I'm transferring blog posts below from another service.
Before getting into the discussion below from 2009, I'm clarifying why retail processes are important.
You need superior service to compete with discount stores.
Sometimes, people choose businesses based on confidence. You should inspire confidence by using knowledge & systems to guide people to select the best options. When people get their expected results, they'll have confidence to buy from you again.
As you increase your reputation, you'll be more persuasive when you advertise.
Use a solid reputation & statistics to persuade people to buy solutions instead of wishfully thinking they'll avoid problems. Tell people what'll happen without your offers to solve, mitigate & prevent problems. Explain how you reduce customers' risks more than discount stores.
Make Your Business More Successful With Policies, Plans & Procedures
Chet Holmes advised using 3 Ps: policies, plans & procedures to make businesses successful. A major reason for using 3 Ps is optimizing business practices.
Those 3 Ps have various purposes & definitions. Now I'm focusing on producing value for customers.
Policy: Deciding which results are valuable & requiring actions to produce & offer those results
Plan: Organizing actions & resources to fulfill policy requirements
Procedure/Process: Steps to fulfill plans
When you develop optimal processes, you can avoid mistakes by using the same steps. You can produce quick, consistent results with smooth practiced processes, instead of making things up each time.
Well-practiced processes become subconscious routines & increase in effectiveness & efficiency.
Subconscious routines use less energy than conscious thoughts, so you can reduce stress & fatigue with processes.
Steps in developing & finishing sales efforts are processes: order & store inventory, design ads & displays, then serve customers when they respond.
You can use processes to show customers how to use products to produce & maintain results.
Acquiring Processes
This discussion (below) started with the issue of nascent processes.
Refined processes become nascent when they're used in a different environment.
It can be hard to determine if processes will fully satisfy a purpose until they're refined. So, you might need to keep nascent processes separate until you're finished testing.
You can acquire processes by: 1) hiring employees or consultants; 2) buying businesses; 3) observation & 4) reading case studies.
When you audition processes, you should consider these issues:
Which results did the processes originally produce?
Do those results fit customers' current conditions?
When customers need slightly different results, you can adapt processes by adding &/or removing aspects.
Which other (potential) problems can these processes prevent or solve?
To solve different problems, you'll probably need to change steps &/or materials. Those changes can temporarily decrease the effectiveness & efficiency, so allow time for practice.
Updating Your Store With Processes As Customers' Conditions Change
As customers' conditions change, you can develop processes to adapt your store & services. Compare what customers usually buy for seasons with what they'll need for new solutions & improvements.
You might prioritize inventory & services based on changes customers are least prepared for. Will previous products & services fulfill customers' evolving needs?
Determine if you can prioritize inventory & services based on changes competitors are least qualified for.
You should develop testing processes for sales methods, so you can track results & adopt what works. When you do it, you can optimally market new solutions & improvements.
Processes, Tactics & Strategies
Synonyms like tactic, process & method can be interchanged. I tried to avoid confusion.
I've written about processes, tactics & strategies in other posts, so now I'm just focusing on developing tactical processes.
Discount stores refine processes to reduce costs. Local retailers can reduce costs & create value with processes.
In “Bottom-Up Marketing", Al Ries & Jack Trout described a strategy as a coherent marketing direction & encompassing coherent marketing activities & a tactic as an idea. Marketing mix activities must be coherently focused on the tactic.
They used NyQuil as an example. The tactic was developing a nighttime cold remedy, which dictated the strategy of introducing NyQuil as a cold remedy.
I've adapted that for retailing. Marketing tactics & strategies determine how products & services are offered.
Customer service tactics & strategies should help customers get needed results with products & services. Processes should fulfill your strategic & tactical framework.
Your marketing tactic can promise solutions for specific problem categories. Your marketing strategy can be compatible marketing activities to promote your tactic. In-store processes would help people find the best solution for a specific problem.
Strategies set directions & activities for stores to serve customers. Tactics should show how stores, products & services are valuable for customers. Processes can apply that value by guiding customers.
After promotions attract customers, processes can guide store staff & customers to combine products & services to produce benefits. Strategies can link processes & tactics, so customers recognize product & service value, so they buy benefits to gain results.
Develop processes to diagnose customers' conditions to help customers choose products/services & plan improvement/solution projects. Diagnostic processes are ways to observe symptoms & ask questions to determine causes & effects. After a diagnosis, you can find ways to stop or mitigate causes & decrease or eliminate negative effects.
You can use your product knowledge to determine what will solve problems & if solutions will also prevent problem recurrences.
Customer Service Processes
In the Performance Enhancement Quotient "PEQ" Program, Jay Abraham & Chet Holmes advised using strategies to make tactics more effective. Abraham & Holmes used retail examples.
Jay Abraham said a retailer tested approaches like this: When people walked in, the store staff asked, "And what ad brought you into the store today?" Jay said, "That produced 300% more ultimate sales. You won't know what's going to work masterfully unless you test."
This is an edited example from Chet Holmes: I'm the salesman in this store & I say, "Hi, what are you looking for?" The guy says, "I'm looking for couches." I say, "This way to couches." On the way to the couches, I say to the customer, "Is it your first time in the store? We've been in business for 47 years. We do this, we do that …" This is designed with all these strategic layers you're trying to accomplish.
These examples can be combined with questions & statements to help customers decide which options to buy.
The Transferred Blog Posts
Hillary considered buying a store.
Without policies, plans & procedures (3 Ps), there's not much to buy except physical assets & possibly a customer list. Physical assets can be bought from other sources. Customers might not return after a store is sold unless there's still consistent value.
Stores can offer consistent value by establishing & optimizing 3 Ps.
Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.
Copyright 2019 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
When you compete against big businesses with big budgets you need powerful marketing strategies & tactics. You'll find them here-
https://thriving-small-businesses.blogspot.com/
http://www.voy.com/31049/
Copyright 2009 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
This blog post was transferred from another service.
Subject: I'm confused about Nascent Processes Author: Hillary Date: 03/12/09
I realize you've written about Clayton M. Christensen & processes because they're important. I've listened to his audio books. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the process concepts.
A small competitor & his part-time employees are struggling. We've talked about some kind of merger, strategic alliance, joint venture or whatever buzz word would apply. If we can agree on a price, I could consider buying the store & possibly hiring the (former) owner & part-timers.
It seems they did some things correctly, but not enough to keep the store alive in this economy.
How can I know if I should let them do what they did before & what I should change?
Subject: Nascent Processes & Profitability Author: Dennis S. Vogel Date Posted: 03/13/09
In reply to: Hillary's message, "I'm confused about Nascent Processes" on 03/12/09
Hi Hillary,
Thanks for using this forum.
I realize I may be going beyond the answer you want, but I want to be sure the issues are covered & understood.
You could be referring only to processes, but why have a process unless it's needed to profitably sell a product/service?
I don't know your whole situation, here's the short answer: Let them do what satisfies a profitable customer base. Change what's barely profitable or breaking even. Eliminate what costs you too much to do/offer.
You should read some or all of what I'm writing to more fully explain & validate the short answer.
You may've noticed other threads in this forum are long & in multiple parts. This thread will be in multiple parts, too.
I don't know when I'll finish it. I tend to reread & rewrite quite a bit. So, far I've written over 6 pages. Some things I wrote directly relate to your question & my short answer. Other parts are analogies to help explain some concepts.
Small businesses can sometimes sell things profitably when big businesses can't. But some businesses barely hang on while selling outdated products & low-demand services.
Some retailers keep products in stock because they made an investment when they bought the products & wholesalers/liquidators won't buy the outdated products.
Be careful about buying a store that stocks outdated products. Part of your due diligence should determine if there is (or could reasonably be) profitable demand for the products.
Is that store unprofitable because of the inventory, business practices or both?
A discussion of how to profitably buy a store can be complicated. As a marketing consultant, I could help you with some issues, but you definitely need legal & accounting guidance. I'm not licensed or qualified to get deeply into legal & accounting issues.
A store near me sold some discontinued products (for a very low price) to an employee who used some of those in his hobbies. He personally sold some of those also when people asked for them. The retailer was no longer liable for those.
The retailer got some money for the products & opened his storage & display space again. Since he sold the products for such low prices, the Return On Investment may have been low. While the products consumed space & some labor, the Return On Assets was extremely low.
Storage & display space can be expensive assets. ROI is critical, but low ROA dooms many businesses.
Maybe you can sell old inventory through online auctions or classified ads.
A few customers may benefit from something that isn't profitable & may be sold at or below break-even.
If it's legal, you may sell some individual products or case lots to a group. Let them divide it, then you wouldn't pay somebody to open the boxes, then unpack & offer the products.
There are some circumstances, when this would be illegal. Some examples: prescriptions & anything requiring a background check or some kind of legal verification.
If other (possibly skilled) processing &/or assembly would be necessary, they may find somebody to do it or you could teach them.
If there aren't other sources or possible options for people to get what they need, you'll end up determining what you can afford to do. I don't recommend cutting off a supply unless there's no practical way you can provide what people need without jeopardizing yourself or your business. If it's just an issue of desire & not need, you may end up dropping it.
As nations, businesses & people progress, there's less demand for some things. It's part of modern life.
Subject: Re: I'm confused about Nascent Processes Author: Hillary Date Posted: 04/10/09
In reply to: Hillary's message, "I'm confused about Nascent Processes" on 03/12/09
Hi Dennis,
Thank you for helping me. I thought of writing earlier but I'm not sure how much more I can sure of.
I could specify which products we'd stock, but it could change quickly, especially with spring. There are plenty of traveling retailers. They remind me of "Gypsies, Tramps & Thieves."
By the time we know they're setting up, they promote, sell quickly & leave. There are flea markets & the sellers vary. Some major stores have pop-up stores. Some of these have guarantees so we can't use guarantees as a benefit.
The other stores owner I might buy out or merge with & I think our problem may be we stock too much of the same things. But I've read more than one store with the same products can bring more people in.
It doesn't mean we have to sell all of the same things.
We can't afford for suppliers to know how much trouble we may be in. Also if customers think we won't be here, they may not be our customer. Though the traveling stores have enough luck.
We're not being dishonest; we know people over react & may think we're worse off than we are if they suspect anything.
Are there things you teach us to help us succeed even if we change products?
Thanks
Subject: Creating Superior Value With Marketing & Retail Processes Author: Dennis S. Vogel Date Posted: 04/13/09
In reply to: Hillary's message, "Re: I'm confused about Nascent Processes" on 04/10/09
Hi Hillary,
Peter Drucker's insight: Company cultures are like country cultures. Never try to change one. Try, instead, to work with what you've got.
I agree with that as long as the culture isn't counterproductive or destructive.
A big part of a culture is its values: what's considered valuable & ethical. Processes are ways to produce & conserve what's valued.
Many retail processes should work for a variety of products & customers, so you should be able to adapt if you change product categories.
Without a specific specialty, I don't know which benefits you would offer compared to the competitors you wrote about. Flea market vendors & traveling retailers may have specialized product knowledge. They may be able to answer questions & give good advice.
There are more things to consider in risk reversal than just offering guarantees. Even if the full price is refunded, a problem isn't solved. If a shirt rips because of substandard material, a customer is entitled to a refund, but the refund doesn't solve the problem.
Money, a credit or a refund check won't cover a person's back or keep him/her warm.
Here's an educated guess (I've extrapolated based on mail-order & Internet marketing):
Traveling retailers probably have office addresses; but without physical stores, they can't quickly remedy problems. Maybe they can send a replacement, but it's not instant.
If a customer doesn't have enough money to buy a replacement, s/he has to wait for a traveling retailer to receive & inspect a returned product. Then the financial transaction is handled. Even if a credit/debit card account is credited, the customer still doesn't have the solution s/he tried to buy. To get a problem solved quickly, s/he needs to buy a replacement product from a different retailer who hasn't left town.
I haven't bought from any of those transients, so I don't know what happens when products are defective.
If this is accurate & a lawyer approves, your message to their prospects could be:
Saving Money Isn't Always A Bargain
"Are you thinking of buying a ‘bargain' from a transient retailer? You'd be better buy at least 2, so you might still have 1 to use while you wait for your refund. There are reasons for products to be so cheap. There are also reasons for things to be made in places we can't see. How young are the workers (slaves) who make those ‘bargains'? How many hours per day do they work? How much pollution is in their air & water?
"Yes, these issues ARE important to you. It's hard for overworked children to concentrate on work when they & their families are sick. When they're distracted, they don't make good products.
"Will a transient retailer talk to you about these issues? Not unless you ask, but don't expect real answers. Transient retailers just want you to buy, so they can take your money & run to the next city."
Since I'm not licensed to give legal advice; a lawyer should guide you before you try attacking competitors. But I'll warn you- Do NOT specify a transient retailer by name.
As long as you don't accuse specific retailers, if they want to admit they resemble your remarks enough to object, they'd be vulnerable to your criticism, then they'd be vulnerable to public criticism. If they don't think they resemble an unnamed retailer you criticize, why would they object?
If you were to specify a business & what you claim isn't completely accurate you could be completely sued for libel/slander or defamation. That's besides the negative effects on your reputation.
Here's another possible theme you could test if it's accurate:
"Where Do You Get The Best Value For Your Money? Going to flea markets & buying inexpensive used items can be fun. But some sellers are FLEE markets because after they get your money they FLEE! They're gone & so is YOUR MONEY!
"It's maddening enough to get people's adrenalin flowing. Adrenalin/ epinephrine is your Fight or Flight hormone. When you deal with FLEE markets, your epinephrine is wasted. You can't fight because your enemy has taken flight.
"Some people are frustrated again when they try to exchange cheap, worn out, broken & defective FLEE market stuff in our store. We can't afford to take it in exchange because suppliers we buy inventory from won't accept it. We don't offer anything that bad & neither do our suppliers.
"We accept exchanges of products sold from our inventory. If we'd accept FLEE market stuff, we'd be stuck with it. We wouldn't try to sell it to anybody. We'd have to throw it away; so if we accept it, we'd be throwing our money away."
(It implies FLEE market customers threw their money away without directly insulting them. This message doesn't call them fools.)
Now back to the potential merger or store purchase-
Profitable Processes
When a person or business has a new (nascent) process, it may be hard to determine its efficacy. A process may only be effective (& cost-effective) when it's done proficiently & efficiently. Efficiency & proficiency depend on practice & making adjustments.
I'm using efficacy & effective to mean achieving maximum, optimal & intended results.
I'm using efficient to mean achieving maximum & optimal results without wasting time, money & other resources.
Peter Drucker's insights: "Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things."
"Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things."
You probably already know about the problems of integrating or not integrating what people or other businesses do.
It's vital - for morale & progress - to make decisions about integration based on results, not on how the processes were learned or developed.
Too many people dismiss things if they weren't involved in creating or developing them. Even if you know better than to do it, the other business owner & employees may discriminate against what they think is foreign. This is insulting for those whose knowledge is rejected.
Even if you buy the other store & the other business owner works for you (as opposed to being a full partner), you should do your best to agree about whose processes will be used - before you make a commitment. S/he may "understand" (assume) you intend to leave things as they are.
Misunderstandings can lead to seller's & buyer's remorse. Legally ending the arrangement could be more expensive - in money & time - than the merger or purchase that started it.
It may be challenging to objectively determine which processes are more effective or efficient. If the result(s) are similar, profitably produced & customers gladly pay profitable prices for the value, some details aren't worth debating. But determine what you'll tolerate & what's unacceptable.
Peter Drucker's insight: Executives owe it to the organization & to their fellow workers not to tolerate nonperforming individuals in important jobs.
The only "problem" inherent in a different process may be the hassle & expense of learning it. Whether people consciously &/or subconsciously resist, some passively undermine what they don't like. They do things slowly, they procrastinate &/or they do low quality work.
The only "innovation" they may produce is negative. They cost a business more than their "efforts" are worth.
Peter Drucker's insight: Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has 2 - & only 2 - basic functions: marketing & innovation. Marketing & innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business.
To positively differentiate your store(s) for consumers, you need real solutions worth marketing.
Differentiation as an employer can help you retain & recruit good workers. But sometimes, people won't like tasks or ways (processes) they're expected to do tasks. They may adamantly believe their way of doing things is better. Or they may disagree about how necessary some tasks are.
It's great to have a fun job & business, but sometimes we (& employees) need to put up with hassles involved with creating value. We need to learn to do things to solve customers' problems even if it doesn't immediately solve our problems.
If your potential partner & employees won't do what creates more value for customers, it's best to know it early so you don't make the wrong decisions.
Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.
Copyright 2009 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
ubject: I disagree with a universal concept of processes Author: Doubter Date: 04/22/09
In reply to: Hillary's message, "I'm confused about Nascent Processes" on 03/12/09
I can understand how processes are important for manufacturers to produce consistent products and for big retailers that depend on logistics. But small retailers get preproduced inventory that's shipped to us by logistics companies. We get small amounts of various products; we open boxes and put products on shelves and racks - end of "process".
When I try to get productive conversations going about how we can effectively compete with big retailers, some members want to talk about processes.
When I asked how they came up with their ideas, guess whose name came up!
I read some of your stuff and it applies, but now you've gone off in another direction - maybe right maybe wrong depends on the stores and circumstances.
I'd like to open-minded about this, but it seems creating and practicing processes requires more time than it's worth.
Processes, as you and Clayton M. Christensen have written, are set to create the same results over and over. This produces a one-size-fits-all or one-size-fits-none result.
For those who serve homogenous groups, it may be good, but few small retailers can afford to do it. We need to serve whomever comes in and serve as they want to be served. Since we have to charge higher prices because of our lower volume, we have tailor-fit every service to everybody who comes in.
We don't sell enough of the same products to the same kind of people to warrant using the same processes over and over.
Using a common or standardized process to serve individuals violates what Stephen R. Covey wrote about being efficient with things and effective with people.
Processes are formed for efficiency. Success with people depends on effectiveness.
Based on other things you wrote, you respect Covey.
Some customers ask me questions they couldn't get answered in discount or big high-end stores.
I can't always produce premanufactured - via processes - answers.
I thought for a while I misunderstood what you claim about processes, but members of our group understand it the same way. It'd seem we're not all misunderstanding but it's possible. We don't all agree.
Maybe we could/would agree if we had some universal examples.
I know there are apt to be individual cases of useful processes, but it seems you're claiming the concept is universal.
Subject: Increase Customers' Confidence With Processes Author: Dennis S. Vogel Date: 04/23/09
In reply to: Doubter's message, "I disagree with a universal concept of processes" on 04/22/09
Thank you for responding. It seems you may be asking for clarification. We may not agree even after I clarify these points.
I don't know of any universal examples of processes. Without an in-depth study of an individual business & ability to test methods in that business, I can't develop a definitive, tailored process. It wouldn't be right to reveal proprietary, behind-the-scenes methods of businesses without owners' permission.
I could provide some guidelines.
I think the main misunderstanding is about the length or size of processes. A process can be simple & still improve efficiency & effectiveness.
Example: You can have pens & paper near your phones. If you don't have a telephone headset & you're right handed, you can determine when you take phone calls, you'll pick up your hand set, then place it by your left ear. Then you can pick up a pen with your right hand & be ready to write on paper.
A simple process like this may seem unusually & unnecessarily regimented until you consider the benefits. You'd be ready to hold a phone hand set between your left shoulder & head, then be able to write notes about what customers want when they call. Your notes could be passed to your staff to do what a customer wants.
I'm not implying you waste time, but I'm using a "you" viewpoint to communicate this concept.
This process would cut down on time being wasted if you look for a pen or paper during a call. You'd be less apt to drop your phone hand set because you wouldn't have to transfer it between your hands while you talk & hold a pen. You'd probably reduce the necessity to ask customers to repeat things.
This short process would be efficient with things & increase effectiveness & benefits for you & customers.
This process could be almost universal, but cobblers & other craft-oriented people probably wouldn't use it. Some service providers don't accept calls because it slows their workflow.
Note: Some cobblers either don't publish their business phone numbers &/or list their home phone numbers. Reason: Customers call to ask if their shoes have been fixed, but if they didn't call, cobblers could spend more time fixing because they'd spend less time handling phones & talking.
I advise cobblers & others to use numbered work order receipts & answering machines. When a customer leaves shoes, boots, etc. to be fixed, they'd get a numbered receipt. When their footwear is ready, that number would be listed.
They could call & listen to an outgoing message that includes the numbers from the receipts. The list numbers would indicate which footwear has been fixed.
Their numbers would be listed for a few days or a week at the longest. If customers still didn't pick up their completed footwear, it wouldn't be listed any longer.
I talked with a cobbler who was frustrated because so many customers called & interrupted his work. He stopped publishing his business phone number. Then he was frustrated because people weren't coming back to get their fixed footwear.
Do you think the customers didn't want to waste time going back to a cobbler shop unless they knew the work was completed?
If they kept returning to the shop just to ask about their footwear before the work was done, they'd still unnecessarily interrupt a cobbler.
Now with the Internet, a cobbler can have a simple web site & update the list of numbers of completed work orders.
Why use numbers instead of names? Because some people would be concerned about their privacy being violated.
A process could be developed to expedite posting the numbers &/or updating the list in the answering machine outgoing messages.
Depending on the questions customers ask & the answers you provide, you may benefit from having a place for your books, magazines & notes, plus a quick way to find information in those sources.
Processes can be used to create efficient results for people. For those who expect fast service - faster than big (giants) & medium (ogres) retailers offer - if you don't serve them with at least the speed they expect, they may choose a different store.
Consumers may feel if they end up waiting for service no matter which store they shop in, they might as well buy from giants & ogres who charge lower prices.
Depending how efficiently & effectively, giants & ogres train workers; customers could be dissatisfied with the service no matter how low the prices are.
Giants & ogres tend to focus on efficiency with things & skimp on effectiveness with people. Because of a lack of processes, small retailers may frustrate consumers too.
With the right processes, small retailers can lower their expenses (because they'd be more efficient) & satisfy more customers (because they'd be more effective).
Some processes will only solve a limited number of problems (maybe only 1). Each resulting solution may fit only specific people or situations, but hopefully those solutions would be satisfactory. Using a process would probably speed up the services. Then there'd be more time to solve less common problems.
Selling more solutions resulting from processes could bring in more money because using processes would increase the speed & accuracy of actions. There'd be less wasted time & materials.
Customers, business owners & workers would be less frustrated. It could also improve ego-strength because results could be consistently positive. Confident people are apt to inspire the confidence of others. Confident, reassured customers are more apt to return & refer others.
Confident people are apt to try & succeed in solving less common & possibly more complex problems.
Subject: More Clarification Is In Order Author: GRand Master Date: 04/23/09
In reply to: Doubter 's message, "I disagree with a universal concept of processes" on 04/22/09
Doubter, Dennis, Ladies, & Gentlemen:
I'd better clarify more points for our host.
Some people may wonder what a process about taking phone calls has to do with marketing. Everything in business should be related to marketing because it affects customer's experiences. Even Accounting? Yep!
Anything that affects how much money is invested in presenting merchandise and serving customers is related to marketing. Whatever influences customers' perception of a business is related to marketing. Employees loudly chewing gum matters too.
Do you think, "Answering a phone and other simple things are no-brainers"?
After you have a good process, it can be a no-brainer. A big reason for having processes to make some things so routine they're ALMOST no-brainers. But if you or employees completely disengage your brains, you're apt to make mistakes.
Some people want to multitask, others would prefer not, but feel forced to do it. Develop processes to make multitasking a viable option - as long you're not face-to-face with customers. Even if your conscious mind is totally focused with them while your hands and subconscious are doing something routine, customers are apt to feel you're paying attention to them. It's true, even if they multitask while they talk to you. Double standard? Sure. Unfair? Probably so.
Analogy: Think of baseball games and other childhood events. Somebody supplied a ball and bat or other necessary equipment. That person demanded that the others follow his/her rules, right?
If the others didn't accept his/her rules, they didn't play because its owner took the necessary equipment back.
The necessary equipment in this case is the money a prospect will pay you if you follow his/her rules. If you want him/her to pay, you've got to play - by their rules.
Ego-strength?! As a business owner, you may have enough under normal circumstances. But if you're frustrated by playing by others' rules, things going wrong, complaints, high expenses & low income, etc. Your confidence may be strong, but shaken.
Another analogy: Rodney Dangerfield said something like: "This morning I picked up my shirt - a button fell off. I picked up my brief case - the handle fell off. I'm afraid to go to the bathroom!"
Going to the bathroom probably wouldn't cause a fall off, but it can seem like it would. It's an example of shaken confidence.
Why would a process make a difference? When you have a successful way to do something, you're apt to be successful with it again. If you make it up as you go along every time, you won't always have the same level of success. After a few strike-outs, it's harder to get back up to the plate & be confident of hitting a homerun or even just a base hit.
Subconsciously, if you keep making mistakes, those mistakes can become habits. This makes it more imperative to set up successful processes - even for mundane tasks - to get your brain on a successful track.
Have you noticed anybody making a mistake, then be a bit miffed & make the same mistake again? After that, he or she is angry, but his/her subconscious is focused on the mistake instead of the desired results. So, he or she makes the same mistake again.
It's like the story of the baseball team manager who told a pitcher which pitch not to throw because the batter hit many home-runs off that particular pitch. The pitcher then threw that pitch & that batter got another home-run. Why?
The pitcher focused on the wrong pitch instead of focusing on a right pitch.
Successful processes focus people's subconscious minds on doing what's right so the right things block thoughts of the wrong things.
What Dennis wrote about the cobbler and interrupting calls from customers is an example of a business owner and customers in a contest of wills. Dennis got lucky again by suggesting a good compromise.
This message is getting long so I won't elaborate much. But read what Stephen R. Covey in "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" about synergistic Win/Win solutions that are better & mutually beneficial.
Develop ways for customers, employees and business owners to benefit. But when there are slight inconveniences for business owners and employees when they make things convenient for customers, deal with it. That's business. Customers aren't always right. Business owners and employees have rights too. But if you want customers to pay, you've got to play - by their rules.
Subject: Education & Training Are Critical Author: Dennis S. Vogel Date: 05/18/09
In reply to: Subject: More Clarification Is In Order Author: GRand Master Date: 04/23/09
GRand Master added some good points & clarification.
Education & Training Are Critical
Peter Drucker's insights:
"Knowledge has to be improved, challenged & increased constantly, or it vanishes."
"Making good decisions is a crucial skill at every level."
"No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings."
Training & education should help people make the right decisions, but beware: Part of training is letting people experiment to find what they do well & learn from their successes & mistakes. As long as the risks are low, you'll end up enduring the results or lack of results.
You may hire or already have somebody who has experience, but the experience may be doing things differently than you &/or customers expect. The results may be the same, the time required to do the tasks could be much different.
Different methods can be just as effective in producing a consistent result, but some of those methods may be more efficient than others.
It's up to you to determine if you'll require everybody who performs a task to do it the same way.
Some employers prefer hiring people who don't have job-related experience because retraining (training to do things differently) can be more expensive than training. It's related to the Curse Of Knowledge. It's hard for people to act & think like they don't know what they've learned & remember.
The Best People Using The Best Procedures
When you make hiring, firing, retention & promotion decisions, you should remember how critical it is to have the best (intelligence, wisdom & talent) people you can afford. Now here's a conflicting concept: A major goal in designing & developing processes is to make intelligence, wisdom & talent ALMOST (not entirely) irrelevant.
Don't develop a lot of boring, mindless tasks. Since people tend to be distracted while they work & may need to multitask, it can be good for tasks not to require total concentration.
Wise, talented & intelligent people should have optimal ways (KNOW HOW) of doing things so they KNOW WHAT to do & not do. They should be informed enough to KNOW WHY a customer desires a certain result. After employees master a method, they can focus more on results instead of each action. With the right input & methods, they can use their judgment to determine when innovation may improve results.
(Note: If customers are asked why they want a result, they may feel the question violates their privacy. But when somebody knows why, s/he may know how to adapt/adjust resources to produce a better result.)
It's similar to learning how to drive. Somebody, who doesn't have to consciously focus on each action, can consciously focus on traffic & road conditions. Another driver, who focuses on staying in a lane, has less mental resources available to watch for & avoid hazards.
Recipes For Success
While listening to Christensen's books (especially "Seeing What's Next"), you may notice what happens when industries & organizations develop rules, routines & standards. (Note: The authors didn't express the concepts exactly how I did below. I embellished & extrapolated.)
It's somewhat like chefs writing recipes for people who have less cooking skill, knowledge &/or experience. When novices use the recommended amounts of the right ingredients & bake/cook those as instructed, they could produce the same results.
People, who have less training & education, can effectively use instructions (processes) to do specialized tasks. Efficiency increases because people become qualified sooner & they can create consistent value. They can create consistent value in less time & with less waste than technology pioneers could. Pioneers used trial & error while they searched for & developed the right resources & experimented to determine the right ways to use those resources.
The pioneers' efforts, mistakes & successes were used as technological foundations for training the next practitioners. What subsequent practitioners discovered & perfected was codified into rules, routines & standards. Those became bases for education.
Effectiveness increases because highly educated, trained specialists can focus on complex problems that others aren't qualified to solve.
Too many people spout this derogatory comment: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." They imply teachers' & professors' contributions aren't valuable enough. Talented, dedicated instructors produce a lot of value. They educate students, while other people - who have specialized knowledge & skill - focus on improving technologies.
Talented practitioners might not have the talent &/or patience to teach others. Knowing how to do something is different than knowing to teach others to do it.
It'd be less efficient if practitioners would spend time teaching others instead of improving technologies. Who would improve technologies while practitioners would be teaching? Instructors can effectively teach students how to be entry-level practitioners.
There are opportunity costs in everything people do & don't do. So, it's important be as efficient as possible. Efficiency can reduce the resources - including time & money - used to produce a result. It means there'd be resources left to produce another result.
High Quality Education & High Quality Knowledge Aren't The Same
What should matter to you is the content & quality of a worker's education & training, plus how much knowledge & skill s/he retains. The content & quality is more important than who taught/trained them & where the training & education took place.
Example- The facts you learned from listening to recorded books are just as valuable as they would be if you were a Harvard student & learned the same facts directly from Clayton M. Christensen or a graduate assistant in a classroom.
Of course, Harvard students can learn a deeper variety of content than you've learned from a few hours of listening to CDs. You wouldn't necessarily learn those same facts any better in a classroom, than you have from the tapes or CDs.
Unfortunately, tapes or CDs can't interactively respond to your questions. But, in a big class (lecture hall), sometimes it's hard to get answers.
Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.
Copyright 2009 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
Subject: Clarification About Education & Training Are Critical Author: GRand Master Date: 05/20/09
In reply to: Dennis S. Vogel's message, "Education & Training Are Critical" on 05/18/09
Here I am again clarifying our host's explanations.
Dennis can correct me if I'm wrong: Based on what he wrote, he apparently included non-classroom learning as still being "book learnin'" It's still valuable as long as the content is valuable.
Education IS critical & should be pursued in any ethical way people can get it. There are many public & school libraries.
If there's a printed or recorded book you need, but if you can't find it in a local library, you should ask for an interlibrary loan. Interlibrary loans allow you to check out books from distant libraries.
Some college & university libraries are available for non-students. There may be a small fee involved.
If you can afford the money & space, you can buy a book and have it available for future reference. Though authors benefit from book sales, many authors are consultants and educators who use their books to reach more prospects. Books bring publicity to consultants, professors, universities and colleges.
Don't feel bad if you can't afford the money or space for more books. You can honor and acknowledge authors by using their work and then telling people about the benefits you got from their insights - testimonials.
Subject: Your Role Is To Figure Out How & Why. Workers' Roles Are To Do & Try. Author: Dennis S. Vogel Date: 07/14/09
In reply to: Hillary's message, "I'm confused about Nascent Processes" on 03/12/09
Here's an example (analogy) I'll use to start explaining what comes next. (I'll tie it in effectively.)
I know many will disagree with this, but it's my opinion.
It's inefficient to have doctors teaching undergraduate classes. Doctors are overqualified for the job. Somebody, who has a bachelor's degree, can adequately teach general education courses & anything below a graduate level. A college-educated professor can answer basic questions as easily as a professor with doctorate. Generally, in academics, answers to advanced questions wouldn't help anybody until they're tested on the advanced knowledge. That would happen in graduate school.
This should be a safe assumption: Somebody, who knows a subject well enough to graduate from college with a bachelor's degree, knows enough to provide an identical education for other students. This education would be good enough to confer bachelor's degrees.
(Think of this logically. When graduate students study to get doctorates, do the professors have degrees a few levels above what the students want? NO! Doctorates are the highest. The education produced is good enough for the students to graduate.)
Doctors/professors can do research (those with less education aren't qualified to do) & can supervise researchers. Maybe those researchers would be students or interns.
There's a snob factor in being educated by professors with the highest credentials, but it doesn't mean a student is better educated or prepared for a career.
Some employers are more interested in having employees who have college degrees than they (employers) are interested in the education or field of study. There's a big difference between having a degree & getting, then retaining an education.
Some employers are picky about which schools potential employees attended. (This is another inefficiency - It doesn't make sense.)
Here's how this analogy may apply to your situation:
In the short-term, it may seem more efficient & effective for you to do a task, instead of training somebody to do it. You probably have more knowledge & skill than the result justifies. You're also probably overqualified for the job of a trainer.
When somebody in an entry-level job (with entry-level wages) can produce essentially the same results as you can, you should only do those tasks occasionally.
By using optimal marketing, you can increase your business revenue enough to cover somebody else's wages.
If customers get just as much benefit from an employee's work as they can get from yours, you should do higher-level tasks. It's vital for you to still have contact with customers, so you don't lose your perspective.
You may be overqualified in serving some customers. (You shouldn't tell them if you are, since that could offend them.) If they want/need basic service & their questions require entry-level knowledge, you can have somebody else serve them while you focus on creating more value for your whole customer base.
Depending how big your staff is/will be, you should decide if you'll have somebody specifically in charge of training. The trainer can do other tasks when there aren't any trainees. Having designated trainers makes it easier to have consistent, standardized training.
Having any experienced worker train new workers can be ineffective & inefficient because knowing how to do something is different than knowing to teach others to do it.
Side Note: Some self-important people will insist on being served by the top person (owner/manager). I'm against arbitrary price increases, but if somebody will only accept your work, the fact you did it may be worth a higher price to that person. A higher price may encourage people to save money & accept employees' work.
Customers may object to paying more for the owner's work & may say, "It's not worth that much. I can get the same thing for less money when an employee does the work." *Exactly!*
Sometimes, I think people expect to served by - or at least meet - the business founder because his/her name is in the business name.
Somebody, who decides to buy from Hank Smith Fashions, may figure Hank would be involved in the transaction. Why would Hank put his name on his business, if he doesn't intend to serve people?
However, if a business name is Valu Books, people will expect good value, but they won't expect to meet "Valu".
People might feel like bait-&-switch victims if they feel lured into a business transaction by the expectation of being served by senior people but the work is really done by entry-level people.
Factors In The Decision About Trainers
Do you have an employee who did a job enough to master it? Do you think s/he will still work for you long enough to justify your extra investment in being taught how to train people?
If you don't & won't have a designated trainer, do you have an employee who will consistently & patiently mentor a trainee?
If a trainee doesn't have the same schedule as a mentor, the training could be haphazardly left to whomever is available. Whoever is available may not know what a trainee was already thought or how thoroughly.
Example: If you're a trainee & I'm your mentor for a day, I'd end up asking what you learned from the previous mentor. You may think & claim you learned something, but as a trainee, you probably wouldn't realize how much you don't know.
Because of this problem, trainees can have a job for a year & still not have fully learned to do any tasks. Some people want to fake it until they make it. But without an experienced (designated trainer's) perspective, how would they know if they've made it? They may be faking without realizing it.
A simple example: Trainees may think they know how to put price stickers on products. After all, how hard could it be? But many price stickers are made to shred if somebody tries to remove them. When a removed sticker is shredded, a dishonest ‘customer' isn't apt to successfully switch prices to get expensive products for lower prices. But the proper way - to place a price sticker - is to be sure it can't be removed intact. Trainees may not realize that & haphazardly slap stickers on.
Your store could lose a lot of money because price discrepancies may not be drastic enough to be noticed by a stressed, distracted cashier.
When you keep ordering more products to replace those that sold for the wrong prices, you could lose thousands of dollars on hundreds of sales. You could lose all of that money about $5 at a time, so in the short-term it may go unnoticed.
That $5 per product could've been your whole net profit per product. As inflation increases, it'd decrease the value of the rest of your gross margin.
Hopefully, I've persuaded you to institute consistently complete training whether you have designated trainers or not.
Subject: Should A Boss Occasionally Do Nonexecutive Labor? Author: Dennis S. Vogel Date: 09/20/09
In reply to: Hillary's message, "I'm confused about Nascent Processes" on 03/12/09
Doing entry-level & intermediate tasks occasionally may be a good idea to maintain your skill level & show employees you don't feel high & mighty. While you do entry-level & intermediate tasks, you may discover a better alternative. It's especially true, if you haven't done it every day. You can explore the task from a different perspective.
Workers may have good ideas about how to make processes better. Since they don't have your perspective, you may disregard what they suggest. No matter how tempting it may be to ignore them or feign interest in their insights, don't act like you're including them just to mollify them or get them to buy into your plan.
They could suggest something (big or small) that'll improve your process. I advise you not to automatically disregard what seems like a little change. If a change saves you $1, you could save $1 every time the changed process is used. Saving $1 implies not losing $1 each time. The savings or losses could (eventually) total in the hundreds or thousands.
Should A Boss Do Employee Level Processes Or Just Design Processes?
There's an opportunity cost when a business owner isn't doing administrative & strategic planning work. In general, business owners may produce more profit by developing methods, then letting others test them. Time spent doing a process isn't available for designing a process.
Realistically, time spent doing a process is a way to achieve goals & evaluate a process. Doing a process helps a boss understand it.
Note: You should realize there's a big difference between doing a task for your business & working for somebody else (like employees working for you). If you've been employed by somebody else, you probably didn't feel the control & satisfaction you get now being self-employed.
Some people advise bosses to occasionally do what they expect employees to do. Some rationales are: 1) setting a good example; 2) knowing how to do the tasks means a boss knows what the experience is like; 3) showing workers a boss is willing to do what s/he expects them to do.
The second rationale is partially false. Doing a task, even if a person has years of experience doing it, doesn't mean a person knows everything about it. There can be a different variable or set of variables each time for each person.
Example- When I was in the US Navy, some petty officers figured they knew exactly what it was like to do various jobs. Most of them were no taller than 5' 10". At the time, I was 6' 4". (By the time I got out of the Navy, I was 6'3" with a curved spine.) Having to bend for hours to do a job (because the overheads/ceilings were too low for me) & walking in passage ways (halls) is a factor they didn't experience, nor cared about.
Having been shorter when I was younger, I had some experiences of being a shorter person, but I knew my experiences were different than theirs. (Being a 5'10" 14-year-old is different than being a 5'10" 40-year-old.) Commissioned & petty officers didn't all want to acknowledge how much difference 6 or more inches (compared to them) could make for me.
Could they have gotten better results from me if they would've acknowledged banging my head &/or bending lower was hurting me? Yes.
If they didn't know, it was because they didn't want to know. I reminded them very often.
Could they have gotten better results from me if they engaged a couple more of their brain cells? Yes.
Did some of them get better results from me eventually? Yes.
They were surprised when 1 of my work evaluations was much better than the previous evaluations. When they wanted to know why, I told them, "Because the guy (supervising petty officer) who wrote that treated me like a human."
He was shorter than me, but he still didn't confine me to a low area. But I still had other low areas to contend with.
For a touch of empathy, imagine living in a metal pipe that has a diameter 3 inches less than your height. You can't stand or walk any straighter because you can't put your head through the metal, so your back stays unnaturally bent too much of each day. How long do you think it'd take for your back muscles to chronically spasm & bone spurs to grow on your vertebrae?
Employees' experiences while working for you can literally--positively or negatively--change their lives. How well could you do their jobs if you had their limitations & were still subject to your same expectations?
I'm not advising you to feel sorry for anybody. But when somebody works for you, you'll probably get better results when you use some intelligent empathy.
You'll always experience--what seem to be--the same situations differently than others.
We've Been There, Done That But It Was Different For Each
I've worked in ship's stores (Navy), plus big & small civilian stores. I understand various situations from my perspective. I won't try to deceive others or myself by implying I know exactly what retailers experience.
Do Or Dichotomy
Business owners need to balance many dichotomies, among them are: 1) design a process & have others test it while s/he (the owner) works on another process; or 2) design a process & test it before training somebody else to do it.
A creative person can design hundreds of processes in the time required to perfect each process. But what good are hundreds of imperfect processes without anybody who has time to use them?
If somebody only designs or maps processes, but doesn't do or use any of them, how could s/he understand what many of the possible problems are & how to avoid or solve them?
If you have a big enough staff, a person or team can test a process while the others use your current processes. Productivity & customer satisfaction may drop if everybody would stop doing what's been working & does what might work.
Reality Check: You can design & map (diagram) a "process", but until somebody tests & uses it successfully, your "process" is just a theory of what may achieve a goal. Even if a process worked for somebody else in a different situation, your 1st attempt--in your situation--will be a test.
Though you may be able to design many "processes", they won't be productive until they're used. So, you'll probably need to be involved in physically testing & perfecting some processes.
Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.
Copyright 2009 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
Subject: Re: Should A Boss Occasionally Do Nonexecutive Labor? Author: Cris Date: 09/20/09
In reply to: Dennis S. Vogel 's message, "Should A Boss Occasionally Do Nonexecutive Labor?" on 09/20/09
Hey Dennis,
I know this a bit off subject, but it's related if that makes any sense.
When talking to consumers who "Been There, Done That" Remember "It Was Different For Each" of them too.
What they used in their lives & how they used, it could be different than how anybody else would use it or find it useful.
You could hear from a few customers who may rave about the results they got -- This is why some advertisers add this statement -- "Results not typical" or "your experience may vary"
IF an advertiser rushes into using/promoting what some customers got from a service or product, others may try it too. But the others may be disappointed or get hurt.
How long did those results last? How much time did it take to take effect? How much of the product did they use? If a 200 lb person & 100 lb use the same amount of something, it could be too much & hurt the 100 lb & not help the 200 lb because it's not enough.
Maybe the raving customer only thinks it helped like a placebo. Maybe the raving customer is a raving lunatic who sometimes seems sane.
Somebody could say bad things just to get attention. People pay attention to bad things more than good. It's how those tabloids Wal-Mart Walmart or whatever sells. Bad things & stupid, nosy people keep them in business!
Even if a hurt customer doesn't sue, the bad word & customer loss could be as big a money drain as a law suit. Without court case win on your side, you won't get back your good reputation.
Subject: You're Right. Accuracy Is Always Vital. Author: Dennis S. Vogel Date: 09/21/09
In reply to: Cris 's message, "Re: Should A Boss Occasionally Do Nonexecutive Labor?" on 09/20/09
Hi Cris,
Thank you for sharing your insights. Since your insights are accurate & relevant, I want to expand on them.
I'm not a fan of the Ready, Fire, Aim Philosophy.
Acting according to it could get somebody hurt as Cris described.
I realize waiting to make everything perfect before offering a product or service can mean losing sales opportunities. But law suits can take more money than lost sales would.
Quality in the best products & services tends to vary. When a product or service result is already mediocre, sometimes quality will dip down to poor. Then a business's reputation will plunge to poor.
Ready, Fire, Aim is also bad for the content of marketing messages. If you rely on inaccurate information, you could get into a lot of trouble.
Check the facts no matter if you believe you remember accurately or as much as you trust those who tell you something.
When somebody is emotionally involved in something, emotions affect memories & judgment.
People tend to misremember, exaggerate &/or lie. Since bad "news" travels quickly you could hear the same exaggeration or lie from a few people. It would seem true since you'd hear it from more than one person, but they may've heard from the same liar.
Even if the story is an exaggeration instead of a lie, it's apt to seem worse every time it's repeated.
Basing business decisions on exaggerations or lies is like building part or all of your business on quick sand.
What's not on a firm foundation can ruin the rest & leave you with a total loss.
Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.
Copyright 2009 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
