Sometimes I run into a customer service whose attitude is arrogant. Their approach is we-know-best with a tone of and-this-is-going-to-cost. This happened to me recently but in my frustration I picked up on a trend that will change a company’s attitude to its customers.

Recently I opened the boot of our car to find the the well where the spare wheel sits was full of water. A bit of searching on the web identified the problem and armed with the information I contacted the dealership of a well known global car manufacturer to book it in for the repair. The dealership was about twenty miles away with next to no public transport. However, I was prepared to spend a few hours in the town while the repair work was being carried out. As I picked up the phone to book the car in for the repair I did a rough calculation for the part and the time it would take it to replace it and I arrived at a budget of between £60 to £80. But being fully aware that they can charge more to cover their overheads I was bracing myself for £100. But for that price I felt that the job would be done in a way that I wouldn’t have to return for follow up work ( yes - repair of a repair has happened a few times in my motoring career ). After reception passed me through to the service department I explained the problem and the work that I wanted them carry out but the conversation slewed in a totally different direction: “It will cost £168 for the first hour while we diagnose the problem then we will need to keep the car for three days while we test it by showering it with water to make sure that the leak has been repaired.” What! So I tried again but I got the same reply. After mumbling something along the lines of I needed time to think about it I put the phone down and took a deep breath.

I have come across this approach taken by the companies many times. The underlying assumption is that they know what needs to be done and that the product is so complex that they are the only people that know anything about it. In some instances I have to shrug my shoulders and agree particularly when it comes to electronics. But we are now in the age of the web where information is freely shared. There is usually a video that can give some insight into what a particular problem is and how it can be fixed. Many companies fail to realise that their customers are knowledgable about their products which makes them an “informed customer”.

There is nothing new in having informed customers. In my early days as a student trying to keep an ageing mini on the road with no money there was always a Hayes Manual, which gave step-by-step guidance to its repair and maintenance, and a box of tools by my side. The web has made more information available to tackle many problems from repairing domestic appliances to building houses.

With movements such as The Right to Repair there is a growing demand to be able to repair the products ourselves. Governments around the world are starting to put legislation in place such as: Right to Repair Regulations in the UK, Right to Repair in the EU and Fair Repair Act in the USA that will put pressure on manufactures to design into their products easier ways for their customers to repair their products.

After I put the phone down I searched on the web and ordered the part for £9. However, checking the various videos it was apparent that I had reached the level of my competence and I would have to invest in some specialist tools. Therefore I took it to my local garage, which is five minutes walk away, where they completed the repair for £30. The car boot is now bone dry.

With the information on the web being freely available on any subject that can be imagined then we are moving into an era of the “informed customer”. There will always be a requirement for expertise to repair products but with increasing pressure on living costs and reducing waste to save the planet then the customer doing their own repair work will increase. Companies that fail to pick up on this trend will be left behind and find themselves with silent phones in their customer service departments.

At times it can be difficult to generate ideas for new products. Powers of imagination have been sucked dry by daily routines. Many years ago I came across a technique that is a great way to re-ignite a tired imagination.

A lot of work in product development is filled with routine; making sure that it meets health and safety, finding manufacturing and distribution routes, developing marketing material, checking cultural issues and so on. This can drain any imagination. One way to get ideas flowing is to ask what-if questions.

The technique starts by looking at the problems with a product and asking why it is not selling. Then look at successful products in a different market. Gather all of the information about the company behind the successful product and in particular how they developed the product, introduced it into the market and what business model they are using. The key at this stage is not to get too detailed about the company as that will definitely kill any imagination! Once the material has been gathered the fun bit starts. Ask “What if company x ran company y?” As the ideas start to flow they must be recorded with an open mind for example, without starting to dismiss them as irrelevant or throwing them in the ‘too difficult box’. Then go for a coffee or a walk around the block before coming back to sift through what has been generated, a bit like panning for gold, gently sift through the ideas until one or two shine out for further work.

Let’s look at a few examples. There are many industries that fall under the heading of energy intensive such as food, refining mining, construction and so on which rely on carbon based energy. Many governments around the world are putting decarbonisation strategies in place but they are taking the usual approach of more research coupled with a few industry incentives. It is debatable how successful they will be. We need some new ideas to generate a more radical approach: it is good territory for a what-if question. Tesla is a very successful company whose aim is “Today, Tesla builds not only all-electric vehicles but also infinitely scalable clean energy generation and storage products. Tesla believes the faster the world stops relying on fossil fuels and moves towards a zero-emission future, the better.” Not only has Tesla looked at producing energy efficient cars but some of the key areas that they have developed are; a business model which is based on direct sales and service, not franchised dealerships, so that they remain in close contact with the customer. Its business model pays particular attention to rolling out charging stations that may be the biggest obstacle to the mass adoption of electric vehicles. Tesla has stretched the business model to encompass energy storage systems for homes and businesses. Then the question is “What if Tesla took over the running of an energy intensive company?” How would they look at the energy efficiency say of a glass production plant? What techniques would they employ to reduce the amount of energy to produce say a bottle? Would they increase the amount of software to optimise the plants operation i.e. remote plant optimisation and maintenance? Would they introduce energy recovery and storage systems so that the glass manufacturing can switch more to using only electricity? After a few minutes a number of ideas are generated that are recorded and explored further.

There are many areas where what-if questions could be asked. For example if we are going to rely more on local producers to reduce food miles then part of their problem is supplying their products to the consumer at the same convenience as supermarkets. “What if Ocado took over the distribution system for small food producers?” Another interesting area would be how to tackle the decline in biodiversity. Then a what-if question would be “What if Chester Zoo took over the management of the environment?”

Of course trying to get a radically new idea through an existing organisation’s bureaucracy can verge on the impossible and invariably the idea gets chipped away at until it ends up as a minor modification. However, don’t give up, if it is a good idea then could be worthwhile taking it somewhere else? Although asking what-if questions can be done over a cup of coffee it is much better to get a diverse group of people involved. Why not try a Zoom meeting with participants around the world?

Asking what-if questions can be a great way of generating new ideas for products. It is a way of opening up the imagination and exploring new areas. It takes very little effort apart from gathering some information usually from the web. Who knows, it may help you develop the next breakthrough product!

The quick response of governments around the the world to the Covid pandemic is generating arguments that their response to the Climate Crisis should be the same. But how strong are the arguments?

Discussions in the media about the similarity of government’s response to Covid and the Climate Crisis ranges from blogs, newspapers articles and to esteemed publications such as the Lancet. The argument that permeates through the articles is that both crises have the same characteristics: they are global, a public health crisis, affect how we live, our knowledge about them is supported by science and will exaggerate inequalities i.e. the poor will be affected more than the rich. The key point in the argument is that because both crisis have the same characteristics with the same consequence of high death rates therefore governments should have the same response.

On closer inspection of the authors arguments they fall foul of the analogy fallacy, comparing comparing ‘apples and pears’. The Climate Crisis has been developing over at least 100 years, since the Industrial Revolution, and is only now beginning to have a direct impact on the way that we live. There is a large amount of economic inertia built up from investments in technology and therefore it will take tens of years before any environmental initiatives will have an impact. Solutions to climate crisis already exist but it is overcoming the reluctance to change our lifestyles that is the major barrier. On the other hand Covid has happened at the global level over the last two years which compared to the Climate Crisis is very quick. Solutions in the shape of developing new vaccines are speeding up to deal with the new variants and eventually it will be managed at the same level as flu.

Many of the articles about the connection between the two crisis that are flooding the media are more opinion pieces rather than presenting a strong argument for governments to speed up their response to the Climate Crisis. A better approach would be to look at the characteristics that are similar in both crisis to learn how peoples attitudes and behaviours could be changed to improve their response to the Climate Crisis.

The argument discussed above is not only fallacious but is logically invalid. For more information see 'argument from analogy' or click here for my own analysis.

Most nights we sit down with a tea and watch the last few rounds of the TV quiz show Pointless. One particular round caught my attention when a question stood out as being at odds with what would be considered general knowledge.

The TV quiz consists of teams of two contestants who attempt to provide answers that are not only correct, but also as obscure as possible. On each episode, contestants answer a series of questions that were put to 100 members of the general public. If a team’s answer is correct, they score one point for each participant who gave it during the survey; an answer given by none of the participants is termed “pointless” and adds nothing to the team’s score. The scoring for each question is interesting because, in a crude way, it shows the general public’s level of knowledge about a subject. For example questions about celebrities get much higher scores than politicians which probably shows the power of social media.

The round that caught my attention was called: ‘A’ In Maths, where the teams had to answer maths related questions where the answer began with an ‘A’. They were as follows:

1. Ancient calculating device composed of rods and beads

2. Reference line on a graph labelled X or Y

3. Two-word term for a number that, when added to a given number, creates the sum of zero

4. System where letters represent numbers in formulaic equations.

5. Angle of less than 90 degrees.

Starting with question 1. I have never used an abacas but I have heard about them and they are still used in some areas of Asia. I’m guessing that knowing about an abacus tends more towards knowledge of history and geography rather than mathematics education in the UK and had a score of 65.

The answer to the second question is Axis and is used in drawing graphs. This is something that is firmly the subject of mathematics as well science, engineering, finance etc. It is covered at GCSE level and with a score of 35 it suggest that the word has a more specialised use rather than forming part of general knowledge.

Leaving question 3 which is the most interesting one and moving onto question 4 where the answer is Algebra. With a score of 49 it reflects that algebra is again a specialised word belonging to mathematics. I suspect that the difficulty of learning to manipulate symbols has left a sense of fear in most people and therefore easily recalled! Algebra is introduced at Key Stage Level 2 mathematics and forms a corner stone for future use in GCSE, A-level and degree courses.

With a score of 61 the answer to question 5 is: Acute. Acute is a term that crops up at Key Stage 2 but then disappears for the rest of the mathematics curriculum. The word acute is used in everyday language outside of mathematics, for example we typically hear politicians speak about “an acute housing shortage”. Therefore the word “acute” lives on in peoples minds but with a different meaning and maybe word association was the trigger for an answer.

Now to question 3 and the one that caught my attention. The answer was: Additive Inverse. Yes - Additive Inverse! Nobody answered the question and it was therefore pointless! An additive inverse is when you take a number say 5 and add -5 - its inverse - to give the answer zero ( i.e. 5 + -5 = 0 ). It is a concept that is used in the higher realms of mathematics and therefore is miles away from everyday use. It is a concept that you would find in the first year of a degree course in mathematics and at a push in a science course such as chemistry or physics.

I’m not sure if the team behind Pointless balance the questions against the populations general knowledge so that an entertaining TV programme is produced but the Maths round gives a fascinating insight into the range and types of knowledge in the public domain. When I next sit down to watch an episode of the show I will be looking for questions at odds with the rest and at the same time as marvelling at those who actually get through to the final and win the jackpot!

Dear COP26 Leaders,

Welcome to Glasgow which is a fascinating city, and I hope that in amongst the various speeches, meetings and agreements you get a chance to explore all that the city has to offer. Keeping Covid safe of course!

I’m not sure what happened in the previous COP meetings, but it is becoming clear that whatever it was it is had very little impact, and Climate Change is now a crisis! It is time to take collective responsibility and make sure that our children and their children have a life that they can enjoy.

I am sure that there will be lots of meetings with thousands of overheads about the climate crisis but I would like to add a few pointers as to what I feel should come out of COP26.

First, be truthful and honest about where we are with climate change. Science has cut through the many years of political waffle and has given us a sound bedrock of knowledge. What is needed, is for you to translate the scientific findings into what it means and the actions that we are going to take to initiate change. I can appreciate that it is a very complex problem. But good leaders take complex problems and simplify them enough so that everybody can get behind what is required to resolve the situation. Bad leaders make complex problems more complex! Don’t fall into the later category!

Climate crisis is frightening. As an individual, I am trying my best to change the way that I live but it feels that I am fighting against an unstoppable force. As leaders, you must help me and everybody else find hope that solutions are achievable. You must give me the tools to make the changes whether it is moving to a plant based diet, reducing household waste or buying local. But what must come through from you is that by making these collective changes we will reduce our effect on the environment. We need to all row together if we are going to reverse climate change.

Now for the tough bit. Working together! We all know of the differences between countries - we see it in the media every day. These differences need to be put to one side and plans must be developed collectively with the single aim of reducing our impact on the environment. This has never been done before. But as our leaders, you must lift our horizons from the local to the global in such a way that we all feel part of something bigger and more long term.

If the Climate Crisis is not checked then it will continue to have a dramatic effect on my life whether it is unbearable hot weather, damaging floods, increased air pollution or the extinction of wild life that I ultimately depend upon. So COP26 leaders - this is it - time to act!