Taming tasks needn’t be taxing
Sometimes, due to time and budget constraints, there isn’t an overarching project to place a task, a situation that — for us here at Octane — often arises in the aftermath of completing a major project, where we find ourselves in that weird hinterland between the doing and the planning.
When we begin a new task, we first need to do a few things first (such as open at least one application, either running native on a computer or something on the web, and then reappraise ourselves with the instructions and the requirements), before reminding ourselves what we did before — the list goes on.
Sometimes, this time spent preparing needn’t be replicated if we think more about what needs to be done and line the tasks up such that the initial preparation for one is applicable to those other tasks in the sequence.
What remains should be a production line of tasks with a slither of preparation in between (switching to a different set of instructions or files in the same project folder, as an example), where you then get on with the — uh — task at hand.
So, with this in mind, I conjured up an graphic to illustrate this approach, which — I hope — makes sense!
Talking shop … store, booth, garage, and office…
Business networking events aren’t for everyone. For some people, such things are the awkwardness of an office soirée but without the benefit of free alcohol for that bit of Dutch courage, and swapping out the unwelcome overtures of that not-so-special someone who you avoid like the plague for the overt advances of a bunch of salespeople who talk at, over, and through you.
Worse, the dreaded speed networking event — eek!
Choice of venue aside, I’ve found the optimal angle of approach is to ask the other person what it is they do and then wrap their explanation in a contextual proposition of what it is Octane does.
It’s the difference between:
“We help small businesses deal with big business problems.”
… and:
“We’d create a secure web application to manage the life cycle of [Widget X, Gadget Y, Service Z, or Events 1, 2, and 3], and…”
… or:
“We’d look at trimming your workflow down from 7 stages to about 5, or — if possible — 3, and then digitising the whole thing, then…”
… in each instance, continuing with additional, contextual ideas specific to their business, accompanied with essential benefits, such as reducing costs, and improving efficiencies, among others.
While apocryphal, it’s worth mentioning something that Albert Einstein never said because it’s a useful shorthand:
“If you can’t explain it simply you don’t understand it well enough.”
We often have an intuitive understanding of what we do, but then struggle to articulate that to someone else, so — as I said — context is everything, as is practice.
I often avoid explaining the specifics of what Octane does (because it’s technical and therefore either: 1. confusing; 2. boring; or 3. a combination of 1 and 2) and instead focus on the expected results, and the benefits we would bring to them.
In the end, simplifying the raison d’etre of a product or service isn’t so much a strand of self-promotion or some branch of your marketing strategies as it is the communication of an idea such that its purpose is self evident to someone, whether it’s applicable or relevant to them or not.
Because if someone else understands what you’re capable of accomplishing, then you have the makings of a message that is communicable to others by others, via word of mouth, and fingers to keyboard or touchpad, which could then — in modern parlance — go viral.
Idiocy, bordering on democracy
In business, I avoid certain things, two more than anything else: religion; and politics. However, the implications of exiting the European Union are fast drifting into the shadow of the cloud of debris and chaos created by the British government and its breathtaking ineptitude, which — for once, and this is a rare thing — I find unbelievable, bordering on the surreal.
In the last week or so, I reacted on Facebook to an article shared by the Guardian about Boris Johnson — again — citing the discredited £350 million for the NHS ruse used during the referendum, stirring up an almost spent debate and opening up fractious arguments, to which I responded:
Or, we could have voted to remain and leave things as they were, but then the public wouldn’t have had a chance to pretend they were a suicide cult of economic experts.
… a comment which attracted almost 400 likes.
But the point here is, the public and the politicians between them have zero idea what to do next, in spite of counsel from actual economic experts, from the captains of the industries we risk losing to “foreigners” (a German-made Rolls-Royce is a real prospect, or perhaps of no concern to those who’re not economic nationalists), and that’s something I find as troubling as it is ludicrous.
Towards the end of June 2016, I was moved to write an update on Facebook, which I gave the provisional title of: “Idiocy, bordering on democracy” because, for the life of me, I could not understand how we’d got ourselves into the mess we were in then, let alone in the here in now.
It appears common sense isn’t so common anymore.
A business case for rare sense
Imagine you are the owner of a business, founded some decades ago, and after a moment of quiet introspection, you discover that it is in rude health — a state of affairs that does not run parallel with the nation within which you live.
But you feel there’s room for improvement, and the decision-making process is where you begin. Here, you choose to economize, and instead of deliberating over decisions, which often takes up a lot of your valuable time, you instead place your faith in what you believe to be an innate talent for making the correct decision the first time of asking.
Excellent.
As time goes on, some of those instinctive decisions begin to cause a few problems, but nothing major. Onwards!
However, due to a commingling of circumstances, you find yourself forced into making a decision without first being in receipt of the facts, exposing you and your business to extreme risk. But, you stick with the “Process” and go with the first decision.
With almost immediate effect, you begin to regret that decision.
24 hours later, the consequences of that decision appears almost foolish and hurried.
36 hours later, a number of clients begin to question your powers of reasoning in addition to the decision itself.
72 hours later, you’ve lost a number of major clients who you’ve had for decades.
You’re now faced with a stark choice:
- continue supporting the erroneous decision, in deference to the “Process”, regardless of the consequences, or;
- admit that the “Process” is flawed, make amends, and work to re-build the trust you have lost.
For reasons that elude me, we went with option 1, and the cost of that decision appears due much too soon.