Old-Problems, New-Reasons !

There is a vast difference between the two phrases; 

One; Old-Problems-New-Reasons and, 

Two; Old-Problems-Old-Causes or Old-Problems-New-Causes.

Former reflects upon the attitude towards solving problems. 

The latter pertains to the approach towards solving problems.

Same pothole on same footpath, same time of the day, but on a different day ... a different pedestrian falls and gets injured! 

Same municipal officer gives a different reason for the same (fall in the pothole) problem instead of uprooting its causes! This reflects upon the attitude towards solving problems. 

Take another recurring problem: 

Bottleneck due to garbage thrown around the same spot (Gemba) on road causing traffic jam almost every day. 

'Crying' people, both the affected (customers) as well as the problem-solvers (from supplier-side), react with different excuses in order to 'reason out' the same old problem although it recurs due to same old causes.

Problem-solvers with positive approach, instead, dive deep in order to objectively analyse and quickly act upon the corresponding findings. They don't rest until they find out the causes of the recurrence of old causes or occurrence of new causes, if any. 

They ask 'why' the cause recurred .. 'why' it got repeated. 

They do this why-why until the root causes are unearthed and eliminated. This approach is about taking a corrective action, which is supposed to prevent recurrence of the problem. 

Preventive approach to dive deep into locating additional opportunities elsewhere in order to prevent occurrence itself of similar problems due to similar causes is called as proactivity! Problem-solvers with positive attitude and proactive approach do this!

Presumption in the latter exercise is that the proactivity of previous researchers might have had limitations in adequately predicting occurrence of the problems, the failure modes thereof as well as possible errors.

Both the proactive and preventive approaches warrant the problem solvers: One, to be time bound in executing appropriate actions and two, to review them in order to prevent those causes from recurring by installing error-proof (Pokayoke Kaizen) mechanisms; both with a sense of urgency!

Isn't it good then not to be among the people giving New-Reasons for Old-Problems with Old-Causes: the Foolish Behaviour quadrant!

Also read a few relevant blogposts hereunder:

Prevention: The Best Cure! ... Is it really so?
Treat Root-causes, Not Symptoms !
When Safety Becomes Sorry 
Drove To Hell ... Almost !  
WOW Work-Culture: By Telling or Selling 
Take Habits For A Ride 
How Many Times Do You Wash Hands
In a Problem?: No Problem ! Dwell A While !!
Part-1
In-big-problem? Wear-hats-to-solve-it! Part-2
How To Make A Difference
Big-Be Or Bug-Be !
A Ride To Hell
Make checklists your friends
Nauseous Communication Gaps
Do You Cleanup-After-Crisis
Raam or Krishna-Shyam: Tell me Hey Raam!
Will It Work Here? 
That's How Morons Work
You seem Reasonable if you appear Un-reasonable
Smart-Moron Who Breaks Your Glass 
Wish To Be Planet-Friendly?: Save! 
Waste-to-eat-sea-to-drink
Don't Save Water on Holi-day
Be Shame-less Or Water-less

Cons In The Market

The cell number as in attached screenshot called me today. The conversation went on as follows.

"Calling from ICICI verification department.
You're holding credit card. ICICI has stopped reward scheme. So you will be issued a fresh credit-card that you'll receive in a couple of weeks OK?"

I asked him how could ICICI make such a change unilaterally? That too merely on phone? ICICI should've sent at least a mail to me, I told him.

I warned him off taking this up with their consumer department if he sends credit-card without following some adequate procedure.

Immediately on this communication the caller disconnected phone.

His behavior reinforced my suspicion about the caller being a con-marketeer.

An example of over-smartness used for Market Penetration with wrong ethics, at wrong place with wrong person. It's worth learning how innovatively he used a close-ended question ending saying "OK?"

I may be wrong though. So in order to verify/validate my contention, I forwarded this letter to their customer.care department.

Also read a few relevant blogposts hereunder:

Do you keep curing your brand ? 
A customer gets what s/he deserves: Shoddy Quality ! 
Listen to iceberg of VOC to acquire customers
Do You Force Customers To Quit
Do you exercise your choice meaningfully 
Do You Ask Right Questions ? 

Who Comes First: Consumer Or Customer ?

Other day in one of my sessions, the marketing staff complained about (false) sale of some products. The goods sold by the company a couple of years ago were still lying in near-unpacked condition at buyer's end. The new staff at their client company appeared non-cooperative when the seller approached to effect a new sale.

The objective of the training workshop was to improve sales revenue. The case under study turned out to be one of a wrong-sale.

Why were the goods lying in near-unpacked condition for so long?

Because the user didn't find it fit-for-use.

Why?
Because the order was finalized by purchase manager without adequate involvement of the end-user.

What had happened was the seller knew the purchase manager who happened to have 'influence' on closing the deal. So he used his relationship to materialise the order.

In the process the real user got ignored.

Not only does ego of the user gets hurt due to such indifference but also some opportunities get lost.

Opportunity to understand real needs: the voices of grassroot level customers.
Opportunity to design-in such voices in order to make the offering robust.
Opportunity to outdo competition through customized offering.
Opportunity to enhance relationship.
Opportunity to create 'word-of-mouth' publicity advocates reinforced through delightful experience of the offering.

All this loss at the cost of loss of future business.

Buyer's management might succeed in forcing the end-user to use bought goods particularly if it's a costly capital equipment. But such forceful 'selling' calls for some long-term Costs-Of-Poor-Quality (COPQ): Costs due to reluctance to use. Costs of wrong use. Costs due to inadequate serving of purpose. Costs of sour relationships among people within and without.

All this waste because of overselling or inadequate selling.

What's the learning?

Understand the difference between Consumer and Customer! End-user of the pen or pencil, the child for instance, is the consumer. Buyer, the parents, are the customer.

Consider the voice of consumer regarding functional use (her needs) first while designing an offering.

Do consider the voice of customer as well in order to design-in peripheral aspects of the offering as well as nuts and bolts of the corresponding buying process: the wants.

Sometimes however the role of consumer as well of the customer may be played by the same personality.

In any case, she might take presence of both the needs and wants for granted as a 'must'. But the seller/marketeer can't afford to because the absence of both surely won't be taken for granted individually nor jointly by both the consumer as well as the customer.

Also read a few relevant blogposts hereunder:

Aesthetics Spills-Over Function, Want Spills-Over Need (Part-1)
Aesthetics Spills-Over Function, Want Spills-Over Need (Part-2)
Functional-Aesthetics
WOW Work-Culture: By Telling or Selling
How To Make A Difference
Nauseous Communication Gaps
Judge If It's Paralysis-By-Analysis
Suggestions On-Sale, None-To-Buy
Taken-For-Granted ? You Deserve It !!
Strategise To Achieve Targets Daily
Does recognition really matter
Customer or Custo-Mer ? 
Experienced A Delightful Payment !
An Experience of Heart-and-Soul
Do you keep curing your brand ? 
A customer gets what s/he deserves: Shoddy Quality! 
Listen to iceberg of VOC to acquire customers
Do You Force Customers To Quit
Should one care for value ? 
Treat Root-causes, Not Symptoms !
Do You Ask Right Questions ? 
Talk In Order To Listen! 

Judge If It's Paralysis-By-Analysis

A mother instructs her child not to run too fast, not to run outside the given track in the garden, not to run without sports shoes, etc. etc.

She'd seen the child injuring herself earlier in absence of observing the discipline of 'not-to' such as above.

Another mother sitting next to her appeared appreciative. She didn't hesitate to share her experience of how her non-observant son had damaged his hamstring muscles irreversibly. She was concerned that her son had been living with the pain since years.

The pathological and clinical tests, investigations, analysis and treatments are now companion for the lifetime, she said.

Question is, is the former approach, the 'nagging' one, correct?

Obviously, but not so obviously!

Former approach can be called as judgemental based on seed-stage deviations that probably were thought to lead to major deviations or crises if not kept under check. It's about commonsensical risk management.

Latter one, the one that involved accidents and treatments, is an analytical approach that reactively analyses major deviations already occurred.

Former one is based on real-time (genjitsu) observations of real-facts-and-conditions of things and people (gembutsu) at the real-place of happening (gemba).

Latter one usually needs extensive analysis. At times it leads to 'paralysis-by-analysis' that necessitates intervention of judgement in order to unlock the tie and move ahead.

Former approach is easy, fast and proactive although seems to appear like 'nagging'. Of course it is expected to incorporate factual learnings from past.

The latter is difficult, time-consuming and reactive one. It's usually a post-mortem that often necessitates involvement of specialist agencies. Most often it results into repentance of irreversible damage and costs.

Importance of structured analysis however can't be undermined particularly if it's for exploratory or descriptive research in order to study cause-effect relationship of an hypothesis on an observed phenomenon in real-time (genjitsu) or for future innovations.

Also read a few relevant blogposts hereunder:

Prevention: The Best Cure! ... Is it really so?
Treat Root-causes, Not Symptoms !
When Safety Becomes Sorry
Drove To Hell ... Almost ! 
WOW Work-Culture: By Telling or Selling
Take Habits For A Ride
How Many Times Do You Wash Hands
In a Problem?: No Problem ! Dwell A While !!
Part-1
In-big-problem? Wear-hats-to-solve-it! Part-2
How To Make A Difference
Big-Be Or Bug-Be !
A Ride To Hell
Make checklists your friends
Nauseous Communication Gaps
Do You Cleanup-After-Crisis
Raam or Krishna-Shyam: Tell me Hey Raam!
Will It Work Here? 
That's How Morons Work
You seem Reasonable if you appear Un-reasonable
Smart-Moron Who Breaks Your Glass 
Wish To Be Planet-Friendly?: Save! 
Waste-to-eat-sea-to-drink
Don't Save Water on Holi-day
Be Shame-less Or Water-less

Talent-Is-Latent: Enable It!

Business of the company that I went to assess was driven by research and development (R&D), high obsolescence of products and uniquely varying needs of customers.

High customisation was the order of the day. That in turn called for high level of customer contact and listening skills in order to capture voice of customer (VOC) precisely. This obviously calls for leadership skills to get it made in-house and get delivered before competition could do.

The need may appear unique to the company. But this in fact is the order of the day for most suppliers given the ever dynamic market place characterised by VUCA¹ and high level of competition.

While CEO of the company was keen to improve business processes to help retain their position externally, simultaneous concern was about 'attrition' he had been facing. Recently 'bought' talent also left, he complained.

Won't the training go waste under such circumstances, he feared.

Between the trained people leaving and untrained ones living (with you) for ever with their errors to annoy you, what is better?

Education, training and coaching builds people. Between 'Building' relevant skills captively versus installing 'Bought' skills as a foreign particle, what is preferable?

Companies need to understand that building pipelines of people is no less important alongside building the pipelines of products. In fact the former should be their prime agenda.

Why do people quit?
Especially those with high aspirations definitely do.

In fact, those without aspirations too move in absence of a conducive environment to hold them back. One of the major reasons of the other party leaving is indifferent treatment be it to people in general or to a customer in particular. 

So one of the most important portfolios of the CEO is not to leave HRD² to HR-D (HR-Department). Instead, creating culture that 'compels' people to stay back should be her hands-on agenda driven personally.

One can't ignore the fact that even seemingly dumb people have intelligence, so-called average though. It usually stays latent or dormant until challenged.

Leaving aside their own ego, superiors just need to facilitate unleashing it by making them feel confident and help them to realise their self-worth. They just need to be given an opportunity and a platform to shine. This can be done by encouraging them to express their thoughts, experiment corresponding changes in their work area without fear-of-failure.

It's a process of enabling³ people.

Once done, latent talent can be seen flowering and flowing-in smoothly. The pipeline of HRD can be seen getting 'built' that not only ensures employee retention but also creates a pull.

How to enable³ people?

First of all collect (Not Buy!) people who have fire-in-their-belly although with not-very-high aspirations and high-qualifications. Then enable³ them step-by-step. 

Step-1. Establish your credibility by demonstrating your actions on what you speak.

Step-2. Explain your expectations from them. Communicate your urgency and seriousness through complimentary evidences.

Step-3. Educate, train and coach them.

Education is to help them acquire goal specific knowledge.
Training is to help them acquire goal specific and industry-relevant, organisation-specific skills.
Coaching is to help them on 'Do-Why' and 'Do-How' in order to apply the knowledge and skills to enthusiastically achieve the goals of common good.

Step-4. Encourage, inspire & motivate to keep them engaged in the process. Give them a platform to showcase their talent and to shine.

Step-5. Empower them: Give them freedom-within-a-framework to experiment without fear of failures.

Step-6. Ennoble, means dignify them with high respect. Recognize & reward their achievements by actively listening to their efforts.

Step-7. Repeat the enablement cycle to take up higher challenges.

'Building' people rather than 'Buying' them is in a true sense creating a learning organisation as companies like Toyota do. It's their company level strategy driven by the top rather than merely a HRD² strategy left to the HR-D.

Footnotes:
1. VUCA: Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous. A term of military origin that represents warfare environment.
2. HRD: Human Resource Development.
3. Model 7-E© from Book "How To Enable A Change Process? Start-From-Self". Author: Shyam Talawadekar.

Also read a few relevant blogposts hereunder: Please do consider leaving a comment or sharing this post.

Taken-For-Granted ? You Deserve It !!
Strategise To Achieve Targets Daily
Does recognition really matter
IQ-EQ-or-SQ: What-is-more-important?
Do you know a Best-Career-Plan
Take your career in fast lane!
Succession-Plans In Fast Lane! 
Treat Root-causes, Not Symptoms !
Nauseous Communication Gaps
Do You Cleanup-After-Crisis
Raam or Krishna-Shyam: Tell me Hey Raam!
Will It Work Here? 
Some Moron ! Some Great !!!  
That's How Morons Work
You seem Reasonable if you appear Un-reasonable
Smart-Moron Who Breaks Your Glass 
WOW Work-Culture: By Telling or Selling
Suggestions On-Sale, None-To-Buy
Can-changing-thoughts-change-a-nation
Ridiculous Poison-culture versus Maverick Kaizen-culture
Tolerate Once, Twice, Thrice?
Make checklists your friends 
Make It Simpler, Rest Will Follow
How To Make A Difference
Big-Be Or Bug-Be !
A customer gets what s/he deserves: Shoddy Quality!
Listen to iceberg of VOC to acquire customers

Do You Force Customers To Quit

Insurance policy of both my car and scooter was about to expire.

I'd sold off the scooter. So when my insurance agent called me to renew it's policy, I ignored it saying the new owner will take care of it.

After a couple of weeks, when my car went for road tax payment I realised that it's insurance policy had expired. Actually my insurance agent did call me to renew car's policy but I'd inadvertently ignored his reminder thinking it was for the 'sold scooter'.

Red-tape that followed was inevitable. The procedure explained to me by the insurance agent was:

Take the scooter to the insurance company.
They'll inspect it before issuing the policy
They'll charge fine for 'discontinuation'.

Making the job 3D: Dirty-Danger-Difficult for the customer. 

While the insurance agent refused to followup with the company, the road tax agent came to my rescue saying "don't worry". May be the former was lacking motivation due to 'smallness' of business while the latter was interested in acquiring a new customer: Market development strategy as the jargon goes in management world! Theory of relativity!

The road tax agent got the insurance done from another company. Everything home delivered at just ten percent charge of the total official receipt amount.

In fact the policy issued by the competitor was priced at almost thirty percent discount.

The indifferent procedure of the previous insurance company and the behavior of it's agent (the first touch-point as it's brand ambassador) to take the customer for granted costed them business.

The Cost-Of-Poor-Quality (COPQ) to them was not only the loss of business but also a permanent loss of customers. I said loss of customers because bad-mouth publicity by every dissatisfied customer takes away more than one potential ones.

What's the learning?

More than the hard quality itself of your offering, it's the lack of soft quality, your indifference, that forces customers to call it a Quit!

So better to be-aware of behavior!!

Also read a few relevant blogposts hereunder:

In-a-problem ? No-problem! Dwell-a-while!
Customer or Custo-Mer ? 
Experienced A Delightful Payment !
An Experience of Heart-and-Soul
Do you keep curing your brand ? 
A customer gets what s/he deserves: Shoddy Quality! 
Listen to iceberg of VOC to acquire customers
Less With More And More Gets Sore
Should one care for value ? 
Can-changing-thoughts-change-a-nation
Ridiculous Poison-culture versus Maverick Kaizen-culture
Tolerate Once, Twice, Thrice? 
The Business Of Businesses
That's how some business partnerships work
Taken-For-Granted ? You Deserve It !!
Strategise To Achieve Targets Daily
Does recognition really matter
That's How Morons Work
Simplicity Of Theory Of Relativity

Not So 'Raddi' Business Model

'Raddi' is a common term used in India for scrap papers that include newspapers. As a slang when someone says it's 'Raddi' it means it's rubbish.

But the business of buying-n-selling 'Raddi' itself isn't 'Raddi'. It's actually an evergreen business flourishing with an enhanced focus on Reuse-Recover-Recycle (3R).

With varying rates in various seasons, in monsoon it fetches the least price.

Like each business has it's tricks, the 'Raddi' fellow has not so 'Raddi' tricks in his Business Model. Can you spot one in the picture?

Leaning the 'Raddi' against legs: The trick is to support it so that it weighs less than actual.

He buys at ten (10) bucks per kilogram and sells at fifteen (15).
You think he makes five bucks profit per kilogram.
Gross profit of fifty (50%).

Wait a minute! There's something more to it.
The weight 'shown' to you on scale: ten (10) kilogram is false.
If you ask him not to lean the 'Raddi' against body, his trick number-one gets preempted.
Ask him not to hold the weigh-scale by two hands. Trick number-two gets preempted.

Minus his creative innovations (the tricks), same 'Raddi' weighs twelve (12) kilogram.
'Tricky' bonus of a cool twenty percent i.e. (12-10 means) two-kilogram extra material or 0.20 per Kg that fetches him rupees three extra.
So the 'real' profit is five bucks plus 'tricky' bonus of three bucks.

Earning eight (8) bucks over ten (10).
Gross profit of eighty percent (80%) almost.

Not very difficult maths.

'Raddi' Business, but not so 'Raddi' Business Model though!

Of course with an unethical side to it that's unacceptable!!

Also read a few relevant blogposts hereunder:  Please do consider leaving a comment or sharing this post.

Ridiculous Poison-culture versus Maverick Kaizen-culture
Tolerate Once, Twice, Thrice?
That's how some business partnerships work
Taken-For-Granted ? You Deserve It !!
Take Habits For A Ride
That's How Morons Work
You seem Reasonable if you appear Un-reasonable
Smart-Moron Who Breaks Your Glass 
Do You Ask Right Questions? 
The Business Of Businesses
Business Eco-rgonomics