I recently had need to call Carefirst (my health insurance company) because they had made a billing error. I had paid my premium, the check was cashed (online proof from my bank) yet my account had not been credited.

I dutifully called the “Questions about your invoice?” number on my statement, and was on hold for about 15 minutes (which is typical with Carefirst, I’ve found). When I finally was able to talk with a human, she very kindly told me: “Let me check with accounting on this. May I put you on hold?”

“That’s fine,” I replied.

Two minutes later, she returned on the line to tell me “They’re very busy with a high volume of calls, and I can’t get through. I can’t wait any longer on the line with you because we also have a high volume of calls. Would you like me to put you in the queue there?”

“Thanks for nothing,” I replied, and hung up.

So let me get this straight: I hold for 15 minutes to talk to someone about my bill (Remember, I called the number specifically for help with my invoice) and then I’m told “I can’t help you but you can certainly wait some more, if you’d like.” So what I’m hearing is “My time is far more valuable than yours. Feel free to wait, but I’m going to go someone else now.”

Several days later, I called Carefirst back, again to check on this billing issue. This time, I get a recording that says “The wait time is approximately 16 minutes. You may stay on the line, or we can call you back if you give us your name and phone number” (or words to that effect). Wow! They’ll call me back?!?

So I gave it a try. Sure enough, in almost exactly 16 minutes (I timed it, you know), I got an automated call back, and within two minutes I was back on the phone with Carefirst. By this time, they had straightened out my billing problem and everything was right in the world.

I have no idea if this call-back service is brand new for Carefirst, or if it’s just the first time I encountered it, but kudos to them for implementing it. A call back is MUCH better than waiting on the phone.

Let’s face it, sometimes there is a mismatch between a person’s abilities or attitude, and the needs of the job. And when that mismatch occurs and can’t be remediated, it’s time to help that person find a new job.

But too often, for fear of looking like the bad guy, or just doing something that makes us uncomfortable, we hold on to staff that we know ultimately are causing more trouble than good. I was talking with David Gammel about this concept recently, and he pointed out that keeping bad staff is a lot like wearing your clothes when swimming: While it may feel better to jump into the water fully clothed, in very short order the wet clothes will start to wear you down and the experience will quickly become exhausting.

I’ve had the distinct displeasure of having to fire more than a few people in my time as a manager. But I can say that as painful as it was to do it, it was far better than the alternative of hanging on to someone who didn’t belong in the job. And in at least one case, someone I helped leave an organization actually told me it was the best thing that happened to him. He was just too afraid to make the move himself and I was able to help him make that move.

So ask yourself: Are you swimming with your clothes on?

I came across this in a business magazine. It seems Microsoft (and other companies) are producing children’s books to promote their products. You can even buy this on Amazon!

I had the pleasure of speaking with Ann Hamilton of Disney a few weeks ago. During our conversation, I asked her how she liked working for Disney. She immediately replied: "Oh, I love it. It seems everything we do is always on purpose."

"Always on purpose." I love that.

Her point was that everything Disney did was done for a reason; there was nothing extraneous or superfluous about their actions or activities. Always on purpose. 

Ask yourself how much of your day-to-day activity is "always on purpose." 

Let me start by saying I love the guys (and women) in IT. I really do. They are important to our success, and I can tell you many, many stories about how, as my father would put it, they “pulled my bacon out of the fire.” (Here’s just one of those stories.)

But too often, I see decisions about how the association is run (i.e., business decisions) being left to the IT staff, because the work involves a “technology solution.” Let me give you a recent example:

A past client of mine called me recently to update me on how things were going with their new database. She is the director of meetings, so her key interest in a new database was the ability to allow her members to register for events online.

Here it was, more than a year since they had gone live, and she tells me they still don’t have online meeting registration. I know the product they chose offers such functionality, so I asked her why it still wasn’t up. Her reply: “The IT staff didn’t like the online tool, so they said they’re going to build one themselves.”

“Have you or your staff seen the original online registration product yourself?” I asked.

“No,” she replied. “They made that decision without talking to us.”

This is exactly the kind of behavior I’m talking about. The online registration tool isn’t there to make the IT staff’s life easier; it’s there to make the customer’s life easier (and by the transitive property, the meeting registration staff’s life easier). For the IT staff to make that decision in a vacuum is really malpractice.

Is that happening in your organization? Are business decisions around technology being delegated to your IT staff because the senior management doesn’t want to get involved, or view it simply as a “technology” issue?

James Michael-Hill, Web/Database Manager for the Utilities Telecom Council, posted a note to the Avectra Users Group, explaining how he has built a utility for allowing Avectra's netForum to communicate with Drupal, an open source content management system.

This is very cool for a couple of reasons:

1. Because James is part of the Avectra users group, he let the group know he had built these tools.
2. Because Drupal is an open source CMS, he posted the tools to the Drupal website so that users can download the code that he wrote.

Kudos to James for sharing this. It's what makes Users Group and open source software so powerful.

Full disclosure: EDM is an independent third-party consulting firm. This means we have no financial relationship with any of the vendors mentioned in this blog. We provide unbiased opinions on what we see.

At the dinner table with my family the other day, I was discussing an issue as my nine-year-old son listened in. The conversation went something like this:

My father-in-law: They want to bulid a traffic circle at the intersection of Jacaranda and Venice Avenue.

My son: What's a traffic circle?

Me: Instead of putting in a traffic light, a traffic circle is placed at an intersection so that all cars have to drive around the circle to turn, or to continue straight.

My son: Well how does that help anyone?

Indeed!

And it struck me at that moment that frequently we make decisions without asking "How will this really help?" In the case above, the locals think that if there's a traffic circle, it'll be better because then you won't have to stop to make a turn. You can just drive through the circle. The reality, of course, is that the circle will slow all travel down, and the net result will be longer travel times, not shorter. I'm not sure it will really help anyone.

So when making decisions at your organization, be sure to ask "How will this help?" And "Who will this help?"

UPDATE: Link fixed 

Terry Dowdy forwarded me his thoughts about this recent story in The Washington Post about The Nature Conservancy's mismanagement of data. With his permission, I present Terry's (slightly edited) thoughts:

This is wrong on so many counts: why was old data was still being used, why was it on a laptop (SSNs!), where is the AMS in all of this, why didn't they have good anti-spyware programs in place, etc. The only good point I see is that the network folks were monitoring their network traffic and were able to pinpoint the breech (albeit too late).

An organization as large as Nature Conservancy should've known better…and protected themselves better. But in the end, it always comes down to the end-user and their sense of personal responsibility — or lack thereof.

Terry raises some great points:

1. Sensitive data on a laptop. That should never happen. Laptops are, by definition, mobile, which means the information can be easily physically stolen. Ironically, in this case, this information could have been on a workstation since it was stolen using spyware.
2. Old data still being used. There may be some reason for keeping old data (since this related to payroll). But again, why would this data be on a hard drive? It should be a one a network drive that's well-protected.
3. Where is the AMS? Good question. This was employee information, so it's arguable it didn't belong in the AMS, but a case could be made for that.
4. Where's the anti-spyware? Again, hard to say if there was any loaded and whether or not it was updated.

But all of this points to data management malpractice. As data managers we are caretakers of the data. We have to be sure the data we're managing is safely handled at all times. And that includes keeping the data up to date and keeping it well-protected.

Where are your security holes? And what have you done to address them? It only takes one well-publicized incident like this one to sully an organization's reputation for years.

I recently placed an online order at Jockey.com for some t-shirts. My order was delivered as promised, but what really got my attention was an email I received a few days after the order arrived. It read in part:

"I just wanted to thank you for shopping with us–and to ensure that your experience with us was a pleasant one.

If you have any unmet needs or concerns, please just click reply on this email for a real, live, human response. Ninety-three percent of our emails are answered within 24 hours."

I think this email is impressive for three reasons:

1. It is unexpected. How often do you receive emails from someone after you've purchased something and it's been delivered?
2. It is easy. They ask you to reply directly to the email if you have any issues, as opposed to giving some link or another email address.
3. It is real. They tell you that the email will be answered by a human and even give you impressive statistics on how quickly they reply.

What's most interesting about this is the email itself can be automatically generated by a good ordering system to go out at some point after the item has been shipped, so no additional work is required. And the reality is, the vast majority of recipients will not respond at all. But they'll get the message: Jockey wants to be sure you got what you wanted, and if you have any questions, we're here to help. A real, live human being is here to help.

What is your organization doing to surprise and impress your members and customers?

I went to see my doctor the other day. At the end of the appointment, the doctor asked the receptionist to give me two sheets on "rotator cuff tendinitis" (which is what I'm being treated for).

The receptionist hands me two sheets of paper that look like they are about fifth or sixth generation copies. That is, the copy I was receiving was copied from a copy of a copy of a copy… well, you get the point.

The copies are so poor that I can barely read what they say. All of this begs the question: Do they not have computers in my doctor's office? The last time I checked, one could create a document in this fancy program called "Word," and every time you need another copy of it, you can click the print icon, and a brand-new, original copy prints from your printer.

Look around your organization. Are you distributing any kind of printed material that is not an original print from a printer (whether in-house or outsourced)? Print is cheap. There is absolutely no excuse for giving your members and customers anything but original copies of printed materials.

Not that I feel strongly about it.