(1) It clarifies what needs to be done in each process and allows you to eliminate unnecessary steps thereby increasing productivity and saving staff time and associated costs

(2) It is useful for training new staff; In fact the process flows can be part of an orientation program

(3) It allows the company to identify time consuming steps that would benefit from automation

(4) When selecting new software, it allows you to test the software in the context of what you actually do rather than the features of the software. In fact, the candidate software company can prove their mettle by showing where they add value by eliminating steps and improving workflow in addition to their features.

(5) If you are in a business that is heavily regulated, this documentation is typically prized and can be used as a sales tool to demonstrate the discipline in the business

As to how often they should be done and reviewed – and for the reasons noted above – I’d recommend that this be treated as living documentation and used regularly when making changes to the way work is performed, software created etc. This effort is only valuable if it becomes part of the company fabric and has a purpose.

I just completed a project where I managed the process flow analysis of a 300 person company and designed a software assessment process for them. I’d be happy to talk with anyone who wishes to discuss this further (david_blumenthal@msn.com)

The two corporate giants are playing a giant game of chicken on Oscar night. If no one blinks, several million people will not be able to see the Oscars tonight.

Regardless of who wins this battle, both companies may lose more than they ever considered. Let’s talk about the unintended consequences.

If people decide they really, really, really want to watch this very popular television event, they may turn to the web and seek the tens, perhaps hundreds of sites, who will be streaming the Oscars over the web. Several million people may learn tonight that they can watch their favorite shows just as easily over the Internet — without paying for it.

If that occurs, Cablevision and ABC-Disney may have educated millions that their companies are not required to deliver home entertainment. And if that happens, the two companies may learn about unintended consequences in a way that they have never intended.

I know I’ll be tuning in to see who is the real winner on Oscar night.

When someone complains, it is typically because an incident has occurred that goes well beyond the person’s level of tolerance for a mistake. Complainers are also almost always passionate and will share their complaint with others. In the Internet age, this means that a complaint can easily go viral.

And one other facet about complainers that I have found to be common…they expect their complaint to be ignored. If they were open to the possibility of a positive response, they would be working the company’s channels to get a resolution that would satisfy them.

For all of these reasons, the complaint represent a great way to create a positive experience that may go viral too and turn an upset client into a raving fan.

When a complaint is made, I try to respond immediately and preferably by phone. Most of us have heard the statistics that body language and tone are more important than content in a conversation. And since in most cases, getting a prompt face-to-face conversation is difficult, the phone is the next best thing. At least, I get the benefit of managing my tone so that I can get a clear picture of the root cause of the upset. And in this digital age, they get a human who is more able to be humane.

I also employ the “rational person” approach whenever possible. I explain that most people and companies are not looking to upset their customers, and while it is human to make a mistake or even mis-communicate, it is rarely the desired intention. If I was inadvertently the cause of the upset, I explain the circumstances and underlying reasons for my actions. And if I was wrong, I apologize and inform the person of the actions that I will take on their behalf to set things right.

If it is my company or a colleague that is being accused of an improper action, I always ask for the opportunity to look into the matter and report back. My colleagues tend to be rational people too; so their actions are likely not to have been done with the intention to cause upset. We agree on a time frame by which I get will get back to them. And then I keep my promise and call them back even if I have not completed my “investigation.”

The return call is an important step because a complaint really is another way of expressing that “one cannot be trusted.” And the best way to rebuild trust is to keep a promise, no matter how small or insignificant that promise is.Solutions

This approach has served me very well. In all instances that I can recollect, the other person is first genuinely surprised to find someone is listening to their complaint (remember, they might not be complaining if they thought someone would care about the problem) and even impressed when the promise of a return call occurs. And frequently, their request to be made whole is not unreasonable (the “reasonable person” approach working the other way).

Most important, the request is nearly always dramatically less than the lifetime value of the client relationship or the cost to acquire a new customer.

First, you issue a press release. Then you arrange a sitdown interview with a favorably inclined organization such as MLB Network – although you should have an accomplish journalist interview you. After that, make yourself available to some media outlets to answer questions. When that is all complete, have a couple of interested parties laud you for stepping forwrad. Presto! You’re done and everyone will allow you to move on with your life.

Only problem — the public is not responding favorably at all — which leads us to thinking about why this is so.

A closer examination of McGwire’s apology statement offers some lessons for all of us in how to apologize.

1. “Now that I have become the hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals, I have the chance to do something that I wish I was able to do five years ago.” Apologize because it is the right thing to do not because you are afraid of the consequences. Try not to make your apology self serving. Sincerity and motivation are important.
2. “Looking back, I wish I had never played during the steroid era.” Got it…shame on the era for forcing me to take steroids. Take responsibility.
3. “During the mid-90s, I went on the DL seven times and missed 228 games over five years. Don’t load up your apology with statistics. It makes it look like the statement was written by a third party and not you.
   
4. I experienced a lot of injuries, including a rib cage strain, a torn left heel muscle, a stress fracture of the left heel, and a torn right heel muscle. It was definitely a miserable bunch of years and I told myself that steroids could help me recover faster. I thought they would help me heal and prevent injuries too.” Alot of other players were hurt and they chose to stay within the rules. Eliminate the rationalization. Don’t make excuses.
   
5. “I’m sure people will wonder if I could have hit all those home runs had I never taken steroids. I had good years when I didn’t take any and I had bad years when I didn’t take any. I had good years when I took steroids and I had bad years when I took steroids.” Still, Mark, everyone seems to think that steroids makes players better hitters. Don’t minimize or ignore the impact of your transgression.
6. “Baseball is really different now – it’s been cleaned up. The Commissioner and the Players Association implemented testing and they cracked down, and I’m glad they did.” Hard to tell if you are glad they cleaned it up or glad that they waited until you left the game. Don’t kiss up.

Here’s perhaps a more effective apology built on acknowledging, apologizing and doing something constructive about it.

I cheated. I let you down. I was wrong. I’m really sorry.

And here’s what I’m going to do about it. I’m going to speak to high school and college kids and pour my own money into getting kids to know cheating is wrong and steroids are dangerous.

It’s the least I can do…and I’m open to any other suggestions you might have as to how I can make amends for what I have done.

Now that would be an apology…

The biggest surprise to me has been the pace at which whole industries have begun to disappear. As fast as one charts the list, another one needs to be added. The postal service, newspaper and magazine publishing, television, and retail stores are just a few.

Last week, I went into a high end department store to buy a present for a newly engaged couple. I went to the registry and met with the manager. She told me that 80% of the gifts for a couple is now purchased on line. This is good news for the retailer because it can pay less commission, as there is no sales rep involved in the purchasing transaction.

What was shocking to me was that manager told me that when an item is returned to the store, it gets applied as a negative sale to her commission. She is running harder just to stay in place. And the store is comfortable making her role obsolete.

Another recent trend that I find fascinating is the increasing need to create engines as opposed to creating businesses. Zappos is a great illustration of this process done well.

Zappos had become an Internet business legend, so to speak, for its ability to sell footwear. Its use of social media to promote and service its business is very well known.

In July, Amazon announced its intention to purchase Zappos. The deal closed in November.

Today, less than two months later, Zappos has transformed itself into a clothing site. The engine that it has designed and the practices that it has implemented are being used to allow it to enter a whole other segment of the clothing industry.

What does all this mean to you?

For starters, if you have been doing business in a traditional way, start rethinking your business model because your next competitor can come from anywhere.

Here’s a simple example. If we want to entertain ourselves and our friends on a Saturday night, we can ask what are the options? Once we add criteria or constraints, the choices narrow. For example, determining that we are on a budget of, say, less than $50 per person might eliminate tickets to a Broadway show. Deciding that we had to be back by 11 pm to relieve the babysitter might mean that we have to stay local.

What it all comes down to, in management speak, is clearly defining the problem. Solving the “right” problem usuall produces a subset of choices that will yield outcomes for which we would be happy.

Words, here though, are very important.

If one shifts from a problem definition to an opportunity definition, the options will become richer, the choices more exciting. And with that will come far greater and more robust ways of creating an outcome.

After all, wouldn’t it be more fun for you, your clients and colleagues to create an opportunity rather than solve a problem?

Just yesterday, I was speaking with my good friend, John Fodera. John is a partner in Eisner, LLP’s audit and risk management services group. He spends his days discovering how to reduce risk and streamline operations, while making sure that his clients remain compliant with regulations a diverse as labor law to SEC requirements. Not surprisingly, he hears about the impact of the recession all of the time.

As our discussion progressed, it became apparent that John brings some fresh thinking to these conversations. One of the thoughts that we shared is that cutting staff is not always the best way to deal with a slowdown in business.

John explained that the “knee-jerk” reaction is always to reduce costs and sometimes this is truly appropriate. But, like any other challenge, there are always opportunities.

When companies are concerned about business, they are more apt to rethink the way that they approach the marketplace. Leadership will also find that staff will be more open to trying new approaches. This is typical when the risk of remaining with the status quo exceeds the risk of trying new things.

Reaching out to existing customers and discovering and sometimes re-discovering what is valued in one’s offerings – and what isn’t – can change what is being sold and how it is being presented to other potential clients.

When something is not valued, often, the cost associated with adding and delivering that capability can be stripped out. Suddenly, the product may actually be more valuable because a level of complexity is removed and the cost associated with developing, selling, delivering it and training others has been reduced. Out of such discussions, many competitive advantages and opportunities are born.

And in an age where technology is changing as rapidly as it is, an economic downturn can provide the impetus to create new ways to produce meaningful value.

As John would probably tell you, the real risk is when you are not rethinking your business.  But don’t take his word for it.

Just ask the people running the newspaper industry and the postal service.

Patrick Lencioni, author of The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, says that trust is the foundation of teamwork. Without trust and vulnerability, one cannot have a candid conversation. And without a candid conversation there can be no conflict, which would lead to understanding each other’s perspectives and ultimately creating commitment, accountability and results.

Healthy organizations have a culture of trust. There, trust means the ability to also believe that one can count on one another and that we each share a common purpose.

Isn’t the whole healthcare debate in Washington really about a lack of trust in the numbers, positions and beliefs of our leaders?

And a fundamental reason regional peace talks fail between countries is often because neither party trusts the other.

If we wish to rebuild our country, industries, school systems, and families, perhaps it is time to revisit this fundamental underpinning.

Almost to a person, these people did not volunteer any information about themselves. On one level, I can get it. After all, who wants a salesperson calling you and disturbing your day?

Here’s the argument though for rethinking that position…

If you’re stopping by a booth, chances are there is a reason. You want to compare a product to something that you are using. You have a unique need or challenge or opportunity and you wish to see if the product can address it. Or you simply wish to discover if something is possible.

If you contextualize who you are, and by that I mean you paint the details of what your company does, who you are and the role that you play, why you are at the booth and what you hope to address or learn, you allow the salesperson to leverage their expertise and help you determine very quickly if your unique need can be met.

And you can still always decline to move forward with the conversation after you have learned more.

What this all comes down to is trust – and part of this is about trusting yourself to have a real meaningful conversation. If you are willing to share and discuss and engage, you open yourself to the possibility that the other person can help you. And you learn whether the solution fits or what is even possible.

We already know all that we know. It’s usually the other person’s knowledge that is the most useful.

Honestly and quickly.

As part of my explanation, I will begin by telling you that I am a fan of Seth Godin. He considers himself a marketer and entrepreneur and agent of change. What I love most about him is that he makes me think.

Godin recently launched Brands in Public. His company, Squidoo, was going to set up a place that would aggregate content from around the Web, highlighting the good and informing of the bad, while letting the companies respond to the feedback. Not a bad idea – and his business model for doing this would result in annual payments from each of these companies totaling about $5,000.

The criticism came due to Godin’s decision to actively set up 200 of these ‘Brands In Public’ lenses (consider a “lense” like a location or site) before launch without the consent of the companies involved. The companies would be locked out of the lenses until they decided to sign up and pay up for the almost $5,000 a year service. At which time the lens would be unlocked. Some called it brandjacking, with online branding effectively taken hostage with a price on its head for release.

Needless to say the reaction to the model and its implementation was harsh.

However, Godin’s response was swift.

In his daily blog post, two days after launch, he wrote:

The response from the brands we’ve shared it with has been terrific, but other people didn’t like elements of it. And they were direct in letting me know.

The goal of the program is to invite brands into the conversation that’s already going on around the web, to make it easy for them to do it on their terms. I talked with a brand manager yesterday who explained that this is exactly what he’s been trying to do for his company, but the corporate website systems make that difficult for him. We want to open the door and to permit large brands a way to get started without having to roll their own solution.

One way we tried to encourage that was to build 200 sample pages, pages brands could adopt. Alas, some people felt that this was inappropriate, so we’ve recalibrated and we’ll take those pages down before the end of the day.

When a brand wants a page, we’ll build it, they’ll run it and we’ll both have achieved our goals.

Part of the magic of the web is that you can adjust as you go, particularly if you’re willing to listen.

I apologize if anyone was confused by my original post, and we’re looking forward to having major brands and non-profits using this tool the way we intended–to join in to the conversation that’s already happening all around us. Thanks as always for reading.

Putting aside the questions of whether Godin’s idea and implementation were appropriate, he does get points for addressing the problem honestly and in a hurry and that, I think, earns him the right to try again.

* * * * *

As to my post the other day about my recent experience with Continental Airlines, I received this response from Continental’s Customer Service Manager, Denise Epstein.

Your letter has brought up several very valid points. These are consequences that I have pondered, however, you have put them in words in a thoughtful and straightforward manner.

I will include your letter with the original complaint that was filed on your behalf. This includes your contact information if our management team needs to contact you.

I’ll let you know if it goes any further…