A Job Done Well - Making Work Better

Customer Experience or Customer Service With Adrian Swinscoe.

• Jimmy Barber, James Lawther and Adrian Swinscoe • Season 2 • Episode 26

Share episode

Send us a text

In this episode, we welcome guest Adrian Swinscoe, an author, researcher, and advisor on customer service and experience. 

Adrian challenges the underlying management beliefs that you should try to manage revenue, cost, and profitability and explains how you can create better organisational outcomes by focusing on your employees and customers.

The discussion also covers the shortcomings of chatbots, artificial intelligence, and the desire to control “the customer experience”.

It is all about inputs and outcomes. Listen in to find out more.

Hello. I'm James. Hi, I'm Jimmy and welcome to A Job Done Well, the podcast that helps you improve your performance enjoyment at work.

James (2):

Good morning, how are you doing?

Adrian:

I'm very Well, How are you? Is it morning? I thought it was afternoon,

James (2):

well,

Jimmy:

I was gonna say, James, you can't even tell the time anymore.

James (2):

it's amazing,

Adrian:

It's morning and it's Eastern seaboard time. It's morning. So like hello to all the listeners

James (2):

I am, yeah, I am, I'm phoning you from New York, can you not tell? As you can tell, as you can tell, um, not just me and Jimmy here today, we have a guest, Adrian Swinscoe, who is a, well, I don't know, introduce yourself Adrian, how would you describe yourself?,

Adrian:

I'm an author, a researcher, an investigator, an advisor on things like service and experience. I mean, I think that the thing that I'm really interested in is how do we create, build, nurture, develop organizations to the point where they produce better outcomes for both customers. There are people, but also the business itself.

Jimmy:

The Holy Trinity.

Adrian:

Yeah, indeed.

James (2):

Very good.

Jimmy:

I'm sure we'll get into some of that with you Adrian. It sounds like you've been investigating and writing about that. So I'm sure you have some answers for us.

Adrian:

I'll try my best.

Jimmy:

when you say like, no you can't do all those three, that's it. We'll all be disappointed.

Adrian:

Well, I think you can. you just need to be really focused about what you're doing and why.

James (2):

as a customer experience expert, Adrian, you said to me the other day, a customer experience is all about Buncombe, so, um, Yeah, go on. Let's make a start with that then. So why is that? What do

Adrian:

Well, I would, I would, I would go back to the idea of being a customer experience expert, because I don't think this is such a thing. I don't think you can be an expert in somebody else's experience

James (2):

Go on.

Adrian:

because there's, there's this old idea, right? It says there's stuff that happens and then there's what we make it mean.

James (2):

Yeah.

Adrian:

And that's basically true of all things in life. And therefore to say that you can do somebody, do experience for somebody. I said, I've been like, well, no, you can't, you can try and facilitate and create the conditions that somebody. That would enable somebody to have a positive experience, but that's as far as they go, because some of them will come along and interact with what you've done or with you and how they feel about that will depend on them,

Jimmy:

Yeah.

James (2):

So it's a bit like, so it's a bit like the story of the football match. You know, you two people can go and watch exactly the same football match and some of them can think it's fantastic and some of them think it was absolutely dreadful.

Adrian:

particularly if they're on, particularly if they're on opposing sides.

James (2):

Absolutely.

Jimmy:

So, so is, is your view then Adrian that. The experience, you create an environment and conditions, but the experience is a personal one. And that might be depends on my interest, my values, my mood and a million other factors that are outside of your control, essentially.

James (2):

But so if it's not about, so if I can't manage the experience, then what the hell should I be doing?

Adrian:

Well, it's a bit like, um, you can't manage the experience cause that's outside of your domain of control. Right. But you can, you are in control of the things that you do. Right. So one of my favorite examples of recently is the idea around chatbots. Gartner recently had some research that said like, 70 percent of all customers would be happy to use a chatbot or to self serve. You know, when they've got like these simple kind of problems, but yet only about 17, 15, 16, 17 percent of those people were able to solve their queries using those facilities that were created.

Jimmy:

is that because their problems aren't simple or is it because the chatbots aren't working in the way that you need them to be?

Adrian:

when you dig into it and you go, well, for even for the really, really simple queries,

Jimmy:

Yeah.

Adrian:

that number at 17% only went up to 30%. So you still got a big massive failure gap.

Jimmy:

yeah,

James (2):

Yeah.

Adrian:

Well, I said, well that, does that not mean, um, chatbots? The chatbots says they currently stand are rubbish. And they were like, they were these, they were technologists in the room.

James (2):

They were selling chatbots.

Jimmy:

Yeah.

Adrian:

well, they were doing all sorts of different things, but they were quite pro technology technology. And I said, well, here's the thing that I think is missing, if you ask most organizations, who are the people that are experts in having conversations with customers, who are the people that do it, whatever medium. On the most regular basis if I pose that to that question to you gentlemen, who would it be?

James (2):

Customer service agents.

Adrian:

customer service agents,

James (2):

Big people on the

Adrian:

right? People on the phone every hour, every day, all day, a week, that sort of thing. Right? So you would, it's pretty safe to assume that those folks, you would say, I've probably got greater expertise in having conversations with customers than anybody else in the organization. here's a different question. How many of those people are involved in the design of your conversational flows Of your chatbot?

Jimmy:

Tumbleweed. Yeah.

Adrian:

There's a problem.

Jimmy:

Yeah.

James (2):

Well, but that's interesting, right, because they're focused on the wrong thing, I would argue. Because, do you know, I don't have a problem with the chatbot, as long as it provides the service that I need. So I'm absolutely with you. I mean, I use Amazon day in, day out, and I never speak to somebody at all. But the point is, that the service works. It does what it says on the tin. Yep. Whereas if you just put it in a chatbot and it's just there to, well, say money Saxon people, then

Adrian:

guess the thing that I was, I was trying to emphasize was that we overlook. insight, intelligence, resources, capabilities, uh, because how we perceive the jobs that are done by different people and how we respect them, right? I think that, and a lot of people go, no, artificial intelligence is going to be the way to go on this. But I also think we overlook, um, the collective agent intelligence,

James (2):

Which you've already paid

Adrian:

which you've already paid for in trying to make that artificial intelligence. Effective because let's face it, artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence is nothing without data.

James (2):

Yeah.

Adrian:

And the data that's locked into the, the, your agent intelligence is the, it, the challenge is, is that how do I extract that and codify that as input into your artificial intelligence in that sort of chatbot environment?

Jimmy:

Yeah.

Adrian:

Customer help query sort of situation. there's two types of AI, there's artificial intelligence and there's agent intelligence. And if you're missing the second one, that probably goes a long way to explaining. The lack of performance in the first one.

Jimmy:

it certainly, it certainly limits it. I think another angle, Adrian, to, to the same conundrum is that organizations often forget about why they're doing something. So the, the whole chatbot example, you were saying about experience and service. And if, if you're thinking about it from my lens as a customer, And I'm going into that, then you'll serve me in a different way. And yeah, I like what you're saying about agent and artificial intelligence together. But what the organizations do is they do it from their perspective. And what I want to do is I want to keep you away from people who cost money and therefore I'll give you a chat bot because it's cheaper. The problem I have is your point about simple queries. Yeah, I'd deal with simple queries, but quite often I go on knowing that it's quite a simple query. Yeah, I've got to go through all sorts of loops with chatbots in order to get to a person because the organization's interested in the cost, not the service angle of it. Back to the holy trinity of, can you manage your business performance, your agent performance and your customer performance all together? It depends. Organizations don't take a balanced view of that necessarily.

Adrian:

I would, I would say that there's, they're also missing a trick, the biggest thing that people have been kind of saying, particularly around contact centers or customer service departments, the problem is is that they are I've always been people heavy,

Jimmy:

Yes.

James (2):

Yeah.

Adrian:

So it's like, it's a big op ex wait, right? There's a lot of head count there, so they're always, you know, viewing it as a cost center, but they don't say, well, what value do we get it get from that? You know, what is the importance of that? there was an interesting piece of, um, research that was done by Accenture that said that. About 80 percent of organizations view their contact center as a cost center, but about 20 percent view it as a value center revenue generator.

James (2):

it depends, does it not? I mean, so the real question here is what is the priority? Right. What are you focused on? So if you are focused on reducing cost and you look at a customer service center, then it is very expensive Yeah, you got a thousand people sitting there. That's not a cheap do by any stretch of the

Adrian:

Mm hmm.

James (2):

So you can see why they come to that conclusion however If you're looking at a way to optimise the serving of your customers, then you take a very different view about it. And you talked about artificial intelligence versus agent intelligence, well the thing is, when you phone most call centres, the agent intelligence seems to be a bit sadly lacking as well. But of course it's not the agent that's thick, excuse the terminology, it's the business that's thick, because of the rules and the things that they ask their um, agents to do. And so for me, the real challenge is how do you want to unlock that agent intelligence to be able to serve your customers properly. So you don't get this constant spiral of people calling and calling and calling, which then of course, if you did that, then your costs would drop,

Adrian:

There's a level of time and patience and commitment that's an investment that's required to change these things. Because if you think about big organizations when they've got their customer service organization, it's probably been like that for years, if not decades. And there's all sorts of legacy technology and infrastructure and probably contracts. That stop people making the changes, they could make. I mean, there's this frightening, frightening statistics that float around and there's different reports that say many of these agents are still working on between. Nine to 15 different apps

James (2):

Yeah.

Adrian:

to solve the majority of the queries that they face on a daily basis.

James (2):

Yeah.

Adrian:

So when you're tabbing around into different sort of screens, it just makes the job hard, right? And it's no wonder that, you end up with this. thing that people feel that they're under pressure trying to figure out where tab, which tab to go to, but they're not actually being helped. I've I don't like bad service, it always frustrated me. That many organizations got in the way of their people doing a good job. That they didn't provide themselves with the environment, the tools, and the training in order to do that, kind of, and attend to things at the point of demand.

Jimmy:

And it is a is an ongoing debate between James and I as to which comes first in in terms of, impact. Is it the capability of the people and what they can do? Or is it the system that's wrapped around, uh, them and that the way that constrains or enables them and, you know, which wins out the the crap system or the skilled people? And James, obviously, thinks it's the system and Me being the people person thinks it's the people. And unfortunately, and I hate to admit this in front of James, the more we talk about it, the more you can see it's the constraint of the system it's because you're constantly bolting something else on and adding, adding and adding, We continue to do that.

James (2):

Now, I'm going to go about it the other way. I think the issue is actually the people. But, it's the senior people. I read, I read, um, yeah. I read In Search of Excellence, which had been given about 30 years ago. And Tom Peterson made a really interesting point. And you said by and large, and this is a gross generalisation, you said by and large the poor businesses are run by accountants, whereas the excellent businesses are run by people who understand the product or understand the service that they're selling. And that of course is because the accountants are just focused on the numbers, whereas the product people or the service people are focused upon are we giving customers what they want.

Jimmy:

So does that mean that Tom Peters has finally persuaded you that I'm right? Yeah.

James (2):

person that matters, mate, on the whole, I think it's the sister. But there you go.

Adrian:

I mean, I, I, I do think that's, um, right. if the system's not right and the structure, you know, the tools, the environment are not right, then you'll just churn through people because they won't have the resilience

James (2):

Yeah.

Adrian:

stay with it. There will be, however, the odd people every now and again, they're a bit more committed and a bit more resilient, and they'll just figure stuff out. And then they'll become your embedded sort of experts. And because they'll figure out all the different workarounds, all these, all the things, and they'll just make it work for themselves. But most people, are probably not like that and they just get churned through the system. We'll just wear them out.

James (2):

But then coming back to your initial, your sort of, your three legged stool or whatever the hell we, I'm not, I'm going to

Jimmy:

Holy Trinity is much better than three legged

James (2):

that's much better,

Adrian:

Oh, I, I prefer the kind of like, I don't, I'm not really kind of the holy bear on the Trinity, but the triumvirate, and

James (2):

good, right. So your triumvirate of? Employee and customer and profitability But that should be eminently doable shouldn't it the problem is you're trying to manage your profitability, which is your output rather than managing your input, which is your employees and your customers

Adrian:

The problem is most people are, um, focused on numbers of customers, turnover and profitability, but actually those are all outcomes.

James (2):

Yeah,

Adrian:

And actually you've got five levers that you can pull on as it were your ability to generate, interest or demand your ability to convert. the buying experience the loyalty that you drive from that in terms of frequency of, of purchase, and then also your cost to serve. Those are the things that we can influence.

James (2):

Yeah.

Adrian:

So those five are your five levers. But the thing is, most people kind of focus on the three outcomes.

Jimmy:

Yeah. we focus on these, the, the, the output measures rather than the inputs, the three versus the five. Why do you think that organizations, Adrian, can't see the, the fallacy of that or can't see that, that actually manage the five and the three will follow

Adrian:

I don't think that gets, that sort of stuff gets taught in business schools.

Jimmy:

Yeah.

James (2):

sorry, Adrian, they'll just go for it again. One time, something very thick. You've got your Demand conversion how much they spend how much they repeat and what your cost of service

Adrian:

there you go,

James (2):

Got it

Adrian:

just as I think it's a for me, I think it's a really simple way of thinking about it.

James (2):

Because I would argue that service certainly drives your cost to serve if you do good service It's one and done and therefore that reduces your cost to serve and also service too drives you repeat purchase because if you know it's a good service you'll go

Adrian:

it goes back to senior execs, I don't think they necessarily have a Very clear view of what their experience or and or service Sort of strategy is and how it connects to commercial outcomes

James (2):

Yeah,

Jimmy:

goes along with your comment. agent, It's not how we're taught how business runs or how operations runs. intuitively, I believe if I treat my customers well, my business will perform well. But actually, because I haven't made it particularly clear or tangible, a lot of companies, the CFO often becomes the CEO. And therefore they understand the numbers, the cost, the, the, the actual hard financials as opposed to the softer customer bits and the link between the two is, is, is missing.

Adrian:

Yeah, and I think that it's the, the, the challenge of anybody who's in that sort of experience and sort of a sort of space is to make, to your point, to make the soft hard. Well, if we improve service outcomes, and reduce that sort of looping round failure demand, then you reduce the cost to serve, right? But we also know that if we reduce the cost to serve, then it might actually Increase our repeat purchase,

James (2):

Oh, well, because it reduced your overall cost so you can lower your prices and off you

Adrian:

And so there's another piece of research that I saw years ago. the click Fox research said that 90 percent of all loyalty happens around two points on a customer's journey. And the majority of that, that would say about 50%. is taken up about what happens around the point of purchase. Like, how do I find, how do I learn about, how to get comfortable with all these different things? Do you make me feel right about my purchase? And that's a very human thing, right? We want to spend money and make, feel good about what we've spent our money on, right? we want to feel like we've made smart decisions. And that drives that, I'd say that 50 percent of, of, of, of loyalty. But the remaining part of loyalty is driven by what happens when something goes wrong. the thing that we appreciate more than anything else from a very human perspective is when something goes wrong, that somebody comes along and saves us.

Jimmy:

Yeah.

Adrian:

It's a complete survival instinct sort of thing. We don't like disappointment, uncertainty, failure, threats, all of that type of stuff. So also why when customers are researching a product or a service, they'll often look at review sites and rather than just being bedazzled by five star reviews. They will look for the one star reviews and what happened when something went wrong as a sense of security, like an insurance, if you like.

The show you're listening to right now. Insights to help you improve performance and enjoyment of work. It takes a long time to produce, but we think it's well worth it. It's all in the name of helping you get your job done well. All we ask in return is that you share the link to this show with someone that you think would benefit from it. And if you haven't already, click on follow the show wherever you're listening to this podcast right now. Anyway, let's get back to the show.

James (2):

Well, uh, but that's interesting, right, so that leads you to a point whereby you should actually, or it might make sense to look at your service offering, i. e. when something goes wrong, almost as a loss leader. So let me, I mean I'll give you a case in point on Jimmy Tate's The Mic. I have got a very nice, very swanky Volvo. The car is beautiful, it's lovely. It's very middle class, but it's lovely. It's comfortable, fantastic. However, there was something, yeah it's like a big comfy slipper. Um, but it broke. Something, there was like an intermittent fault with it. It went wrong. Um, my wife took it to the garage and they said they'd fixed it. And then the following day, she took it out. And exactly the same thing happened, it broke, she was stuck half way to Birmingham in this flipping car. And, the point is, you know, the cost of the car versus the cost of the service, is just huge. I would have gladly bought another one, but I'm not going to get another one now just because the service was so poor, Whereas actually, you can almost fix it for free, well people will keep coming back and keep

Adrian:

Right. And so I think that's what I think about the kind of that what people don't do is they don't take a balanced view about the importance of these different elements and the whole relationship, right? It's like, yeah, there's, there seems to be an inordinate amount of focus on the buying and the acquisition of the customer But not the same amount of focus and attention and potentially investments in what happens when something goes wrong. contact centers or customer service departments, you know, help teams, all that sort of stuff. They are the beating real time heart of your business. They'll tell you everything you need to know about what's going right and what's going wrong.

Jimmy:

If you ask.

Adrian:

Well, if you go and listen, right,

Jimmy:

Yeah.

Adrian:

all the data's there. You sometimes just need to collect it. it'll tell you everything about your, what's going wrong, how people are, you know, Responding to your marketing, your sales, your kind of like new products, your services, all of that sort of stuff. It's all there

James (2):

But if I come back to your five things, and then ultimately your three things, it's going to be clever this, right? I was paying attention eventually. So if you talk about demand and your ability to convert on that demand, that really is about the product that you are offering, But if you talk about how much they buy, repeat purchase and your cost to serve, that fundamentally is driven by the level of service that you offer, or how good people perceive that service to be.

Adrian:

Right.

James (2):

Which therefore means that actually, if you're right, service becomes one of the biggest levers that an organisation can pull to become profitable.

Adrian:

I believe I believe so Well,

Jimmy:

a stage further than that though, James, because Yeah. you can have a great product and a terrible buying experience and you're, you're already off onto a losing streak your buying experience will indicate how many people you convert. So I think it does go like you said James, but, but, but even wider.

James (2):

Yeah, okay, it's even wider. But then coming back to the holy triumvirate, or whatever the hell we're calling it, which is money, customers and employees. we all agree that Focusing on money is a bit pointless because that's after the event. So let's focus on either our employees or our customers. So where would you go with that? Is one of those preeminent, take on that?

Adrian:

think they're a function of each other they kind of it flows back and forward, uh, but it's kind of hard to create really good service or to create the conditions for your customers to have a great experience. If you don't look after your employees. I go back to the service profit, profit chain idea

James (2):

Go on. What's

Adrian:

there's an old piece of academic research sort of posited that if you look after your employees, they'll look after your customers and they'll end up looking after the, um,

James (2):

Customers will look after your profits.

Adrian:

right. Simple as that. Tom Peters that's been banging on about this sort of stuff for like decades. Because Tom Peters main message has always been people, people, people, people, people. and I think that Tom Peters was like, when he first kind of discovered that, it was a bit of a revelation for him. Because he, he's a bit of an, like an, he's an analytical guy.

James (2):

Yeah.

Adrian:

He believes,

James (2):

McKinsey I believe, didn't it? You don't get any more analytical than

Adrian:

Exactly. And so he was a bit like, Oh my God. So you think your challenge is to make the soft, hard. but when we, when we've grown up or been educated in a domain, which is all about people talking about hard numbers and the finances and the metrics and everything else, But actually the the truth and reality or the value is in actually focusing on your people and then the numbers take care of themselves and that feels like a resting of control.

James (2):

Yeah, people don't like to do that.

Jimmy:

there is a, at the risk of taking us down a slight rabbit hole. the cost lens. can indicate where problems are. if you look at the U. S. example, you've got the cost of the U. S. government has gone up by 3 trillion in the last five years. that can't possibly be right, but in looking at it, you've got Elon going. Full gung-ho in analytical heaven, but he's not thinking about what outcomes has the government got to get and what are we trying to achieve, and are we achieving that or are we getting value or anything like that. He's just looking at the cost lines and just drawing a line through them. So it's not that. It's not that cost can't show you where your problem is or where your waste is, where your customers are wasting their time. where they're hurting, where they're upset, whatever it is. It's just, if you just obsessionally look at that through that one lens, will have some serious consequences.

Adrian:

The key to it is that you have to understand what do you want to do and why,

Jimmy:

yeah,

Adrian:

just eliminating, looking at big cost lines There's a danger that you don't, you're not taking a systemic view of it. So one of my favorite stories, just as an alternative way of doing things, comes from a book called Maverick in Maverick, there's Ricardo Sama tells the story of, um, how he took over his family's engineering business in Brazil. The company was facing some real difficulties, kind of shrinking its markets, you know, lack of demand, all that sort of stuff, cashflow problems, et cetera. They were facing cost cutting to your point, Jimmy, and, uh, redundancies and all these different sorts of things. The standard way of doing it would have been going like cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, and then see what you're left with. as a survival sort of thing. And Ricardo was like, oh man, I just don't want to do that. So what they did is they went, they had like an all hands meeting with the company. And he went and he explained the whole situation. So here's where we are. This is what we're facing with. I don't want to do, I don't know what to do. I don't want to make some arbitrary kind of cuts. I need your help. And he basically pushed it onto them and said, if you were me, what would you do? And they went away and they figured it and they, they came up with their own solution and their own solution was to not make anybody redundant, but to So you reduce the hours for everybody. So that everybody still had an income. They weren't losing any skills or experience or capability. And they did it over time such that they could manage their way through that, but also making other sort of efficiency, changes that would allow them to weather the storm, but retain all the experience and the capability that they need so that they can ramp up kind of like after that. Best thing that they ever did,

James (2):

He has actually, now you've said that, he's done a very good TED talk. So if your solution is, Oh, we're all going to go on a four day week, or whatever it might be. Yeah. Then I have no doubt whatsoever that a large proportion of those people still came in and did the fifth day anyway Because it was their solution. They were engaged in the

Adrian:

Yeah. So I think there's two things I would kind of draw out from this One is I go back to the idea about drawing on the collective intelligence that exists in organizations that we don't do enough of Because people don't want to cede control and the second thing I'm building on that is that also how we think about other people and the different roles that they have and the perspective, the value of the perspective they might have.

James (2):

Yeah

Adrian:

And there's a recent survey. That plays this out in stark color that came out of, um, McKinsey. It was a CEO, recent CEO survey that talks about the difference between what people say. Oh, we use customer feedback that helps us make data driven decisions and et cetera, et cetera. There's a lot of people that say this, and then the number of people that actually kind of do it. only about 15% of them actually did it.

Jimmy:

all righty.

James (2):

if I summarize that then essentially what I think your message is is that Organizations want to make money, but they focus on the money whereas they'd be far better off Five levers which you can do to make money of which four of them, four of them, three of them, three or four of them depend upon customer service and Actually, if you wanted to have a great customer service Then you have to engage your employees because those are the people who are talking to them Um, and so if that is the case and you buy that, what are the things that people who are listening to this should do?

Adrian:

I would say learn. And I, and I would do that in, it's sort of a, a structured kinda way. I mean,'cause it's like at three different levels. first of all, you kind of have to gather your data to find out what's going on, right? Tell you where you're spending your money, where problems are, all these different things. But I think data just informs us.

James (2):

Yeah.

Adrian:

I think then once you've done that, I think you need to go a step further. And then you need to add sort of stories, color to that, because stories move us. They make it more real. Right? But the third level, and that goes back to what I was talking about in terms of the outcomes of some of the CEO survey that McKinsey did. The third level, which is where it takes people on to get that visceral understanding of what's going on, what matters, is that They go and look for real experience of what it's like to be a customer or what it's like to serve a customer or what it's like, um, to deliver to a customer. So they go seek out these experiences because when you do that, then you actually get this visceral, tangible feeling of what it's like and what matters to, to do the work or to be the customer. So data informs us, stories move us, but experiences compel us.

James (2):

So it really is go and look and learn and understand what's going on. Look at the day. So go to the shop floor, go and find

Adrian:

And I'll tell you a final thing and it's kind of runs, it runs counter to the sort of stereotype that it's the accountants that are generally the CFOs that accede to the, the, CEO chair and they run the companies through, numbers. There's a, there's quite a big technology play player in this sort of space. And they recently changed their CEO. And the CFO ascended to the CEO's chair. And the first thing that the CEO, that new CEO, former CFO did, rubbed his hand and says, right, let's go find out what's going on. And he went off, he sat about and he says, I am going to go talk to people. And customers and everything just went and just kept going, kept going, kept going. Cause he said, I want to know what's going on that lit a bonfire around the rest of the organization. Cause everybody was a bit like, Oh

James (2):

What are you going to find out?

Adrian:

no, no, no. It was more of a case of like, Oh, if he's doing that, then I'm totally going

Jimmy:

Yeah, we should all do it.

Adrian:

And give everybody, it was a cascaded down and give everybody permission to go and do that. And it's had a transformative. Impact on what the focus on what matters for customers what the product portfolio is going to be how it's going to change over time Because it's all about permission.

James (2):

So my stereotype of accountants to start off with is totally unfair, is that what

Adrian:

Well, no i'm giving you one data

Jimmy:

Yeah, the exception doesn't prove the rule. I'm quite confident.

Adrian:

but I was going to say You are the author of your own journey go and find out

James (2):

Very good.

Jimmy:

Great way to, great way to draw it to a close, really.

James (2):

So final question, if people would like to contact you, learn more, where should we point them?

Adrian:

Just look me up adrian swinscoe Um put it into google. I think there's only kind of like one of me So it's a d r i a n s w i n s c o e Dot com you'll find

James (2):

Super. And we'll also put a couple of links into the show notes. Thank you very much.

Adrian:

My pleasure. Thank you.

Jimmy:

Thanks Adrian.

Adrian:

Welcome. Thank you both

We cover a whole host of topics on this podcast from purpose to corporate jargon, but always focused on one thing, getting the job done well, easier said than done. So if you've got. Unhappy customers or employees, bosses or regulators breathing down your neck. If your backlogs are out of control and your costs are spiraling and that big IT transformation project that you've been promised just keeps failing to deliver. We can help if you need to improve your performance, your team's performance or your organization's. Get in touch at jimmy at jobdonewell. com or james at jobdonewell. com

People on this episode

Head Shot

James Lawther

Co-host
Head Shot

Jimmy Barber

Co-host
Head Shot

Adrian Swinscoe

Guest