shorter''''': the fewer words there are to read, the faster the client will read it. '''Make it ''nicer''''': Don’t include terms you don’t ''really'' need.<ref>See {{over-processing}}.</ref> Do you really need that [[NAV trigger]]? Before you say yes, ask yourself, ''“how many times have I ever actually used a [[NAV trigger]]?”''<ref>The answer you will get is “I have absolutely no idea because we don’t keep data on that.” The actual answer, for the fiendishly interested, is ''never''.</ref> | :So, how to make your client documents easier and less objectionable? | ||
*'''{{wasteprov|Waiting}} on an internal [[escalation]]''': Eventually the client replies, and it doesn’t like that [[NAV trigger]]. Per policy, you must escalate this to [[Credit]] team. This involves composing and sending an email, then {{wasteprov|waiting}} for [[credit]] to reply.<ref>[[Credit]] will, eventually, be fine with dropping the [[NAV trigger]] — see {{wasteprov|over-processing}}.</ref> That is a 15 sec decision, but it will take 24 hours (on a good day) to achieve. Reduce this wait time (and improve data control) by: '''Standardising terms''' to pre-approve obvious giveaways empowering negotiators to approve common points of contention; ''' | :'''Make it ''shorter''''': the fewer words there are to read, the faster the client will read it. | ||
:'''Make it ''nicer''''': Don’t include terms you don’t ''really'' need.<ref>See {{Wasteprov|over-processing}}.</ref> Do you really need that [[NAV trigger]]? Before you say yes, ask yourself, ''“how many times have I ever actually used a [[NAV trigger]]?”''<ref>The answer you will get is “I have absolutely no idea because we don’t keep data on that.” The actual answer, for the fiendishly interested, is ''never''.</ref> | |||
:'''[[Talk, don’t email]]''': You ''guarantee'' some {{wasteprov|waiting}} time if you email with your comments and questions. If you pick up the phone, you just might clear the questions on the spot. | |||
*'''{{wasteprov|Waiting}} on an internal [[escalation]]''': Eventually the client replies, and it doesn’t like that [[NAV trigger]]. Per policy, you must escalate this to [[Credit]] team. This involves composing and sending an email, then {{wasteprov|waiting}} for [[credit]] to reply.<ref>[[Credit]] will, eventually, be fine with dropping the [[NAV trigger]] — see {{wasteprov|over-processing}}.</ref> That is a 15 sec decision, but it will take 24 hours (on a good day) to achieve. Reduce this wait time (and improve data control) by: | |||
:'''Standardising terms''' to pre-approve obvious giveaways empowering negotiators to approve common points of contention; ' | |||
:'''Recalibrating standards''' to reduce the gap between “starting offer” and “walkaway point”; | |||
:'''Standardising the escalation process''' to capture [[metadata]] about variations from the requested terms | |||
*'''[[Talk, don’t email]]''': See above. Same principle. | |||
'''Summary''': Most of your negotiation time is dead air. Fix that. | '''Summary''': Most of your negotiation time is dead air. Fix that. <br> | ||