A service department with a long history. Hierarchical. Set in its ways. And it was here – for the first time – that a completely new concept for dispatching service technicians was to be introduced: the task exchange.
Instead of a central office assigning every job, the specialists choose their assignments themselves. Each job carries points. Whoever takes it on, earns the points. Whoever does not, gets nothing.
Understandably, that meets resistance.
Introduce the system to improve results. The current outcome is comparatively poor.
We already work quite optimally here. There is really nothing essential left to improve.
Tell me: where exactly are we not taking the direct route?
Do not disrupt our processes, otherwise our customers will notice and could demand contractual penalties.
O.K. … that could be analysed. Very well then. It is now part of your task to put up a signpost showing the direct way from A to B.
And of course it remains your responsibility that the customer is served perfectly. We will now walk the direct route together.
Task dispatch via an exchange will not work for us, because…
What followed was a list of objections. The fascinating part: many of them contradict each other.
• we work tied to specific objects,
• we do not work tied to specific objects,
• we service many very different technologies,
• we service only a few technologies,
• our work cannot be planned,
• all our work is pre-planned,
• we need local knowledge,
• we hardly needed local knowledge before,…
And so on. In constant alternation: one argument and its exact opposite.
This was not a contradiction born of stupidity. It was fear. People in entrenched structures live through difficult times full of anxieties, worries and uncertainty. A new model threatens the familiar – even when the familiar stopped working long ago.
The challenge was not the technology. The challenge was handling the many concerns correctly:
• Real arguments had to be taken seriously and solved professionally.
• Objections that looked important but were misleading had to be recognised as such.
• Fear-based resistance (like the self-contradicting kind) had to be visualised – and thereby defused.
The perfect trap: if the consultant says yes, he is a show-off. If he says no, the project is dead. The solution: do not answer – prove it. A pilot in a limited area says more than any discussion.
Sounds like customer orientation. It is fear: the processes had never been questioned. The real question: which customer has ever complained about an improved process?
The biggest space for fear did not sit with the technicians. It sat behind a desk: the dispatcher. His worry was concrete – if the jobs distribute themselves, nobody will need me much longer.
The practical solution: leave him in place for now. The dispatcher is an important person – and that is exactly why his fear should be taken away instead of confronting him with a fait accompli.
The effect arrives anyway:
• People start looking for work themselves – instead of just waiting for dispatch.
• With the points set correctly, more work gets done – and the processes become more efficient.
Nobody has to lose their job for something better to emerge. The points work for everyone – including the person who used to do the distributing.
Without capable advice, the project would have gone off course several times. It takes:
• Strength of will – to see the beginning through, even when it gets uncomfortable
• Perseverance – to absorb setbacks without giving up
• Leadership – to take the team along instead of steamrolling it
The pilot ran. The final slide of the project documented: the effort was worth it.
For the employees: a competitive and secure job. For the company: more efficiency without pressure. For the customers: better service through motivated specialists.
The model that won the first German Service Management Award in 1992 and was piloted here is available as software today: GoodPoints.
The task exchange works. The points stay private. The paradigm shift is the same – just easier.
© 2026 · Dr.-Ing. Walter Tritt