Sunk Cost Fallacy?
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
Our workflow doesn't do much if any blind transfers, and absolutely does not do any blind transfers to on hold. Blind transfers would always be to a typical ringing state, and if not answered transferred to VM or back to the transferer.
You mention that you don't do this here. But in a previous comment you said.
Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
So you want a feature that you don't use? Or did I misread this?
We don't ever do that function blind - i.e. the operator calls me - I answer and say - park the call. The operator puts the call on my phone because I told her to. If I didn't answer, she would either transfer them to my VM or take a message, but she would NOT put the call on hold on my phone, nor would she blind transfer the call to my phone (she must know I'm there ready to take a call, otherwise she finds someone else to take it or VM or message).
Curiosity: Why all that complexity rather than something like a ring group?
I was thinking that too. Ring all the phones and the first person to pick up answers the call.
Because that's still a blind call.
Why would that be a bad thing? You have a pool of people that are capable of answering this persons question. Ring all the phones and take the complexity out of the conversation. The real answer seems to be, we've always done it this way and it works for us... regardless if it is the best solution.
Sadly, because we have a personal issue. The call center (we call it the message center) is supposed to be staffed all day, every day. Sadly it's empty 60% of the time. The operators have been allowed by management to track down someone to take phone calls... so the operator just keeps calling all over the building looking for people to take calls.
Management refuses to change the workflow, so other more normal things like ring groups (huntgroups) don't often work.
That was my point. Making things fast, simple or good customer service would meet with disdain. No point in trying to fix what is broken, as broken is the goal.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
Our workflow doesn't do much if any blind transfers, and absolutely does not do any blind transfers to on hold. Blind transfers would always be to a typical ringing state, and if not answered transferred to VM or back to the transferer.
You mention that you don't do this here. But in a previous comment you said.
Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
So you want a feature that you don't use? Or did I misread this?
We don't ever do that function blind - i.e. the operator calls me - I answer and say - park the call. The operator puts the call on my phone because I told her to. If I didn't answer, she would either transfer them to my VM or take a message, but she would NOT put the call on hold on my phone, nor would she blind transfer the call to my phone (she must know I'm there ready to take a call, otherwise she finds someone else to take it or VM or message).
Curiosity: Why all that complexity rather than something like a ring group?
I was thinking that too. Ring all the phones and the first person to pick up answers the call.
Because that's still a blind call.
Why would that be a bad thing? You have a pool of people that are capable of answering this persons question. Ring all the phones and take the complexity out of the conversation. The real answer seems to be, we've always done it this way and it works for us... regardless if it is the best solution.
Sadly it doesn't work. But the docs, so my boss tells me, refuse to allow the use of VM, so instead we have this circle jerk of searching going on.
I don't get the connection to VMs. Nothing we are suggesting adds any chance of going to voicemail.
-
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
Our workflow doesn't do much if any blind transfers, and absolutely does not do any blind transfers to on hold. Blind transfers would always be to a typical ringing state, and if not answered transferred to VM or back to the transferer.
You mention that you don't do this here. But in a previous comment you said.
Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
So you want a feature that you don't use? Or did I misread this?
We don't ever do that function blind - i.e. the operator calls me - I answer and say - park the call. The operator puts the call on my phone because I told her to. If I didn't answer, she would either transfer them to my VM or take a message, but she would NOT put the call on hold on my phone, nor would she blind transfer the call to my phone (she must know I'm there ready to take a call, otherwise she finds someone else to take it or VM or message).
Curiosity: Why all that complexity rather than something like a ring group?
I was thinking that too. Ring all the phones and the first person to pick up answers the call.
Because that's still a blind call.
How?
A call in a ring group is blind to whoever answers it, and they apprently cannot do that.
I suppose, but you can have the receptionist send a message that says who is about to come thorugh before sending the call to a ring group. Doesn't have to be blind.
Or the receptionist could call the Ring group themselves and transfer it to whomever picks up. No more monitoring phone banks, takes one step out of the process.
This is one tiny piece of the huge pie. OK this solves parking lots for this one group.. but it doesn't solve the transfer, pull a call for the dozens of other phones around the building.
-
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
So unnecessary complication, and expense, because someone is too lazy to actually look at their workflows? Hell it would probably save them money in the long run to hire a process/workflow consultant.
Of course it would. And yes, someone is too lazy to try to make things efficient. This is something we know from numerous attempts to look into the system. There is a reason I repeatedly call the manager a saboteur. They aren't just collecting a paycheck for doing nothing, they actively stop their staff from doing a good job. But the doctors love getting screwed and hate making money. They prefer to lose money but feel in charge with random rules than to make money. It's their company and their call. But lazy and don't care about making money have to be accepted as the base from which the project happens. The moment you try to look at process improvement or making more money you've lost sight of their goals and your suggestions won't make sense in the context.
-
I'll diagram the current flow, then you all can pick it appart.
-
Honestly, I'd probably just pay anything and stick with the technical debt. There are some benefits to the old system and there are benefits to changing nothing and the benefits to saving money in the long haul or to process improvement are not appreciated, so while it's a great exercise, I dont think it is one that makes sense if you really look at the business context.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
So unnecessary complication, and expense, because someone is too lazy to actually look at their workflows? Hell it would probably save them money in the long run to hire a process/workflow consultant.
Of course it would. And yes, someone is too lazy to try to make things efficient. This is something we know from numerous attempts to look into the system. There is a reason I repeatedly call the manager a saboteur. They aren't just collecting a paycheck for doing nothing, they actively stop their staff from doing a good job. But the doctors love getting screwed and hate making money. They prefer to lose money but feel in charge with random rules than to make money. It's their company and their call. But lazy and don't care about making money have to be accepted as the base from which the project happens. The moment you try to look at process improvement or making more money you've lost sight of their goals and your suggestions won't make sense in the context.
So, they should look at a Cisco system. It adds significant complexity, expense, and reduces functionality! Win-win.
-
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
So unnecessary complication, and expense, because someone is too lazy to actually look at their workflows? Hell it would probably save them money in the long run to hire a process/workflow consultant.
Of course it would. And yes, someone is too lazy to try to make things efficient. This is something we know from numerous attempts to look into the system. There is a reason I repeatedly call the manager a saboteur. They aren't just collecting a paycheck for doing nothing, they actively stop their staff from doing a good job. But the doctors love getting screwed and hate making money. They prefer to lose money but feel in charge with random rules than to make money. It's their company and their call. But lazy and don't care about making money have to be accepted as the base from which the project happens. The moment you try to look at process improvement or making more money you've lost sight of their goals and your suggestions won't make sense in the context.
So, they should look at a Cisco system. It adds significant complexity, expense, and reduces functionality! Win-win.
Yeah, except it would take effort to deploy and there would be change.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Honestly, I'd probably just pay anything and stick with the technical debt. There are some benefits to the old system and there are benefits to changing nothing and the benefits to saving money in the long haul or to process improvement are not appreciated, so while it's a great exercise, I dont think it is one that makes sense if you really look at the business context.
From the sounds of this thread, and others, this seems like the logical and business conscious course. The vendor lock-in would make me balk but at the costs outlined it doesn't make a lot of sense to move to a different system.
-
It's a common problem and all of us feel it, including @Dashrender, there is this drive to do a good job and save the company money and improve workflows and such. But that's not always the business priority and sometimes we have to accept that. No matter how cool it would be to put in an awesome new PBX, one that might even save money long term, just because we see it as a better business decision it may not be for this "customer." This is one of the harsh realities of the IT world - we have to understand the business goals and sometimes they are a bit depressing.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
I'll diagram the desire, then you all can pick it appart.
Clowns falling out of a clown car is what I'm envisioning for this diagram.
-
He's in the same situation a lot of us are whether we admit it or not. My job has ZERO (ZERO) interest in saving any money whatsoever. As a matter of fact we get push back anytime we bring it up. If I were to try to hold out for the ideal job I'd die homeless
-
@wirestyle22 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
He's in the same situation a lot of us are whether we admit it or not. My job has ZERO (ZERO) interest in saving any money whatsoever. As a matter of fact we get push back anytime we bring it up. If I were to try to hold out for the ideal job I'd die homeless
Your job is never to save money. Ever. Saving money, might be a benefit of a solution, but that is not your job.
-
Have at it.
-
Sorry wrong topic.
Deleted.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Just doing really quick numbers, if you went with standard Sangoma SIP phones (the ones made by the FreePBX people) at default Amazon pricing (no bulk discounts or special rates) that would be under $8,800 to replace all 117 phones. Any old phone that still works will save money, any softphone that can be used will save money.
What's generating the $11,000 of unknown costs for option 4?
That's not a great phone
Bare bones for sure, but it works. Have you seen issues with it?
If it's a shit phone, the docs won't accept it. Like banks, a minimal professional appearance is required.
Hell, the fact that the handsets have such a low profile and really hurt your neck when holding the phone to your head with your shoulder practically kills them.
How did you get from bare bones to shit phone that doesn't look professional? What does "looks professional" mean to them, anyway? They want it to look like a receptionist's phone?
Phones with a super low button count look like joke phones to most people in a business environment. Sure, not a practical thing, but a person thing. And for a one time cost, probably worthwhile from a moral perspective.
So I was right, they want to look like they are secretaries. Professionals have low button counts, secretaries who manage calls have many. But then again, what doc is really as professional as a secretary.
What you want is called a "receptionist phone" then, not a professional one.
I think this is what they're after. If more buttons is professional, then this has to be light years ahead:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/JT_Switchboard_770x540.jpg
-
@stacksofplates said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Just doing really quick numbers, if you went with standard Sangoma SIP phones (the ones made by the FreePBX people) at default Amazon pricing (no bulk discounts or special rates) that would be under $8,800 to replace all 117 phones. Any old phone that still works will save money, any softphone that can be used will save money.
What's generating the $11,000 of unknown costs for option 4?
That's not a great phone
Bare bones for sure, but it works. Have you seen issues with it?
If it's a shit phone, the docs won't accept it. Like banks, a minimal professional appearance is required.
Hell, the fact that the handsets have such a low profile and really hurt your neck when holding the phone to your head with your shoulder practically kills them.
How did you get from bare bones to shit phone that doesn't look professional? What does "looks professional" mean to them, anyway? They want it to look like a receptionist's phone?
Phones with a super low button count look like joke phones to most people in a business environment. Sure, not a practical thing, but a person thing. And for a one time cost, probably worthwhile from a moral perspective.
So I was right, they want to look like they are secretaries. Professionals have low button counts, secretaries who manage calls have many. But then again, what doc is really as professional as a secretary.
What you want is called a "receptionist phone" then, not a professional one.
I think this is what they're after. If more buttons is professional, then this has to be light years ahead:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/JT_Switchboard_770x540.jpg
Yup, Mabelle with her 1/4" plugs listening in to the calls around town is the most professional person ever
-
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@wirestyle22 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
He's in the same situation a lot of us are whether we admit it or not. My job has ZERO (ZERO) interest in saving any money whatsoever. As a matter of fact we get push back anytime we bring it up. If I were to try to hold out for the ideal job I'd die homeless
Your job is never to save money. Ever. Saving money, might be a benefit of a solution, but that is not your job.
Right but when I'm selling an idea to someone you would think savings would be considered a benefit but it isn't
-
@wirestyle22 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@wirestyle22 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
He's in the same situation a lot of us are whether we admit it or not. My job has ZERO (ZERO) interest in saving any money whatsoever. As a matter of fact we get push back anytime we bring it up. If I were to try to hold out for the ideal job I'd die homeless
Your job is never to save money. Ever. Saving money, might be a benefit of a solution, but that is not your job.
Right but when I'm selling an idea to someone you would think savings would be considered a benefit but it isn't
I would expect, because you are also selling the savings as part of the solution and that should never be done. The solution needs to stand on its own regardless of savings. Almost everything is an expense in IT.
