83,045
edits
Template:Waiting: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:'''Make it ''shorter''''': the fewer words there are to read, the faster the client will read it. | :'''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> | :'''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: | *'''{{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; ' | :'''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”; | :'''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 | :'''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. <br> | '''Summary''': Most of your negotiation time is dead air. Fix that. <br> | ||