Worst reasonable efforts: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Worst reasonable efforts (view source)

Revision as of 12:40, 14 November 2022

2,735 bytes added , 14 November 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,049

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|plainenglish|}}No-one can dress up a nonsense in finery like we [[Legal eagle|goshawks of the law]]: to “[[endeavour]]” is to embark with laudable commitment on an action worthy of a covenant; to “try”, not so much. And to volunteer liability for [[gross negligence]] is, from the muzzle end of the barrel, a promise not to be [[reckless]] in the service of one’s customers.
+{{a|contract|
+{{image|Worst reasonable efforts|png|}}
+}}
+Few can dress up nonsense in finery like we [[Legal eagle|eagles of the law]]: to “use [[endeavour|endeavours]]” is to embark upon an action worthy of a memorialisation by [[covenant]]; to “try”, not so much, despite being the same thing.
-And if we can commit to our best reasonable efforts — why not something less than that? How about our ''worst'' reasonable efforts? A [[cheapest-to-deliver]]; a clearance that leaves the bar jangling a-wobble, but not quite on the crash mat; the leave outside off that clips the stump but does not dislodge the bail.
+And a merchant who accepts responsibility only for her [[gross negligence]] promises little more than forbearance from outright [[recklessness]] in the performance of her bond. Yet counsel on either side (of the bargain; not the Atlantic!) nod along as if this is somehow all right.
-This is the operating theory of  most outsourcers. It is the villainy the [[service level agreement]] addresses: the knowledge that ones business model is predicated on the most naked minimum required, on a literal reading to satisfy the formal criteria of the contract.
+So it falls to us to ask: if one can sensibly commit to one’s “[[best reasonable efforts]]” — then why not something ''less'' than that? How about one’s ''worst'' [[Reasonable|reasonable efforts]]? A sort of [[cheapest-to-deliver]]; a high-jump clearance that leaves the bar a-wobble, but not quite on the crash mat; a leave outside off that brushes the stump but does not dislodge the bail.
-This is how for-profit insurers work, too, come to think of it: yes, true, we have a [[Uberrimae fidei|fiduciary obligation]], and we will if need be honour it, but not with any enthusiasm: we will do nothing in our power that we don’t absolutely have to do discharge it: we will delay, misdirect, ignore and quibble: we will lose your correspondence and raise spurious objections, in the hope of so sapping your will that you will not pursue your claim.
+It sounds like a satire; a gentle perversion of the basic premise of [[good faith]] commerce — all right, it ''is'' one of those — but still, it is the operating theory behind [[outsourcing]]. It is this precise villainy that the [[service level agreement]] addresses: the tacit knowledge that any organisation that sub-contracts services at scale measures its internal return by how close to the naked minimum requirements of its contract it can swoop without shipping formal complaint.
+The [[SLA]] recognises the service provider’s economic imperative to satisfy the literal criteria of a contract and not a whisker more, and purports to neutralise it, with a grisly intercessional catalogue of deadlines, quantities and auditable standards.
+“Worst reasonable efforts” is how for-profit [[insurance|insurers]] work, too, come to think of it, whose business model might have been formed by the following monologue:
+“we may have a [[Uberrimae fidei|fiduciary obligation]] and we will, if we really must, honour it — but not with any enthusiasm: we will do nothing in our power that we don’t absolutely have to: we will delay, ignore and quibble: we will lose correspondence, misdirect responses and at every turn raise spurious objections in the hope of so sapping your will to carry on that you won’t.”<ref>Why, by the way, aren’t mutual insurance companies, owned and run for the benefit of the insured, more of a thing? I have never understood this.</ref>
+We see “worst reasonable efforts” from organisations who know their captive customers have little realistic choice — banks, governments, insurers — and those — for example, mechanics —  who suppose they’ll not see the same customer again anyway, at least until the exasperation of its last encounter has mostly leeched away and especially, those which are a bit of both: low-cost airlines, car rental companies and ticket booking agencies.
+So we can giggle, but for much of our rubbish modern lives, ''worst'' reasonable efforts are what we can expect from our rubbish modern overlords whose whole model — the presentation of [[Premium mediocre|the mediocre as premium]] —  purport to deliver have sacrificed quality, bound and gagged, at the satanic altar of [[scale]].
+It is they that will send brusque emails from unmonitored accounts; they whose pre-recorded messages assures you your call is important and will be answered within the hour; they who ask you [[Net promoter score|how likely you are to recommend]] your [[HR]] department to your friends and family; they who add booking fees for a performances booked online; they who explain your disc brakes were worn, again, and needed replacing when you took the car in just to get the wipers fixed.
+And so we tolerate [[worst reasonable efforts]], each time taking mental notes for the forthcoming revolution, and trudge on, knowing deep down that the syrupy brown [[entropy]] with which the collected’s worst reasonable efforts have already doused the landscape scotches all hope of revolution ever catching fire.
+All right, I’ll hold.
 {{sa}}
+*[[Premium mediocre]]
+*[[Net promoter score]]
 *[[service level agreement]]
 *[[Gross negligence]]
 *[[Best reasonable efforts]]
 *[[Endeavour]]
+*[[Best efforts]]
+{{ref}}