The intercom is a little different because, presumably, that's
building-wide. The doorbell's chime could be located in a staff area.

Although, I do think she said she's hearing-impaired, which would imply the
need for a multimodal alert.


On Friday, February 22, 2013, Kyle Banerjee wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Andreas Orphanides <[log in to unmask]<javascript:;>
> >wrote:
> > Staff numbers remain static, but responsibilities (and gate
> > counts) keep increasing. As things get busier, we focus on our core
> > responsibilities and some of the added stuff can fall to the wayside. If
> > the overhead of participating in the backup system exceeds the available
> > mental space, then people are going to forget/ignore it in lieu of more
> > central concerns. I don't think this is indicative of poor staff quality,
> > though -- just a natural process of triage.
> >
> > I don't think the correct solution is punitive -- that would only make
> the
> > existing problem of managing responsibilities worse. Assuming that we're
> > not going to get additional personnel, the best route is probably to
> > implement a system that's as streamlined and easy as possible for the
> > participants. This is why the doorbell works so well.
> >
> Agreed on all points except the doorbell since the OP indicated that the
> intercom (which works the same as a doorbell for purposes here) wasn't an
> acceptable solution because the noise it made annoyed patrons.
> Expecting people to do good things and holding them accountable really
> doesn't have anything to do with punitive action. Oppressive methods and
> imposed solutions rarely work for the simple reason that people only do
> what you make them do rather than what is needed.
> The key to success is engagement. The key to getting people engaged is
> showing them that you know they're good, that others count on them, and
> that it's important that they deliver. If things don't go as expected, you
> need a discussion over what happened and how to make things better in the
> future. Expectations should never be low -- that all but guarantees nothing
> will happen.
> If the staff I work with had to deal with the backup problem that started
> this thread, we'd have a conversation to see what everyone thought would
> work best. Then we'd agree on something to try, touch base regularly to
> identify what's working, what's not, and decide how to proceed from there.
> If the solution for one problem causes other issues, that's part of the
> conversation.
> Every place I've ever worked, I'm told there is someone who can't do
> computers or operate X equipment (often this is reported by the person in
> question). I have yet to actually meet someone who actually is no good with
> this stuff and who can't be brought up to speed in a reasonable amount of
> time. My experience is that even the most adamant Luddites do just fine if
> you invest a little time and faith in them.
> kyle