I’m a firm believer that every day is simply practice for the bigger challenges of tomorrow, and that you don’t have to be at a Fortune 500 to gain valuable experience in the world of business. It’s in that line of thinking that I’m writing a series of posts detailing the little tidbits of wisdom I gained while working as a bit of a jack of all trades in small computer store. Today I bring you,

Lesson #3: If Everything is Important Nothing is Important. Prioritize!

I had 20 hours of work to do before the end of the day and it was already 11am. Every customer had said that they needed their computer back right away. Of course, almost none were willing to pay for priority service or to rush deliver a part. Then there were orders that needed to be made, defective parts to processed and about a million other things. Then, as now, time management was an essential skill I needed and I looked for tidbits of wisdom where ever I could find them. Most fell into one of the categories below,

• The Pareto principle: 20% of the work makes 80% of the difference. Figure out the 20% most important things you should be doing and get cracking.
• The top 10 list. Make a list of the top 10 things you should do each day and concentrate on those. This is the one I found worked best for myself.
• Don’t do anything until you’ve been told twice. I don’t personally recommend this strategy, but it makes sense under certain kinds of unfocused management.
• Batch tasks. Do all your emails, reports, etc., respectively, at the same time. I’ve heard varying estimates about how long it takes to get into a mental groove, but the idea is that once you’re there and performing don’t stop until all the work is done.

To free time for more important tasks I simply asked what the deadline for the implementation of [the project] was and the requester then came clean that it was still in the holding stage and the “critical” requests ceased.

Questions are also a great tool to help prioritize and mange your work load. I once worked on an “urgent” project that I found out wasn’t even approved. To free time for more important tasks I simply asked what the deadline for the implementation of it was and the requester then came clean that it was still in the holding stage and the “critical” requests ceased. Other great questions include,

• What are the repercussions of a delay?
• Who is the request for? Then call that person and verify the urgency. In my experience, sometimes people will press you unnecessary.
• Who else is contributing to the project and what are their deliverables? What stage are they at and are they on schedule? There is no point in rushing to complete something that will be delayed anyway.

In the end it’s essential to remember that important is a relative term. If everything is a priority than in reality nothing is a priority, it’s just another thing that needs to get done. And there are always a million things to get done.

I’m a firm believer that every day is simply practice for the bigger challenges of tomorrow, and that you don’t have to be at a Fortune 500 to gain valuable experience in the world of business. It’s in that line of thinking that I’m writing a series of posts detailing the little tidbits of wisdom I gained while working as a bit of a jack of all trades in small computer store. Today I bring you,

Lesson #2: Don’t Bicker about Problems, Solve Them

You’re experiencing one of those uh-oh moments when you realize that something has gone terribly wrong. The only good news is that you have an air tight alibi proving this is not your fault. The bad news is that everyone else seems equally convinced that they are innocent as well. Frequently, this situation turns into the blame game, with each person explaining, sometimes loudly, how this is someone else’s responsibility. Perhaps even yours. What to do?

The first thing to realize is that while everyone’s discussing who’s to blame no one is discussing how you’re going to solve the mess you’re in now. You have a couple solutions to get things moving again. Ideally, you will be able to calmly remind people that mistakes happen in any dynamic business environment and it’s important to not find guilt, but solutions. However, sometimes a group will get bogged down trying to protect themselves from any repercussions and will continue to direct responsibility elsewhere. In such cases it may be necessary to take the blame upon yourself, regardless of your culpability. In the past I’ve used the phrase, “guys we need to get things moving, so let’s say this is my fault“. This should ease the tension in the room and get the group focused on what’s really important: a solution. Though if you find yourself consistently the martyr for progress it make be time to consider making a career shift to a more productive organization.

I’m a firm believer that every day is simply practice for the bigger challenges of tomorrow and that you don’t have to be at a Fortune 500 to gain valuable experience in the world of business. It’s in that line of thinking that I’m writing a series of posts detailing the little tidbits of wisdom I gained while working as a bit of a jack of all trades in small computer store. Today I bring you,

Lesson #1: Marketing with Numbers is a Double Edged Sword

When it comes to numbers, there are two types of customers: those who understand what they mean and those who don’t. And they both treat numbers very differently.

Whether the number is a product specification (ie 10 pages per minute) or part of its name (ie HP LaserJet 10), those in the know will use it to objectively to rate your goods. Those who aren’t will simply compare the number under the rule of thumb “bigger is better”, and often ignore the more difficult to compare attributes.

Some say Intel used this principle to their advantage when designing the Pentium 4 processor. At the time people most used a processor’s clock rate (ie 3.2 GHz) to determine its speed relative to the competition rather than looking at the CPU’s architecture as a whole.  AMD’s design during this time couldn’t achieve as of a high clock rate, but it was much more efficient per clock cycle (Hz) than Intel’s, thus their 2GHz processor was in many cases faster than Intel’s 3Ghz offering.  However, the average consumer neither understood nor cared about the vagaries of a CPU’s pipeline efficiency. To them 3 is bigger than 2, therefore Intel wins.

This effect also carries over to product names. I once had a customer refuse to buy a newer and faster video card because its model number was 700XT, while their previous card was called the 9800GT. The individual didn’t believe that a card with a smaller model number could be faster.

The lesson? Whenever you use a number in a product name or customer communication, consider how the customer will interpret it. If a bank advertises its interest rate, will a customer use this as the sole comparison tool and ignore fuzzier details, such as their great customer service reputation or flexible repayment options? If the old product was the 700T will people consider the new one to be of poorer quality as it is called the 40F? Or worse, will a competitor simply name their product name a digit or two higher (ie 8000Z) to make it seem better?

The conclusion I’ve drawn is that it’s best to leave numbers out of the product name, unless there is a clear, long-term naming plan in place. For instance, BMW’s 3-series is smaller than the 5-series and has been that way for 30+ years. Better still use a word to evoke an emotional response. The other lesson learned is that whenever you use a number in a communication consider how the target customer will interpret it, how your competition could exploit it, and if it even needs to be there. It seems to me an emotional and reputational appeal will generally beat out a logical one. I would rather advertise a bank’s willingness to offer the best rates than the fact that their 5-year fixed rate is 5.45%. 5.45%? Is that good? Is that bad? If my current bank offers a lower rate will I even bother to set foot into the other institution’s branch?

Back in the summer of 2009 the Canadian government was set to unleash people’s anger at the financial crisis upon the very scoundrels some thought caused the turmoil: the banks! And what was the most hated instrument of evil wielded by these malevolent devils? Why the credit card! It charged it’s users on high interest and allowed consumers to go wild in their spending lusts.

During this period I was a lowly cog in the banking machine, working away crunching numbers for the bigger cogs.  I listened to all the talk of what the government might do, from a harshly worded rebuff to crippling legislation.  People speculated on whether interest rates would be capped, certain fees made illegal or perhaps most importantly if there would be layoffs as a result.

The noticeable thing to me during this period was not what was being said, but what wasn’t.  Namely, any defence of the credit card industry.  No one at the bank was saying was the accusations were unfair and where were the banking industries’ PR machines?  I felt as though everyone actually believed that the industry was something malevolent.  However, a brief examination of the recent history of the consumer credit industry clearly shows a different picture.

Here are some notes about debt from a great podcast over on Econtalk where Russ Roberts interviews Todd Zywicki on Debt and Bankruptcy.  They clearly show that the world before credit cards was not better, but in fact worse for the average consumer!

• Many blame the expansion of personal debt on credit cards, however, “the growth in credit card debt, which is huge, [has] come 100% as a substitution for those other forms of debt”!
• “Forty or fifty years ago, furnishing their houses, cars, pianos, paying on time instalment loans. Since then, credit cards have substituted for a lot of those transactions.”
• You may be thinking that credit cards must have a much higher interest rate than other previous forms of debt.  Again you would be wrong.  “Credit cards also have lower rates of interest than the former forms of debt. Really are much less expensive”
• How much less expensive.  Well according to average Canoe.ca the current average Canadian credit card rate is 18.92%.  However, previously if you “went to appliance store and open a line of credit, [they] charged you 30-40% interest buried in price of refrigerator”
• Another great use of credit cards is to even out cash flow, or put another way, to help you buy something you need now when your pay cheque isn’t until next week.  You can do this with a credit card without ever paying a cent.  Previously, “people used pawn shops, [or] borrowed from friends and family.”  Personally, I hate borrowing from or lending to family and friends.  I always loose track, and I don’t even like the thought of a pawn shop.
• Credit cards also replaced the layaway plan, “pay for the goods in instalment payments before you could get it.” Now it’s the other way around!  Sounds like a better deal doesn’t it.

We should also not forget that the internet as a place of commerce would not exist as we know it today.  Could you imaging have to go thought a credit application for every site you want to buy from?

I’m not sure why no financial institution ever mentioned any of these points to the media.  Maybe it’s because the industry actually started to believe it was the villain it was made out to be, or maybe when a mob is angry shouting your innocence is a sure way to guarantee its wrath.

I came across a link to a site called LikeMinds the other day while reading an article by Joshua Porter and it started me thinking. Why is it that Web 2.0 is so focused on helping me find people like me. I mean I get it. Everyone enjoys having their opinions, choices and tastes validated through group agreement, but it doesn’t exactly lead to an explosion of diverse thought. In fact, it has lead a number of people to fear that in the future we will only read newspapers that agree with our opinions, watch television that espouses our views and read books that reinforce our cultural norms.

I’ve spent a fair amount of time talking to people about politics, science, religion, etc and I’ve come to the conclusion that the best people to discuss such things with are the one who frequently disagree with me. In fact, I’d rather have a nice barbecue than a discussion with someone who wholeheartedly concurs with my thoughts. What’s the point? I know my opinions. I don’t need them echoed back to me. On the other hand, someone with a different perspective can open your mind to a whole new world of possibilities.

It is easy to find someone to disagree with you. So it makes sense that you wouldn’t need the help of the web to locate these people. It seems as though everyone has a family member, friend or co-worker who will seemingly disagree just to disagree. But this is exactly where the power of the web needs to be applied. A large number of people seem to suffer from what Russ Roberts on Econtalk calls confirmation basis. That is, the effect such that one tends to interpret the facts in such a way that confirms their previously held beliefs. In one of his podcasts he even debates the value of economics and whether most economists are actually capable of subjectively interpreting the results of their research.

In my experience when it comes to debating an issue most people suffer one or more of these three afflictions.

1. Combativeness. This is an actual conversation I once had,
   Me: “…and that’s why I think things in the world will be ok.”
   Friend: “No your wrong!”
   Me: “No, I actually believe that because…”
   Friend: [interrupting] “No you know I’m right! Admit it!”
2. Dismissiveness
   • “Oh, you just don’t understand the issues.”
   • “Oh, you’re too young. When you’re older you will get it.”
   • “Oh, your study was based on faulty data. My study was based on correct data”
3. Denial
   • “You’re wrong because!”
   • “You’re wrong! Wait and see!”
   • Silence combined with glaring looks

It is for these reasons that I know I should value someone who can discuss an issue, while keeping an open mind. I have to admit it I don’t meet many such people, and even when I do there are frequently topics that are and not up for debate.

Perhaps this is a challenge the web simply isn’t yet up to. It’s very easy to find someone who likes a certain band or tv show, but finding someone who disagrees with you and is willing to discuss it openly is something quite different. No one wants to be known as close minded, so it seems the hardest part would be finding someone who actually knows what they can and can’t debate. Or perhaps the registration form could look something like below,

Discussion Topics

I have always been fascinated by paradoxes. The first one I remember as a kid was the seemingly contradictory notion that if you want friends you will have few, but if you are indifferent you will have many. Since those early days I have been creating a bit of a mental catalogue of the one’s I have come across.

A couple of weeks ago I found a new one that rather shocked me. Not necessarily because of its truth, but because of who recognized it. According to an article in MSNBC, the US military will try to protect themselves by not protecting themselves. That is to say they realized that, “the more aggressively you protect your own troops, the less secure they may be”. At first this seems like the typical convoluted logic to come out of any large bureaucracy, however, there is some method to this madness.

“The idea is that troops who put themselves at risk to protect innocents will ultimately help decrease violence against Americans. That’s because every time U.S. forces inadvertently kill or wound a noncombatant, it outrages the families and communities of the victims and erodes support for the battle against militants, strategists say.”

I was amazed that such a recognition could come out of an organization that according to Mil-Tech is building new fighter jets to replace the old fighter jets they can’t afford to maintain because they are spending so much money building new fighter jets. If you’re wondering if that last sentence makes sense – grammatically yes – logically no.

Common sense (experience?) would suggest that such an organization would never develop, let alone implement, a strategy based upon such paradoxical notions. Sure military history is filled with examples on armies adapting their strategies to win wars, but most of what I have read suggests that they were focused on killing better, not on protecting other people more and themselves less.

So why is it that that an organization that tv’s M*A*S*H mocked so throughly as a bumbling bureaucracy can implement such strategies, yet banks seemed blind to the possible notion that the more money you try to make off your customers the less money you will get from your customers. Think Laffer curve for profits. In my previous post regarding the one page credit card agreement Alan Siegel stated in his Ted Talk that no credit card would implement such an agreement out of a fear of losing money. I believe that such a strategy is short-term bottom-line thinking that ignores the larger realities this mindset creates. Namely that it causes,

1. People to hate banks
2. Politicians to take advantage of this and create legislation against bank’s interests to increase their popularity
3. Financial institutions to loose the customers they anger

Of course some banks offer no-fee banking, but as always, there are catches. In a series of future posts I will detail why this was a good start, the mistakes I believe financial institutions are making and the ways that I believe banks can vastly improve their customer services and reduce churn.  Some of them could even save the banks money!

I sat down and read my credit card agreement once. It was a terrible ordeal that consumed almost an hour and required my full concentration, but which left me feeling rather self-satisfied at my diligence. At least that is until I received an updated version with my next statement. Since then I’ve received numerous notices telling me that my agreement has changed and I should “read it through thoroughly”. I’ve always wondered if the people who wrote those last words snickered a little when they typed them into their computers.

Recently, I found out that I’m not the only one who laments the industry’s verbosity. As a response to President Obama asking, “why can’t someone design a credit card agreement that you don’t need a law degree or a magnifying glass to understand?” Alan Siegel of Siegel+Gale created the one page credit card agreement. According to Siegel, it’s been vetted by “the two top consumer credit lawyers” in the United States and could be put in to use.

Mr. Siegel seemed cynical about such a one page credit card agreement being put into use. I however, am somewhat more hopeful for reasons I’ll detail in a forthcoming post.

Here is the video of his talk from TED,