Subject:
|
Reply 6: Issues vs. Mistakes
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.color, lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:48:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5655 times
|
| |
|
|
Jake McKee wrote:
> > Yes, acknowledged, we get some information quite early, and I'm not
> > complainig about this. But you see the problem that other people in
> > charge of customer communication like field sales and call center people
> > are not properly informed about things that are going to hit the
> > customer.
> Well, there's only so much that each of us can effect though, right? We should
> probably focus mostly on what's important to you personally, and what I'm able
> to effect personally.
I, personally, am not the topic. I am just pointing to the issues where
Lego might have a problem. If I don't get an answer to a question, I
have to think that this might happen to other people, too. And they
might be more upset or confused by this. My approach to communication is
different, though, and quite robust.
> > And way to often they learn about potential issues not from
> > the people in the company who caused them, but from the customers and
> > resellers.
> Of course, that's reality. Sometimes there are mistakes that happen and we're
> aware of them as soon as we make them. (And in those cases, we should certainly
> spread the word, as often happens) But in most cases, we don't realize a mistake
> has been made until someone tells us something went wrong. If people were able
> to identify every mistake they made as soon as they'd made it, they'd be able to
> instantly correct it and there'd be no mistakes ever happening.
Thats why I was talking about "issues" instead of "mistakes". Mistaks
will happen, and it is any companys responsibility to find and fix
mistakes, before the customer does. But - as your company learned with
the colour change fiasco - a deliberate, planned change in a product
might affect the customer as does a genuine mistake. As such, it should
be duly communicated with the customer front (sales reps, call center)
in time with the change hitting the customer and not after hundreds of
people called and complained. This is not necessarily limited to
negative impacts. Imagine me buying a set where the stickers are
properly sealed in an envelope to prevent them from being damaged. I
might actually call the call center to thank Lego for this idea. The
reply might be either "Oh, do we now?" or "Yes, mister, we did this to
improve product quality and customer satisfaction". Which one do you
think gives a more professional impression of the call center and the
companies work?
> > We got aware of the bley issue by people who opened sets
> > containing oddly-coloured bricks. And this change to the core system
> > obviously came from the sky over night, as nobody seemed to know about
> > this. No sales rep, no call center, and no community development group,
> > either.
> Yes, but part of the mistake that was made (and admitted to, and apologized
> for...) was that the team that implemented this didn't properly inform or
> solicit feedback. They didn't do this because they didn't realize it was
> necessary. Of course this was wrong, and of course, they now realize their
> mistake. But the mistake was caused because in their minds they didn't think it
> a decision worthy of discussion.
Or, to rephrase it, they did not think this was worth to be
communicated. They propably did document this, though.
I am still amazed, though, how such a big change that affected many
departments in your company went totally unnoticed until it hit the
customer:
- Development cooked this up, and kept shut for being unaware that this
might affect anybody.
- Purchasing bought significant amounts of a new colour, while reducing
another, previously high-volume colour - and nobody noticed?
- Production switched from grey to bley - OK, as we've seen with Ben's
2x4 plates and similar issues before, QA is not what it once was...
- Storage filled up with bley, and made it avalable for designers and
model builders - and nobody thought this was worth mentioning or discussing?
If this whole issue is not a case of severe communication breakdown,
what else could it be?
> As I've stated many times, there has been an important lesson learned for many
> of us internally out of all of this, and I'm already starting to see more
> feedback, discussion, and notification about things happening internally.
It is sad though, that it took such a fiasco to get people start about
the importance of communicating what they are doing.
> > Yes, for you, this issue may be past (although it will haunt you
> > for ages to come), and some information structures surely have been
> > changed in the aftermath of this, but I would not bet significant parts
> > of my body that something like this will never happen again, universal
> > colours and promises from corporate high to and fro.
> Let me help you out on this one - things like this absolutely WILL happen again
> (although hopefully not with the color issues!). The fact is, things go wrong
> when you're dealing with a system/community/group as large as this. Mistakes
> happen, things don't go according to plan, problems exist. That's how life
> works.
I think there should be a distinction between "things that go wrong",
and large-scale man-made catastrophies like the colour change. If a
machine runs wild and munges the bricks while packaging them, this is
when "things go wrong". But the colour change - as I pointed out, there
must have been lots of people been involved into this besides the design
group - and nobody noticed that this might be a problem? Or did people
notice, and failed to communicate this? Or maybe they did not even
attempt to communicate this, because of previous experiences?
OK, this is wild speculation, and I don't really expect an answer, but
if I had a say in this company, I would certainly give this a thought.
> That said, I'm working every day to increase the awareness of the fan community
> within the company, but also the company within the company within the fan
> community. (As shown above in the responses to the examples you give) This
> increased awareness will hopefully lead to a decrease in bad suprises and
> mistakes. Avoidance is crucial, but reactiveness if often more important.
Oh, how would we love to see a real reaction to the bley fiasco! That
was why we were signing the CEO letter in th first place.
Yours, Christian
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Reply 6: Issues vs. Mistakes
|
| In lugnet.color, Christian Treczoks wrote: <snip> . (...) Oh My Goodness. THere was a real reaction--Jake has mentioned it numerous times--meetings, discussuins, etc. And to throw the icing and cherry on the cake, which didn't have to happen, you (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-05, to lugnet.color, lugnet.lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: CEO-Letter // The answer
|
| In lugnet.color, Christian Treczoks wrote: Christian, thanks for your indepth response. We can have discussions much better when the posts are calm and logical like this. Just to make sure it's clear, I'd like to point out that you're absolutely (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.color, lugnet.lego, FTX) !
|
79 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
