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….