3 ms·

I’m pretty sure most of the other comments are pointing to what I‘m going to say too, but I have to put this out of my mind. This video, while hilarious, puts

by yuchi 13y ago

I’m pretty sure most of the other comments are pointing to what I‘m going to say too, but I have to put this out of my mind. This video, while hilarious, puts the ‘expert’ not in a good light. It is in fact true that the ‘customer’ is talking completely nonsense, but it’s not her fault. Most time you’ll be dealing with something which 1) has been put there or 2) has a focus on something else and you‘re are the only ‘tool’ to accomplish her goal. The question is: what’s our goal? Engineering for the engineering’s sake? This is a goal that IMHO must be present in every engineer, this makes us mutate from tools to artists (personally I think that if something happens for its own sake, then that’s art) But this must (IMHO) not be the only one. What we really need as a goal is something anthropocentric: make someone else happy (happier). The real problem here is not in the customer, but in the ‘expert’. If you really want to have that ‘expert hat’ what you really need to do is understand the very person you have in front, and her needs. Only then you can start talking about ‘technologies’. The problem with this video is that the customer is asking for something to be done, and the ‘expert/sales-men’ team responds with “hows”, this moves the conversation in the wrong direction. - “We need you [...] to draw 7 perpendicular lines” - “Could you please explain better what was the process that brought you here?” If the sales-man stops you because this kind of questions is ‘out of scope’ of the meeting, ask him out, and destroy him to the very last piece of him: he must let you do your job (understand the customer’s needs and take them from want-space to real-space), his job is ensuring that from a sales and customer relation point of view you‘re not ruining your own company strategic plans. Is he also the project manager? Then try to make him reason. He doesn’t? Quit. Now. wooosh. I had to say it. sorry.

mildtrepidation 13y ago
This is really, really idealistic. Most people do not have the flexibility to just up and quit, and most people in this situation do not have the influence to "destroy" a salesperson without getting fired or at least censured. It sounds like either you've never been in a situation like this or you should back up a bit and take it in at a higher level; you're missing the forest for the trees. You're assuming the client contact you have even knows "the process that brought [them] here," which they often don't, and that they are going to be interested in discussing it with you, which they often aren't, among other things. This conversation is also more often, in my experience, one step removed: Rarely have I seen this actually happen with a technical implementation person in the room. More typically it's a salesperson and a project manager, and you just get marching orders after the fact, which may or may not make sense depending on the PM's ability and willingness to make sense of the client's requirements.

by yuchi 13y ago

mildtrepidation 13y ago

This is really, really idealistic. Most people do not have the flexibility to just up and quit, and most people in this situation do not have the influence to "destroy" a salesperson without getting fired or at least censured. It sounds like either you've never been in a situation like this or you should back up a bit and take it in at a higher level; you're missing the forest for the trees. You're assuming the client contact you have even knows "the process that brought [them] here," which they often don't, and that they are going to be interested in discussing it with you, which they often aren't, among other things. This conversation is also more often, in my experience, one step removed: Rarely have I seen this actually happen with a technical implementation person in the room. More typically it's a salesperson and a project manager, and you just get marching orders after the fact, which may or may not make sense depending on the PM's ability and willingness to make sense of the client's requirements.