Trenchwork

We’re back, and I’m finally catching up with the blog.  It was a full sprint for the first couple of weeks after we walked in the door, and then—joy of joys—we lost phone and Internet for two full weeks.

Telenor is the carrier, and after two weeks of negotiations and broken promises, I’ve come to a conclusion.  Specifically, I’ve decided that the problem is not the employees.  At least, not generally.  There was an exception.  One individual hung up on DH when he called to see if we could pick up the modem they were requiring we get, and when DH began to ask also why no one had called us to tell us that there would be no one coming out for a service call even though they knew that there was someone (me) sitting there waiting for them—riiight.  Apparently the fellow didn’t want to be reminded about concepts such as professionalism or customer service and decided to hang up.  Clever, eh?  And DH never even got to ask about the silly modem.  (Which, incidentally, turned out to NOT be the problem.)

Generally speaking, though, the employees are polite and do want to help.  The problem is that the system in which they’re working is chaotic, ineffective, and prioritizes the company rather than the customer.  They have the worst customer tracking system of any company I’ve seen in decades, and other sections—sections which are more concerned with company expenses than customer service—are permitted to override the technical section.  That’s problematic since it’s the technical section which makes the first evaluation of a problem.  If the technical section can look at their own systems and see, for instance, that the problem appears to be a break in the line and NOT the modem, then it should not be possible for another section to decide they’re going to require you get a new modem instead of sending out a service tech two days later and while you’re sitting there waiting for said service tech.

The more we worked with Telenor, the more I found myself convinced of one thing:  Telenor’s administrative procedures and internal data systems frankly suck.  They need a major overhaul—and they need training for their people, and then followup on that training.  Their slogan is that they’re trying to improve, but without completely revamping their system and processes, I genuinely believe they’ll never be anything other than mediocre, and will never portray any interest in or concern for their customers.

Was I frustrated?  Obviously.  Was I ticked off at the fellow who hung up on DH?  Absolutely.  That individual should have been reprimanded.  But again, the fact that it could happen demonstrates a lack of professional training for the company’s employees—and no followup.  While I can blame the employee—and yes, he should have known better—this is the company’s problem.

These kinds of things bother me.  Customer service is not rocket science.  It should be common sense.  In many places, however, it is not.  In Norway, it’s a developing concept.  Norwegians are simply not accustomed to good customer service.  Neither have they felt they could demand it, and here I think a colleague nailed the problem:  Norwegians come from a history of purchasing from or receiving services from a single source which had no competition (e.g., a state-sponsored telephone company).  Until fairly recently, it was a poor country, and what was available was all there was.  There were no options.  Neither was there motivation for companies to improve themselves; why should they, when the customer wasn’t going anywhere?

That’s changed.  Now there are choices, although not as many as I’d like.  And, I can honestly say that I’ve seen a difference even in the past ten years.  Young people and those who’ve experienced good customer service outside the country are bringing those standards and expectations home with them, and people in general are beginning to demand a bit more.  People are beginning to feel they have a right to complain—and are actually doing so on occasion.

I’m proud of them; it’s taken a lot for them to reach that point.

But there is still a long way to go.

On a more cheerful note, a few things made it back with me.  Quit laughing; you knew there would be something!

There were actually several things, but you’ll forgive me if I dole them out a little at a time.  ONE of those things, however, I really want to show you now.  Remember this?

Remember my telling you that it was being used in a project? And I think I eventually also told you it turned in the Tudor Stole in Miriam Felton’s new book, Twist & Knit?  Scroll down on that link page and you’ll see Miriam’s professional photos of the completed projects—including this Tudor Stole.

Well, guess what has now come back home.

The pattern is easy to follow and to knit, assuming you have two functioning grey cells.  I didn’t at the time, and poor Miriam had to undo and reknit one of my borders.  I tried to use all the yarn, but let’s get real:  the thing currently measures in at 18 inches wide and 8.6 feet long in its resting state.  And therein lies the key to something I’d thought when I was knitting it . . . I want it wider.

My gut feeling when I was knitting was that it was going to be narrower than I wanted, and I came within a hair’s breath of ripping it back and starting again.  Were it not for the fact that I’m the world’s slowest knitter and that Miriam had already waited an eternity, I’d have done it.  Had I had more time and energy and focus, I’d have done it.  If and when I knit this pattern again, I will do it.

See, here’s the thing.  If you’re short or petite, then you don’t really need a wide stole.  If you’re taller or, well, not petite, then you need the extra width.  In this case, the current pattern configuration works beautifully if you want a scarf—or you’re short/petite.  If you’re normal and want a stole, and you want that stole to fit comfortably around your neck and still go past the small of your back, you want more depth.  In this case, I’d recommend doing half again the number of repeats.

Note that the middle portion of the stole—that honeycomb bit—is incredibly elastic, which means that some of the weight of the stole will help expand that depth a little.  While my example was knitted in a heavy laceweight yarn, I have a feeling that this pattern would work very well indeed in a heavier yarn.  Increase the width and shorten the length (considerably), and you’d have a perfect mid-weight stole rather than a scarf.  Knit the pattern as it is and in laceweight, and you’d have a scarf which will do beautifully to keep your neck warm against a winter chill.  Knitted in a glittery or glamorous lace or fingering weight and with the added length, you’d have the perfect accessory to that special evening dress.

It’s good to see it home.