Tuesday, 15 December 2009
My good friend Mike Ellis recently presented on a notion he calls Collaboration 2.0. One of his slides contains a great phrase that set off a train of thought.
Now, I didn't see the talk so I am at risk of trying to make sense of a presentation from just the slides - that is a bit like, as Elvis Costello once wrote, a ballerina learning to dance from a series of still photos.
But Fail Quickly to me opens up all kinds of opportunities from a conflict management point of view.
The fear of failure inhibits innovation and spontaneity. People become reluctant to suggest ideas in case they do not work, especially if there is a legacy of resentment in the wake of previous unsuccessful ideas.
If we were to explore how we can fail quickly then the following things happen;
Build in early tests or samples to see if an idea has potential. If it does not it Fails Quickly before large resources have been invested. This also means that the position of the person who innovated or supported the investment does not need to be defended - a key source of conflict or conflict aversion. (Keep your head down, say nothing)
But Fail Quickly also applies at the other end. If an idea fails, then let it fail quickly. Learn lessons from it - and there is value in learning from failure which can help mitigate the loss of resources - and move on. Get over the failure, both as the innovator and also as management.
Keep going. Move on.
But whatever you do, don't fail slowly.
Sunday, 6 December 2009
When I said I wanted to complain I was given a feedback card with various contact details.
I telephoned the number on that. It was a recorded message service. Nothing more. No thanks.
There was an email address as well, so I emailed them and referred them to yesterday's blog post. Want to know their response?
"Thanks for your feedback about our staff. Your feedback helps us continually improve our stores and service.
(Powered by Fizzback)."
How do you think I am feeling now as a customer?
Do you think I have been heard? Acknowledged? What could Tesco do to improve this situation and their company policy?
Saturday, 5 December 2009
Just because you are a massive retailer like Tesco does not mean that you can humiliate and embarrass your customers when they ask for the correct change.
This evening I was in a Tesco on the Bristol ring road. I bought some milk and other bits and the bill came to £6.02. I didn't want to get a pocket full of change so I paid a tenner, and the odd £1 and a 5p coin that I had. The result, a fiver in change and a couple of pence.
I was handed my receipt and a 2p piece. I pointed that I had given a tenner, not a fiver and that is when I signed up, unwittingly, to their suspicions and degradation.
In front of a busy store, and my son who I had with me, I was told that they would have to "Check the till" before they could give me what I was perfectly entitled to.
The cashier called over the store manager who explained that she could not give me my money until she had checked the till. "Company policy." she said, that's all.
So I wait, my cheeks burning with embarrassment and rage, a queue forming behind me, while the manager counts out the till in front of me and the other shoppers. They are resenting the hold up that I feel I am causing. I am livid that my word is being doubted. So what does the manager say to me? Nothing. What does she say to the cashier?
"You can carry on serving now." and she walks away to an administrative section of the checkout tills, leaving me with the cashier.
The cashier looks at me and says something like "Er, you need to go with her..."
So in front of the whole queue I have to dutifully follow the orders I am being given and go to where the manager continues to count the cash tray she has taken out, taking my young son with me. At this stage I am fuming and so, mustering my most courteous tones I point out to the manager that;
"This is shocking customer service, here. I feel like you are calling me a thief for asking for the right change."
"I'm sorry, it's company policy."
"But this is really embarrassing."
"It's not you" she says, "We have had a lot of frauds with people asking for change which they shouldn't have, and so we have to do this."
Bam. That is it.
The rationale for me being treated like a criminal in front of the other shoppers and my son, is because there have been previous frauds perpetrated against Tescos and so my reasonable. If she checks the till, and the till say it is correct, presumably that means I am one of those frauds.
The alternative is they are going to give me my fiver anyway... in which case, why do I have to wait until you have done your check before I get my fiver?
I repeat that I am not concerned about company policy. I would like my change now and to get out as quickly as possible. By this time 5 minutes of this nonsense have passed. "I'm feeling like a thief here," I repeat.
The rather indignant response?
"I apologised didn't I? We're not saying you are a thief, that's wrong, it is just company policy" Note: What I am feeling is not wrong. My interpretation might be inaccurate but the feeling is not.
She then walked off and spoke to the cashier leaving me wondering what is going to happen.
Now, I wonder, what would happen if the till bears no resemblance at all to what it should be? What if the till suggests that I am wrong? Does that create a case in her eyes that I am trying to defraud the Tesco? With my son in tow? Will she call the police?
She comes back and tells me, like I have just passed an exam, like I should be thankful to her, that "The till is up." ie there is more in it than there should be.
Yeah, thanks. I know that. I told you that over 5 minutes ago before you chose to publicly humiliate me in front of the store and my son, blandly hiding behind "company policy." seemingly ignorant or uncaring as to how that is received and experienced by the greatly inconvenienced and humiliated customer.
Your company policy means jack to me in that situation. It is the experience of the customer that has to count. To doubt a customer in this fashion is shocking.
I was given my fiver and started to walk away.
I turned back to the manager.
"That whole thing was out of order. I want to complain. Who can I speak to?"
I was not given a name, but a glib card reading "Please give us your feedback; We'd like your help to improve your store... Every little helps."
Well, Tesco, here is my feedback.
Stop treating your clients like thieves. They don't like that. It reflects badly on your brand, and we will tell others about our disappointing experiences.
Give your clients some credibility and some dignity.
Don't keep them waiting for their problem to be resolved. Or their change.
Don't embarrass them in front of customers, your staff or their own children.
That one bears repeating so forgive me as I indulge myself.
Don't embarrass them in front of customers, your staff or their own children.
Don't hide behind crass semantics "It's just company policy." That sucks. You were saying "We want to check the till because we are not prepared to believe you." Well thanks, Tesco.
If someone wants to complain, don't fob them off with a telephone number that is nothing more than a recorded message server. Give them a name and a number, a talking voice that they can engage with and communicate with.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
In just a few weeks the Conversational Riffs book will be available to buy.
Conversational Riffs teaches us all how we can easily choose a different response when we find ourselves faced with a conflict situation at work, or in social settings.
We look at the three status quo riffs, or responses, that we learn as we grow up and how trying to get by with those three riffs lead us into repetitive, destructive arguments. We then look at six more creative riffs that will help you to create meaning out of conflict and strengthen those relationships at the very moment they are most at risk.
Finally we identify those two response sorts that you should avoid at all costs.
The book is designed to be practical in its approach to conflict communications and can be read either independently or as part of a training program. More details to follow in the coming days. For more information about Neil Denny's speaking work see here
You can catch Neil speaking with other leading speakers here on 19th November 2009 in Oxford. I hope to see you there.
Sunday, 18 October 2009
“Stand there, here, right on this platform. Don’t worry; it’s safe, really safe. I have built it for you because I am really interested in hearing all about your point of view, how you reached that conclusion and what we can learn from it. I don’t necessarily think you are right, but I do believe that your perspective on what has happened, and your experience of it, can help us both now and in the future. I strongly value the work we do together and our relationship. Please, get comfortable. It’s safe. Now, do carry on.”
Thursday, 23 July 2009
My Youtube video introducing the concept of Collaborative Law can be found here and is helping people to understand how the process works.
Many people do not understand however exactly what is discussed within the collaborative meetings.
I have prepared the mindmap below to assist in that regard. Click on the "Maximise" button to open the full mindmap in a separate window. Alternatively you can zoom out (a bit) or click anywhere on the map and drag it about.
The items on the left are predominantly procedural. The first collaborative meeting often concentrates on these points.
The points on the right are more content based. Their emphasis and the extent to which they are explored will vary from case to case, and meeting to meeting depending upon where the clients' concerns lie.
I hope that this is helpful. If you would like more information then please do not hesitate to contact me. You can find me at www.mogers.co.uk or www.twitter.com/neildenny
Incidentally, I can recommend the www.mindmeister.com mindmapping facility for ease of use.
Monday, 6 July 2009
I have a good joke that I use in workshops and keynotes to illustrate. This is not it but is a good joke all the same and illustrates the point well.
A lesson in why rushing to grab the first solution is not a good idea...
A man went to the doctor one day, complaining of insufferable chronic headaches he had been suffering from for several months.
The doctor checked him over and said;
"Sir I've got good news and bad news. The good news is I can cure you. The bad news is that I am going to have to remove your testicles. You see, you have a rare condition whereby your testicles are placing immense pressure on the base of your spine, which in turn impacts upon the flow of spinal fluid and associated problems with your hypoglossal nerve and lower cortex. I'm afraid they'll have to go."
"Are you sure there's nothing else you can do Doctor?" asked the man.
"I'm afraid not, but I can get you operated on within the week."
Two weeks later and the man was walking down the High Street having had his operation, pleased that his headaches have gone at last but feeling a little low after his life changing operation. As he walked past an old fashioned tailor's store he thought he would treat himself to a new suit to cheer himself up.
"Hello Sir," said the attentive tailor, "What can I get you? A new suit? Certainly, step this way."
The tailor looked at the man. "Hmm, now let's see. I'd say you wear a 42 inch chest jacket with longish sleeves, would that be right Sir?"
"Remarkable," said the man, "Yes I am, how did you know that without measuring?"
"40 years in the job, Sir, 40 years." and he went to fetch a sample jacket.
Having ordered a suit the man thought he would get a couple of new shirts also, just to cheer himself up.
"Hmm, now let's see. I'd say you're a 16 inch neck, would that be right Sir?"
"Remarkable," said the man, "Yes I am,"
"40 years in the job, Sir, 40 years." and he went to fetch some shirts to try.
The man had ordered his suit and chosen some shirts and thought that, just to top off his outfit, he would treat himself to some decent underwear, and said as such to the tailor.
The tailor looked at him, up and down and said;
"Hmmm, now let's see. I'd say you wear 36 inch waist boxer shorts, would that be right sir?"
"Aha," thought the man, "I've got him on this one..."
"No," he replied, "I wear 32 inch waist jockeys."
The tailor looked surprised and said
"Oh sir, but that can't be right. If that were so your testicles would place immense pressure on the base of your spine, restricting the flow of spinal fluid and giving you insufferable chronic headaches..."
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Is it any wonder that individuals acquire destructive patterns of communication?
We wake up to radio phone in debates or interviews, where polarised views are pushed forward as being the binary choice available.
On the way to work we read column after column of indignant editorial within our newspaper, or website of choice.
Perhaps at lunch time we might log into a website forum or messageboard. The fans' website for supporters of my football club, Southampton FC, is particularly apt at the moment as fans turn upon their former heroes and saviours for having failed to secure a financial remedy to our administration woes in the most violent language - a great example of the drama triangle perhaps...
Maybe we get home in time for TV drama such as the agitated rant that passes for entertainment within Eastenders and others.
To what extent does this diet of conflict fuelled communication create an expectation or a norm for us and how we ourselves react to conflict, disagreements and set backs? It is simply exhausting.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Organisations, through the actions of their individuals, invest in and long to see failure. Surprised?
Unresolved conflict, low trust and resentment leads to factions or individuals within organisations turning upon one another, longing to see colleagues and initiatives fail.
Let me give you an example.
Meet John Bercow the new Speaker of the House of Commons.
A new Speaker was required to drive through the pressing organisational need to reform UK parliamentary procedures. John Bercow, Conservative MP was voted in, convincingly, with a mandate to do just that.
Every member of the UK government needs reform, and I have not heard of any who openly disagree with that notion. But rather than working towards that end the Organisation turns in on itself and invests time, energy and, regrettably, reputation on sabotage.
Don't believe me? Here is the comment from one of his fellow Conservative MPs...
"If Bercow thinks he’ll be re-elected unopposed once we have a majority in the Commons he’s got another think (sic) coming," said one Conservative frontbencher." Source
Wow. With friends like these...
How do you see sabotage and a desire for failure playing out within your organisation?
Thursday, 11 June 2009
Conflicts in the field of design and build demonstrate a wonderful conflict dynamic, namely how positions shift from a liquid state to a solid one and the problems that ensue.
Take an architect who designs a build with an innovative ceramic finish.
It transpires that the specified material is unavailable for several months. The contractor is under pressure to complete the build, or else face late completion penalties. An alternative is suggested but the architect is up in arms. It has to be the specified ceramic finish. Nothing else will do.
Positions have been adopted and have solidified.
And yet, it was not so long ago that the decision on the finish was entirely fluid. At that moment the architect could have chosen from any number of options. Here, the logic is fluid. It is possible to consider a wide range of solutions.
To some extent the decision to go for a certain finish is arbitrary. Sure, the decision will have been informed by aesthetic and other considerations, but there will have been other factors in play also.
Perhaps the architect has seen the finish whilst travelling recently. Perhaps it has received some coverage within the industry. It’s a new material with new technology and the architect is keen to lead the field in adopting its use.
When we deconstruct adopted, solidified positions by reverting to these considerations and questions, then we start to reverse-engineer that process that the architect had previously travelled through.
We back-up along the process of deliberation and conclusion. We can return to earlier logical decision branches and entertain what would have been the result if we had chosen a different branch.
We move away from the solidified state represented by the conclusion originally reached. That conclusion starts to dissolve into a more liquid state once more.
Consider the physicality of the dispute. If you have two solid blocks, or positions, that you are trying to bring together, then you have nothing but bricks knocking off each other. Introduce a degree of liquidity and the positions become easier to manage, easier to merge and easier to mould into a shape that truly fits.
I would like to thank Daniel Plunkett of www.spaceuse.co.uk for the discussion that led to this blog entry.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
It is easy, so easy to despair that we can do anything in the face of conflict.
Sometimes conflict's stranglehold on society and individuals feels so tight that it is easy to give up.
I read the news today, oh boy... Lives lost in an argument about the loss of life? That makes no sense at all.
We see these heightened conflicts being played out to their awful fatal conclusions and wonder what is the point? What hope have we in bringing about change.
The same is true in organisations as it is within society. Look at teams and individuals. There is always one, a bad apple, the cat amongst the pigeons. We have initiatives, really freaking great ideas, great big whoppers of ideas, and yet we stay silent. What is the point? It'll never float. It will be bombed, sabotaged, passively supported while at the same time being willed to fail.
Managers go on course after course to help them get over their reticence and give some real feedback, you know, like useful feedback. And it sounds great and, yes I can see how that will make a difference, and we try it. And what happens? We still get the tears from our colleague, or the defensiveness and the sulking. And you know, maybe it is just easier if we just avoid the whole thing.
But but but then we are complicit in average organisations. We are contributing to an organisation remaining in its status quo. We are conspiring to restrict the organisations growth and development. And I'm thinking, its just a hunch, that that is not how we see ourselves, our contributions or our companies.
No, this accursed despair needs to be driven out, put in a box and thrown out into the back yard, like the worry weeds that Tom Waits muses on in his concert film Big Time. Take those weeds and choke 'em.
Let's recognise despair for what it is; a debilitating self-deception that tells us it is alright not to try, try and try again.
When it comes to conflict in the organisation, well then sometimes all it needs is one small change in ourselves and that can turn a stagnant backwater of dissent into a vibrant new river of communication, carrying many with it on its way to who knows where. And sure, there will be white rapids, but we can get through them. It might be challenging, it might be a little bit frightening, but which would you prefer and which approach does your organisation need?
I heard a story the other day that a ship captain had calculated as he was leaving port in South Africa, headed for Australia, that if he changed his course by just one degree that he would miss Australia altogether. The smallest change can make a massive difference and for that reason alone, we need not despair.
Saturday, 23 May 2009
Why do organisations tolerate conflict led behaviour?
Today’s example, I’m at a store and there is a young chap cursing loudly at an older colleague about a female colleague and how she is paid a lot more than he is to do less work. He’s sick and tired of it, apparently, although he put that in much more colourful language. He is angry and out of control. He storms off with another colleague, swearing very loudly as he walks through the store, past me, my young son in his pram and other customers, tourists, business people.
It just isn’t good enough.
I and the fellow customers are embarrassed, and some maybe a little frightened at being caught in this awful verbal crossfire. I know I was thinking "I hope I don't catch his eye."
This man was feeling entirely justified in his rage and indignation. He felt it was acceptable to communicate a very violent rage in the way he did. But that is no excuse. He has a duty to conduct himself appropriately, a duty he and we all owe to ourselves, our employers and colleagues. We need to stop blaming the other party in conflict and regain some awareness of how we are letting ourselves down, of how we are contributing to the situation.
The problem is that these outbursts are seen everywhere. I saw it the other day in another store, and again this afternoon in a charity shop, albeit with slightly more restrained language.
When organisations are passive in tolerating these outbursts, they damage themselves.
In a presentation I prepared and presented recently I looked at what I called the Conflict Cost Matrix, more on that later. For now though, I would dearly love to get into these organisations and share some fairly low level, non-threatening and normalising presentations with their staff at all levels. Organisations can, and must do more to educate their people. When people are seen acting in such a fashion, whether in stores, reception areas of professional service providers, call centres, then it reflects on the whole organisations.
These front of house people are the interface between your company, all it stands for and your customers. They are your ambassadors and they are letting you and themselves down badly. Give them some skills to help them to help you.
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
Reconciling One and All is a worthy contribution to the library of Conflict and Mediation books which might pass under many readers' radars given its Christian bearing. That would be unfortunate as it has much to offer.
The book is a slim tome, at about 110 pages, but is packed with ideas and provocations, many of which, in a style similar to De Bono, are not fully explored but left for the reader to develop further.
The book breaks down this thing called reconciliation into 5 provocations or parts, namely;
Reaching out to the other; and
God's gift to the world
Memory explores, not hanging onto past grievances, but remembering "rightly" in such a fashion as will enable reconciliation to take place. It goes on to explore the need to let go or lay aside grievances.
"This laying aside does not underestimate the wrong, it is not a repression and it is not an escape. Rather it takes seriously what has happened in the past and shows a willingness, when the time is ripe, to move into the future towards reconciliation. This can only happen when we have an active control of the memory and decide the shape of remembering which, in itself, is a sign that we control the memory rather than the memory controlling us"
Chapter 2, called "Victimhood... or not" starts with a fascinating argument and one that was new to me, namely the idea that Jesus Christ is frequently portrayed as victim within art and other representations. That is a nonesense when considered against the Gospel but is remarkably prevalent. Cue long faces and sombre gatherings all round!
Brian Castle goes on to explore how the psalm writers when faced with challenges and grievances, did not retreat internally to wallow and lick their wounds. Instead they stretched "Out beyond themselves, to God, to prevent themselves from being overwhelmed by what opposes them" - a fascinating view on the need for the individual to go beyond themselves and the natural, tempting sense of victimhood, to reach out and endeavour to create a resolution.
The very act of resolution is seen as combatting the overbearing deluge of the trials that the participants may be facing. I can see this within the Collaborative Law work which I do. The client and their spouse are emboldened in facing up to the end of a marriage by participating within its resolution, instead of absolving that role entirely to the Judges and Lawyers. When it works, it is a remarkable thing to see.
Chapter 3 deals with forgiveness and joins the mediator and individual with the challenges that forgiveness presents. Who's forgiveness is it? What is the difference between forgiveness and mercy? We touch upon the challenge that we are often presented with when trying to broach forgiveness with clients or other people around us:
"In many ways it is disresectful for those who have not had to undergo such horrors even to raise the question of forgiveness..." How often are we presented with the retort "What would you know, you weren't there!" or "You have no idea how I am feeling..."
Brian Castle in turn looks to "Exclusion and Embrace" by Miroslav Volf and how Volf deals with the parable of the all-loving father - incorrectly referred to, Castle says, as the parable of the prodigal son.
The father embraces his son upon his return even before there has been any remorse or confession. "For the father the fact that he was his son was more significant in his relationship with him than what he had done. Of course the moral activity of the younger son is not irrelevant, but it is not as important as the father's relationship with his son."
"Reaching out to the other" is the theme of the fourth paragraph and this, for me, is the most potent section. The idea is that we should acknowledge and embrace the differences between us.
The challenge is that if we do so, we risk transformation, change, maybe even, but whisper it, Growth. The very title of this blog, Embracing Conflict, belies where I feel on this issue. I do believe that we need to be able to step into those differences, competently and respectfully, and be curious as to how those differences between us map out. We need a dialogue that engages, not dehumanizes or pushes away.
The final chapter, God's gift to the world, draws upon the Gospel and demonstrates how this thing called Reconciliation is perhaps the central theme of the Bible, from the tumultuous opening book of Genesis which it is revealed is packed with separation, suffering and subsequent reconciliation, through to Paul's letters including those to the Corinthians.
I would expect the last chapter to provide the greatest challenge for non-Christian readers, but I sincerely hope that his book will be read and debated more widely. There is a great deal of sense contained within its few pages which I hope will stimulate the reader as much as it has me.
The Christian perspective helps to make sense and contextualise this work for Christians. For non-Christians I would hope that Brian Castle's tone is sensitive enough to ensure that it is not over-bearing but that it can serve as a framing for the discussions that follow.
For now, I'm off to find a copy of Miroslav Volf!
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Arguments are banished or avoided. If we allow ourselves to argue, then we are admitting, we believe, that our relationship is breaking down. We are no longer “In love.” Arguing is seen as a loss of intimacy.
The result is that grievances and irritations are not discussed. Resentment grows.
Organisations are the same.
They become afraid of raising contentious issues because we confuse having an argument, or a debate, with falling out. We like to believe that our relationships with our colleagues, staff, volunteers, trustees, are harmonious, and that if we argue then we are jeopardising that harmony.
Or we fear for ourselves. What will happen if put my head above the parapet? Will I be seen as being awkward, or a trouble-maker, or obstructive?
What reaction will I provoke amongst other members of the relevant group?
What if I’m wrong? Will I be humiliated?
The result is that difficult issues are not addressed. Instead, initiatives are not pushed forward, or are allowed to proceed even though one or more members may have identified inherent problems or flaws.
All organisations have a rich mine of opinions, viewpoints and ideas. We need to make it safe for individuals to speak out. We need to encourage dissent so that ideas can be tested or aired in the first place.
Arguments and debate should not be seen as the end of a working or social relationship. Instead, competent, responsible debate can be seen as an indication that the relationship is adequately strong and mature so as to be able to take the strain of a debate and survive intact.
Sunday, 1 February 2009
Here it is.
Let me know your thoughts as I will be presenting to Mogers Solicitors on Twitter, YouTube and web 2.0 stuff over the coming weeks. I appreciate the resolution is a bit scrappy and the lighting could be better. I am toying with the idea of various camera rigs for future attempts.
Friday, 2 January 2009
Please do pitch in with comments or suggestions. If you would like more details on how the scheme is comprised then let me know with a request in the comments, or by messaging at www.twitter.com/neildenny
New Choice for Separating Couples
Many married couples, having made the difficult decision to separate, are finding that they are unable to do so. For some this will be because of the lack of lending or reducing equity in their homes.
For others it is because of the cost of legal fees themselves.
Either way this can result in couples having to remain locked in a marriage which neither of them wants, leading to frustration and resentment.
One Bath firm have created a new legal service to help such couples.
“We are providing a service to enable people to file and complete their own divorces and financial matters while still offering support and guidance.” explains Neil Denny, family solicitor with Mogers on Queen Square, Bath.
“By working alongside people instead of taking over the full conduct of their case, we can help people to move matters forward in a way which is affordable and easier to manage.”
Neil Denny believes that new services such as these are the future for the legal profession. “The market will increasingly expect solicitors to be more flexible in how they work for their clients. They will want to see solicitors recognising the fact that clients are often willing and able to do some of the work themselves.”
The Red File assisted legal services model works on the basis that clients will choose and only pay a small fixed fee for the sections of their divorce and financial case that they want help with.
“The benefit is that people can budget not only for how much their case will cost, but they can also timetable for when each part needs to be paid.”
“We are excited to be leading the debate on the future of providing legal services with this product. We look forward to making the system available in other areas of law to include probate, children law matters and small claims litigation.”
Contact Neil Denny for more information on 01225 750000.
Thursday, 1 January 2009
This is one of the topics addressed in the excellent book "Beyond Neutrality" by Bernard Mayer.
Here is another reminder reported in the Law Society Gazette a couple of weeks ago. Dame Hazel Genn, professor of socio-legal studies at University College London, is quoted as saying that mediation "Is not about just settlement" Instead, she asserts, "It is just about settlement."
There are various schools of socio-political criticism of dispute resolution suggesting that ADR processes perpetuate power imbalances and abuses, keep resolved issues out of the body of publicly decided cases and precedents, and the critique levied here that mediation and ADR processes somehow sidestep or marginalise this thing called Justice.
The article, written by Joshua Rozenburg is stridently put and does not seem to hold too much sympathy with Dame Hazel Genn's position. It is worth noting however that the lectures in which her critique was presented are to be published later in Spring.
It will be interesting to read the whole speech to ensure that her reported comments are in context and also to hear more about the objections to dispute resolution. As Bill Gates is reported to have once said; "Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning."