Archives for February 2015

Mutual trust between client and provider

amateur radio transceiver Collins KWM-2A

amateur radio transceiver Collins KWM-2A (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As a young chap I got my amateur (ham) radio license. I passed the exam and took and passed my Morse test at the Post Office Headquarters in London. I was very active while I was still living with my parents and had few responsibilities.

When those responsibilities kicked in and I was busy working in Town I did not have time for my hobby, so I stored away all my gear. Recently, I though I would make a come-back in radio. Of course the technology has moved on and I will embrace it. However, there is a particular old radio transceiver (“rig” as we hams call them) I really wanted working. It was not, and as I lacked all the equipment and probably the expertise to fix it, I arranged to send the radio to a professional service workshop.

After a couple of weeks, which seemed longer, the guy at the workshop telephoned to say the radio was fixed, and I should send a cheque (or check), which is what I did. After another week with no sign of my transceiver I telephoned him and was told that as my cheque had been cleared , which means processed by the bank, my radio was being sent back to me. It duly arrived and is working, but it has also been rather a long wait.

I think the workshop sent all the wrong signs. Firstly, to await the clearance of the cheque seems to show a lack of trust. Maybe once bitten but, with mixed metaphors, we are not all tarred with the same brush.

Secondly, part of any service is a reasonable turnaround, and this long wait to check payment added to the delay.

All this could have been avoided either by accepting payment by instant direct bank payments, or indeed why not use Paypal? Then there would be no suggestion of lack of trust since we are all used to paying this way, and there would be a quicker delivery of service.

The radio workshop’s old-fashioned ways must make the customers uncomfortable. I felt rather insulted. That is unnecessary as their work is good. Even if they do not trust the customers, they do not need to make it obvious if they accept modern methods of payment. What do you think?

 

Solving the problem. Or not?

The Plumber

The Plumber (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We who provide services are paid to solve problems. aren’t we? If a client comes to me worried about an issue she has, it would not help for me to just say “Oh dear, you are in a mess”. She wants to hear how I am going to fix it, relieve her stress and generally help her feel better. Of course that is what I do, if possible. If I cannot fix it, I will just be honest, and if I am able, help mitigate the pain.

Recently we had an issue at home with our heating. It was a minor problem which could be fixed, although we already had another problem of a more serious nature which had been diagnosed by a plumber who had now gone abroad to work.

We had to choose a new plumber, who came to fix the more minor issue, which was done satisfactorily. We paid his bill.

We told him about our other problem. He seemed to think that the diagnosis we had been given was not correct. We wanted the problem fixed, so we agreed he could try. He sent two of his colleagues who fiddled around for a couple of hours before agreeing with the original opinion. They could not sort out the problem without the major work we had already been told was necessary.

We were then presented with a bill for not fixing the heating. Understandably, I think, we said that we had told the plumber what the problem was, and his men had spent two hours not sorting it out before agreeing with the original opinion. Would you have paid for that? I think not?

We all have to deliver a solution, or be honest if we cannot. We certainly cannot charge for our failures.