Name (required):

  E-mail address (optional):

Type your message here:
>In case you want the full context, you can use this >URL >http://www.inc.com/magazine/20061201/make-a-mess.html >After you read the article ("Go Ahead, Make A Mess" >By: David H. Freedman)you may understand what I wrote >below. > >Some of what David wrote about success from a mess, >should be attributed to randomness. It’s a corollary >of ‘If you always do the same thing in the same >context, you’ll always get the same result.’ It’s not >exactly true though. If you practice the same thing, >you may get a better result by doing it better. > >As Chet Holmes & others contend, what makes the >difference between highly successful businesses & >also-rans are systems: policies, plans & procedures. > >My corollary is: If you don’t track what happened, you >won’t know, for sure, which parts worked or didn’t >work. You’ll only know the result of the whole effort. >You won’t have a firm enough idea of what to do again >in the same way or what you should change & what to >eliminate. > >Apparently, Strymish “organized” books by publishers’ >names, so it wasn’t total chaos. > >Too many consulting prospects are quick to say, “I >tried it, it didn’t work.” They don’t like it when I >ask, “What exactly didn’t work? Was the problem the >medium, headline, offer or…?” Of course, they won’t >know if they don’t try other versions—limited >randomness. > >Some randomness brings success accidentally; many >times we need to determine what to make different. > >I realize multivariate testing can be used, but many >small businesses can’t afford to use it. My example is >set in a limited context. In psychology & marketing, >we can try totally varied methods--at first--to test a >wider variety. But until we narrow the difference to 1 >variation in each version, we can only guess what made >the project work or fail. > >Step by step formulas aren’t always practical, >especially when designed by somebody who isn’t >familiar with the situation. This is applicable in >customer service & handling products. > >We’ll never be able to eliminate every possible >variable beyond our control. If we test ads, we need >to put them in the medium & vehicle (a specific >newspaper or station) & change one element like the >headline with the same copy. > >If more than 1 person does the same kind of task, each >person (or team) can do it in a different way. But >don’t make the Wal-Mart mistake. Continual tinkering >may be good in theory, but you shouldn’t keep changing >procedures, after people have figured out how to make >them work. It doesn’t give them any incentive to make >procedures work, unless they want variety. > >A big reason for McDonald’s success is the systems. >People get trained to do things the same way, so >supervisors know what’s going wrong. People can moved >from one task to another as needed. Customers know >what to expect from franchisee. > >As David wrote, people may file things, but forget >where those are. The answer though isn’t giving up on >neatness. The answer is to have a system, so things >can be stored/filed quickly, then retrieved quickly. >Purchase orders shouldn’t be filed with maintenance >manuals. > >David found the same fault, as I, in the dictum of >scheduling phone calls at a specific time. But if the >calls are from same people, they can be told when the >best time to call is. But it may still be best to call >customers, or respond to their email messages, as soon >as is practical (when you have answers they need). > >The Lesson: A little randomness is good; a little >random mess is tolerable. > >Dennis S. Vogel >Optimal, long-term success isn't a random achievement. >You need a plan supported by policies & procedures, >which will specifically fit your business. You can >find free information to help you do it in this forum >& by using this URL - >http://www.lakefield.net/~thrivingbusiness/

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.