But I think the root causes of the waiting hell above are rather implied by the way big companies organize their support organizations/processes than by just a system hang or (maybe) too many people called in sick that day.

One thing is the internal measurement companies use: if you check out their SLA (Support Level Agreements in the handbook/contract), you’ll usually find at least four levels of support:
0 – answering machines and automated systems/email/web
1 – a human being picking up to document your case (and to find a solution quick – if possible)
2 – if a solution was not found, hand the prob over to some more experienced supporters
3 – if all fails, and the customer still insists, get development involved

This is surely enacted in different ways depending on the type of product and support contract (at least as many as the selection of dressings for your salad in the states). I touched about 200 support organizations during the last years: what I found were the basics above.

Now comes the fun part: the vendors can not decide, where your problem fits in the above list. So almost everyone needs to do the walk of blame from 0 to 3 (depending on how much you are willing to spend your time and/or money).

There is something, someone might say: Every SLA talks about something called customer priority (or similiar: status, urgency, etc), something like this (most important being 1):
1 – product doesn’t work at all
2 – product has some more or less serious glitch, but is still running/working
3 – you would like to have the product changed

This list is usually much more complicated (as it also interconnects with multiple business processes), but again, the basics are simple as above.

You see something?
Yep: Your own importance (point of view) is mentioned nowhere…

What if you depend on a feature of your product that the vendor considers not so important?
Let’s think about HP (or Canon, if you may want): There are millions of printers running in the world, and the vendor doesn’t know anything about how important the documents are for you (that you just not get printed – this is why you are calling).

How could they, anyway? (that’s the vendor defence)

Well, I think, they could.

First, just forget the voice systems and put humans in front line again. I never have seen any automated system, that has the flexibility to collaboratively prioritize a problem of a real person. You need people.

Second, let’s train these people (meaning the vendor and also you, dear customer) to handle the first(!) call as fast as possible. Get the facts, fast and let the supporter sort them out (because he’s more experienced with the whole range of problems than any customer).

Third, and this is something I sometimes saw: stick to what you say and be true. So, the end for the first call would be the supporter saying: “I’ll be back to you in XY time. And even if I don’t have anything new, I will still call you and at least give you a new time (and maybe ask you some more questions)”

I personally think, people are disappointed, because their expectations are not set correctly.
This works for the supporter who wants to solve the problem and surely for the customer who has the problem.

If I think about how much business vendors loose with support just because they forget this… oh boy, I’d like a slice of that cookie! Plus, it’s not only the be-customer being pushed away to another vendors, but also the money lost because support can generate new business… (that’s another story:-).

Thanks for your time reading this
Volker

germany does not like war

cite: “I’ve come to realize that the nature of the German people are such that war is very abhorrent, that Germany is a country now that [...] just don’t like war.”

Right. Even as I am not a child of war, my parents started their life very inside the war (born in the 40s). So their life was defined not only by their parents but also by the great father war (“war is the father of everything”, a saying goes…). Well, that father actually left before they could grow up. Some might say he’s a coward sucker, but I’m glad about it. Some more items to say about GWB’s (George W Bush) quote, I keep’em short:

• this war is one thing, the other issue is the “morality” of nazis attached to a whole country, including its children (a.k.a. every German who lives today). I’m sick of it, but I also am willing to and should take it into my personal consideration.
• This stigma was known long before 9-11, long before the first gulf war, since the sixties at last. Suprising that some people still where surprised by our (election) decision…
• I’m glad that my VOW (view of the world) seems closer to GWB’s than I exptected

values

These are the values of George W Bush as I find them in the text:
Quotes – in order of appearance:

1. core beliefs: “my core beliefs — a belief that freedom is universal, or the belief that private markets work, a belief in ownership”
2. personal integrity: “I want to be able to leave this office with my integrity intact.”
3. free worshipping: “you should be able to worship freely”
4. faith supports values: “I happen to believe, for me at least, faith is one way to make sure that my values stay intact”

Absolutely nothing against them! I happily agree. But….

There might be some kinda question about how to handle people who have different core values. On this level of values, do really all people on the earth share these values? And if not: where do we take right to convert others to our values? One might like to take a look at how religions try that.

solving the war on terror

The president suggests two ways, I quote:

1. “One is to bring them to justice so they don’t harm people, which means we’ve got to be constantly on the offense, finding them where they hide and bringing them to justice.”
2. “And secondly, is that the way to defeat their hateful ideology is by the spread of liberty.”

Well, what exactly is liberty? Is what we think really sellable to non-western people? Again, I tend to say right in the first instance, but when thinking about completely different people and values… there is currently no language to communicate our values and comparing (or even weighing) them to other values.

war on … what?

The term used most often by GWB is war on terror. But he also states as the first goal of the “enemy” that [quote] “They want to spread their ideology throughout — starting in the Middle East.” [end quote].

I come more and more to the conclusion that there is really no war. At least not the type of war that was the father for everything. (Get me: I don’t like that term at all. The mother of everything is love. And she’s (a) longer in the game, (b) stronger in the long run and (c) less painful for everyone involved). The type of war GWB is talking about is a different one. From my uneducated, non-academic point of view, these are the differences compared to classical war:

• the goals are not shareable (it’s not about I want and and you want the same, let’s see who get’s it)
• the involved entities are new (at least for me: there are no states, no borders, no frontiers to fight about)
• instead, the goals are values and the right to execute/life them: the right of liberty on ‘our’ side, the right of condemnation on the ‘other’ side

But I don’t see any difference in the tactics and strategies to address this. All is about diplomacy (which is based on and grown up with classic war) and warfare.

To begin to change this, I use again GWB’s quote: “Any diplomatic solution requires agreement on the goal.” Well, his and my context are heavily different, but it’s a start:-)

learning from history

quote: “Our message there is, the Iranians have defied the world, and you’re now isolated.”

I’m concerned if this will work. Isn’t it the same strategy used against Iran that was used for Iraq (and many other evil states) before? Am I missing something here? Does pressure not create antipressure? Is isolation not the opposite of dialog (and thus of diplomacy)?

words…

That’s an intersting one. Two citations.

At the beginning: “We must understand words mean things to different people.”

Later: “I think that it’s very important for us to take his” [Iran's president] “words very seriously. When people speak, it is important that we listen carefully to what they say and take them seriously.”

The first one I adopt directly for myself, thanx for that. But the second one is missing the interpretation for different people. Here, I think, GWB takes his interpretation of importance and applies it to everyone of us (western people). Even if I interpret the words of Iran’s president the same way as you, I neglect someone telling me what they shall mean for me… Please remind also the next paragraph after the second quote: I wholeheartedly agree seeing that the threat of the words to Israel is to be taken seriously. But what are the Israelian words? How do they sound in the ears of others?

Mr. President, liebe BILD, thank you very much!

PS: I think I definitely missed some items, so please come in and comment….

The article of Anne reminded me on my own thoughts about all these technology discussions, projects learning new stuff and most of all the ever working promise of productivity increase¹.

Being a half-hearted technical person (no hacker at all) with some genes addicted to too much talking (a.k.a. sales), I worked ten years as a techrep within a sales force. Selling software to people who do software. That was fun. Mostly.

During that time, I found myself being more and more interested in process. Then organizations and how they behave and evolve. Then, finally, in people.

(even if I write about being dialectic and maybe, I find myself being quite fundamentalistic about the topic itself. Thus, I shorten the text condensating all IMHO rethoric: these are my very personal opinions and observations. But I still think, you might feel the same)²

meeting

Many might have made the experience of these sales meetings, where usually (depending on the vendor’s company size and how much people they need to keep busy) one to ten so called experts are sitting in front of you and present their so-called solution.

As a customer, why do you attend? Why are you listening at all?

If you stop thinking, it’s simply because you want to. Even if you are there because your manager told you so (you could always pretend to work on something more important). And why do you want to? Because you either feel technically curious about the topic or you might believe that it even can help you.

Why do you think, your manager would attend the meeting³?

Same reasons apply, only that the curiosity might be focused on other aspects of the meeting’s topics. For example productivity, because the better it is, the better she or he will be paid and/or the carreer might get a boost, too.

And after the meeting? “Thank you very much for your presentation. We will come back to you.” (you know what that means) or maybe “I’d like to try what you were telling us”. This is when it gets interesting, because now people want to change something (at least some test computers).

What leads up to the other golden bullet of selling: change is inevitable. I’ve given up counting how often Bob Dylan was cited in meetings I attended. Yeah, great. So what?

I think most people want to feel safe and secure. Especially in business culture. You consider carefully the personal risk involved in sky diving, but you probably will think even more about your career. This need is reflected on the other side of the table (the vendor’s side). It’s called: staying competent in the absence of knowledge⁴. The outcome of the dsicussion is Anne’s maybe: Maybe this works for you, dear customer. Maybe partially. Maybe not.

So why the hell maybe? Enter it depends, the diamond-bullet used as answer-everything for all consultants, insultants and all other people that the customer expects help from. Depend on what? On everyone involved. And on you. Being a customer, you’re either in the decision position or supposed to use that stuff they all bubble about.

In the end, the decision is “shall I pay/use it?” Or, how will my world become better if I do so? It is the heart of the maybe: born in everyone of us who are touched by this new technology or solution or product or whatever.⁵

deciding

You might remember one of your intersections in life. At one moment: business as usual, just go on. The next moment: wow. A new way. A new idea. Great stuff. For me the last escitement and change was blogging (all it’s wonderful technologies included). A new world opened.

It’s easy if you’re alone. It gets a hellofa complicated if more people are involved. It’s not myself alone anymore. Now the others need their wow, too.

Then the discussions start. Maybe committees are build, news forums start to fill up and reports are written. Then the decision is made. Let’s say we buy it. Why? Let’s again stop thinking: because the ones deciding believe they will do better paying that sack of money than not. Surely better is quite subjective and based on personal emotion.

I look at it this way: the decision is made quite early in the process. After that decision, the press department called reason takes up the tedious task of formulating the actual why. If I look honestly in myself, this is how I decide: 1. I want it, but really can’t explain why. 2. I start to look for understandable reasoning so that I can look in the mirror without feeling stupid. 3. If there are others involved, they need to understand or at least accept it, too. And finally 4. I get it and start using it.⁶

experting

Many decisions are not that easy. Sometimes the Personal Reasoning (or PR) sees too many hurdles in the way. It is too risky, it says. I need to ask someone else to make me feel save. Let’s ask the expert.

Well, what is an expert? Besides the fact that the expert needs to have the fitting knowledge, some good history and warfare experience (skars are sexy in that type of business) in the backpack, she or he needs to be foremost and always competent. Even if the technology of expertise is just a second old, without competence: no way.

Now imagine two experts (some PR really wants to be sure) enter the room. How do they compete? How do they get their kick and success? If they both agree on everything, how can the customer decide which way to go?

This is where being stubborn and religious and evangelistic comes into play. Only the competence won’t make the expert’s day. It’s also how sure she or he displays in front of the customers and how she or he sticks to his belief — you see that this leads to the absence of expertise in the wake of attitude.

If you feel like fighting on this battlefield of competence or observe others doing so, fanatism might occur soon. For the folks involved in the fight, the only way out of this is (a) to be honest about your own incompetence, (b) the willingness to learn every day and (c) the acceptance and interest that your opposite is in the same situation like you. Ah, and forget about attitude, if you can, because everything’s and always relative.

respecting

The cure for this socially accepted and expected fanatism lies in repect, time and trust. Give your opposite time to proove. Trust yourself to be adaptable. And after a while, if you still cannot decide, take the more risky path. People say “no risk, no fun”. Translated to business this can be extended to “no risk, no fun, no success”.

Notes

1. The myth of productivity diserves another post for itself. I find it astonishing that on the one side people rely heavily prefect forecasts and in the same moment believe amazing esoterical explanations about process improvement that promises to increase the forecasts. I will dance on my house’s roof if I find a process manager not raging when I say that you only the people are responsble for this. Process is what is done, not what is written or excel’d somewhere
2. I don’t know if this really works as English is not my mother language. The title is a sort of wordplay: (a) selling the things “maybe”, “maybe it depends” and “it depends” (choose the one you like) and (b) selling, maybe it depends (on what?:-) Comments helping me shaping that term are greatly appreciated.
3. The topic of a meeting is recursively endless. I myself had bad ones, good ones, hilarious ones and everything in between. Sums up to about … I dunno, maybe 1500 meetings. Sleeping attendees, snoring, yelling, fearsome, maybe all the types that you know. They have one thing in common: no one likes her or his time wasted. I found that fun usually is never a waste.
4. You never know all what your customer knows. And there’s always someone who is more knowledgeable than you in a spefic area. Actually that is good. Your customers are the best trainers you can get — that is, if you let them teach you.
5. I still prefer the term solution, even as overloaded it is already.
6. This is a very rough description. There’s so much more about going from want to use to get better. Test and evaluation, for example. Customization is another. In addition, the whole discussion might be useless: neuroligists found that our body sends nerve pulses to grip a glass of beer even before my conscience knows that I want to take a sip. — anyone who has some prooving links for that?

Dieser Artikel ist zweisprachig, zuerst die englische und dann die deutsche Version. Er basiert auf meinen Erfahrungen während der Überstzung von Paul Graham’s Essay (links zu den beiden Versionen siehe oben).

For those of you, who are bilingual enabled, you find a third version at the end, with each single paragraph first in english and then in german. Feel free to comment how I translated my own text:-)

ENGLISH

When translating a motivating text — and Paul’s essays are motivating — the vocabulary is is not the only problem, but more the intention. What reaction does the author want to imply within the reader?

When translating such a motivational text the translator inevitably will hit a cultural and emotional wall between the two languages. In Paul’s essay mentioned above these are especially the two terms big project and big work.

In the end it’s only the term big, if you treat “project” as the activity and “work” as the outcome (thus both being sometimes interchangeable). One, there is a german tendency to look negatively at everything ‘Great’ [being one meaning of big] which I think is based on the german experiences around WWII. On the other side the american word “big” has two more additional meanings than the german term “groß” [works also the other way: babylon reports for groß: big, large, adult, enormous, immense, huge, impressive, magnificent, splendid, wonderful, grande, great, important ) ].

A dictionary reports the following as possible translations of big: groß, wichtig; schwer; reichlich.
[these are the babylon translations for the other words:
wichtig: important, significant, serious, prominent
schwer: heavy, having a great weight, solid, massive, weighty; grave, serious, hard, difficult, big
reichlich: abundant, plentiful, copious, bounteous, unsparing; affluent, wealthy, rich, having an abundance of; luxurious; ample]
Other english words with similiar meaning are: large; important; adult, full-grown. The latter are quite similiar to German: “a great man” (spoken with appreciative eyebrow), or “the scissors are only for the big” (ones, says the mother to the child). But “groß” is not used to describe importance or difficulty — at least in my own personal vocabulary.

As translator, you need to choose the right meaning for the intention, depending on the context: is it more to focus on difficulty or on being succesful? Or is it more about the importance of the things you do?

So it becomes difficult to translate the above terms consistently — although they seem simple in the first place — and also keep the intention of the author (as far as you can interpret it). But with motivating texts this is the most important thing: the translated text needs to be more than original plus dictionary. The worthiness of only translating word by word can be observed when looking at the oucome of computer generated translations. Without the creativity of the translator, the magic of intention is lost.

But the translator’s creativity is also the greatest danger: to write down his own intention and falsifying or destroying the original intention.

I translate Paul’s essays having this in mind, hopefully I do well…

DEUTSCH

Beim Übersetzen eines motivierenden Textes — und nichts anderes sind die Essays von Paul Graham — ist nicht nur das Vokabular ein Problem, sondern auch die Intention. Was will der Autor mit dieser Formulierung im Leser bewirken?

Beim Übersetzen eines solchen motivierenden Textes stößt man unweigerlich an kulturelle und emotionale Mauern zwischen den Sprachen. Diese sind für mich in diesem Text vor allem die beiden Begriffe big project und big work.

Letztendlich ist es nur der Begriff big, wenn man “project” als die Tätigkeit und “work” als das Ergebnis (und damit auch teilweise vielleicht auch austauschbar) betrachtet. Neben der für uns Deutsche seit dem letzten Weltkrieg anhaftenden Tendenz, alles ‘Große’ negativ zu bewerten, verwenden (vor allem Bewohner der amerikanische Sprache) das Wort “big” mit zwei weiteren Annotationen als wir Deutsche den Begriff “groß”.

Ein Wörterbuch liefert als Übersetzung die folgenden Möglichkeiten: groß, wichtig; schwer; reichlich. Weitere englische Wörter mit ähnlichem Sinngehalt sind: large; important; adult, full-grown. Letztere ähneln dem Deutschen: ein großer Mann (mit anerkennender Augenbraue ausgesprochen), oder “die Scheren sind nur für die großen” (Menschen, sagt die Mutter zum Kind). Jedoch wird “groß” — jedenfalls in meinem persönlichen Wortschatz — nicht für die sinngemäße Beschreibung von Wichtigkeit oder Schwierigkeit verwendet.Als Übersetzer muß man die richtige Bedeutung für die Intention verwenden, abhängig vom Kontext: fokussiert der Autor eher auf die Schwierigkeit oder den Erfolg? Oder betont er die Wichtigkeit desssen, was man tut?
Damit wird es schwierig, die obigen scheinbar einfachen Begriffe konsistent zu übersetzen, und die (von mir vermutete) Intention des Autoren beizubehalten. Bei motivierenden Texten oder in Romanen ist das aber die wichtigste Sache: der übersetzte Text muß mehr als die Summe aus dem Original und dem Wörterbuch sein. Das Ergebnis einer solchen stupiden Addition kann man bei computergenerierten Übersetzungen bewerten. Ohne die Kreativität des Übersetzers geht die Magie der Intention verloren.Die Kreativität des Übersetzers ist aber auch die größte Gefahr: man schreibt die eigene Intention hin und verfälscht oder zerstört die ursprüngliche Intention.

Ich übersetze Paul Grahams Essays mit diesem Gedanken im Sinn, hoffentlich mach ich’s gut…

MIXED

When translating a motivating text — and Paul’s essays are motivating — the vocabulary is is not the only problem, but more the intention. What reaction does the author want to imply within the reader?

Beim Übersetzen eines motivierenden Textes — und nichts anderes sind die Essays von Paul Graham — ist nicht nur das Vokabular ein Problem, sondern auch die Intention. Was will der Autor mit dieser Formulierung im Leser bewirken?

————–

When translating such a motivational text the translator inevitably will hit a cultural and emotional wall between the two languages. In Paul’s essay mentioned above these are especially the two terms big project and big work.

Beim Übersetzen eines solchen motivierenden Textes stößt man unweigerlich an kulturelle und emotionale Mauern zwischen den Sprachen. Diese sind für mich in diesem Text vor allem die beiden Begriffe big project und big work.

————–

In the end it’s only the term big, if you treat “project” as the activity and “work” as the outcome (thus both being sometimes interchangeable). One, there is a german tendency to look negatively at everything ‘Great’ [being one meaning of big] which I think is based on the german experiences around WWII. On the other side the american word “big” has two more additional meanings than the german term “groß” [works also the other way: babylon reports for groß: big, large, adult, enormous, immense, huge, impressive, magnificent, splendid, wonderful, grande, great, important].

Letztendlich ist es nur der Begriff big, wenn man “project” als die Tätigkeit und “work” als das Ergebnis (und damit auch teilweise vielleicht auch austauschbar) betrachtet. Neben der für uns Deutsche seit dem letzten Weltkrieg anhaftenden Tendenz, alles ‘Große’ negativ zu bewerten, verwenden (vor allem Bewohner der amerikanische Sprache) das Wort “big” mit zwei weiteren Annotationen als wir Deutsche den Begriff “groß”.

————–

A dictionary reports the following as possible translations of big: groß, wichtig; schwer; reichlich.
[these are the babylon translations for the other words:
wichtig: important, significant, serious, prominent
schwer: heavy, having a great weight, solid, massive, weighty; grave, serious, hard, difficult, big
reichlich: abundant, plentiful, copious, bounteous, unsparing; affluent, wealthy, rich, having an abundance of; luxurious; ample]
Other english words with similiar meaning are: large; important; adult, full-grown. The latter are quite similiar to German: “a great man” (spoken with appreciative eyebrow), or “the scissors are only for the big” (ones, says the mother to the child). But “groß” is not used to describe importance or difficulty — at least in my own personal vocabulary.

Ein Wörterbuch liefert als Übersetzung die folgenden Möglichkeiten: groß, wichtig; schwer; reichlich. Weitere englische Wörter mit ähnlichem Sinngehalt sind: large; important; adult, full-grown. Letztere ähneln dem Deutschen: ein großer Mann (mit anerkennender Augenbraue ausgesprochen), oder “die Scheren sind nur für die großen” (Menschen, sagt die Mutter zum Kind). Jedoch wird “groß” — jedenfalls in meinem persönlichen Wortschatz — nicht für die sinngemäße Beschreibung von Wichtigkeit oder Schwierigkeit verwendet.

————–

As translator, you need to choose the right meaning for the intention, depending on the context: is it more to focus on difficulty or on being succesful? Or is it more about the importance of the things you do?

Als Übersetzer muß man die richtige Bedeutung für die Intention verwenden, abhängig vom Kontext: fokussiert der Autor eher auf die Schwierigkeit oder den Erfolg? Oder betont er die Wichtigkeit desssen, was man tut?
————–

So it becomes difficult to translate the above terms consistently — although they seem simple in the first place — and also keep the intention of the author (as far as you can interpret it). But with motivating texts this is the most important thing: the translated text needs to be more than original plus dictionary. The worthiness of only translating word by word can be observed when looking at the oucome of computer generated translations. Without the creativity of the translator, the magic of intention is lost.

Damit wird es schwierig, die obigen scheinbar einfachen Begriffe konsistent zu übersetzen, und die (von mir vermutete) Intention des Autoren beizubehalten. Bei motivierenden Texten oder in Romanen ist das aber die wichtigste Sache: der übersetzte Text muß mehr als die Summe aus dem Original und dem Wörterbuch sein. Das Ergebnis einer solchen stupiden Addition kann man bei computergenerierten Übersetzungen bewerten. Ohne die Kreativität des Übersetzers geht die Magie der Intention verloren.————–

But the translator’s creativity is also the greatest danger: to write down his own intention and falsifying or destroying the original intention.

I translate Paul’s essays having this in mind, hopefully I do well…

Die Kreativität des Übersetzers ist aber auch die größte Gefahr: man schreibt die eigene Intention hin und verfälscht oder zerstört die ursprüngliche Intention.

Ich übersetze Paul Grahams Essays mit diesem Gedanken im Sinn, hoffentlich mach ich’s gut…

wake up ears and mind

to let me in

walkabouts of mine

start in me

walk to you

Tumbling we
Walkabouts for others fate
We stop once a year
Lay back and begin to love

Trying we
Runarounds for our luck
We stop once a year
Stay back and see the other one’s

All nights we should belong
All nights we should agree
All night he is around
All nights we can set us free