The phrase references a previously held discussion via telephone. It acts as an introduction to a subject, indicating that what follows is a direct result of that prior communication. For example, one might begin a task with the understanding outlined in that call, or refer to decisions made during it. Its function is to provide context and establish a shared understanding.
The phrase’s importance lies in its efficiency in conveying background information. It quickly acknowledges a foundation of knowledge, preventing redundant explanation and streamlining communication. Historically, its usage reflects a shift towards direct, real-time communication methods, where immediate clarification and agreement are prioritized before further action. Benefits include minimizing misunderstandings, ensuring alignment between parties, and accelerating project workflows.
Therefore, understanding the established framework of such discussions is crucial. The information and agreements reached form a key pillar upon which subsequent actions are built. The rest of this article will delve into specific applications within project management, client relations, and internal communications, building on the implicit understanding of arrangements already discussed.
1. Reference point
The concept of “Reference point” is intrinsically linked to the phrase “as per our phone conversation.” It establishes the preceding telephone exchange as the foundational source of information, decisions, or agreements to which subsequent actions and communications refer. This anchors current discourse to a shared, previously discussed context, ensuring continuity and reducing the potential for misinterpretation.
-
Establishing Shared History
This facet concerns the acknowledgment of a mutual communicative event. The phrase signals that both parties have participated in a conversation that informs the current context. For example, a follow-up email beginning with the phrase indicates that its contents are rooted in a specific prior dialogue. The implication is that both participants are expected to recall the discussion and its salient points.
-
Defining Scope and Limitations
The phone call acts as a defined boundary, setting the parameters for what is relevant and under consideration. Any actions, decisions, or communications must align with the agreements reached during that specific telephone exchange. If the conversation covered only budget allocations, then subsequent actions should primarily focus on that domain and not deviate into unrelated matters without further clarification.
-
Validating Agreed-Upon Details
The “Reference point” aspect confirms that specific details were discussed and agreed upon during the call. This could include timelines, deliverables, responsibilities, or other key elements. Referencing the conversation serves as a reminder and validation of those agreements, minimizing the likelihood of future disputes or misunderstandings regarding the specifics.
-
Providing Context for Current Actions
The telephone conversation provides the necessary context for understanding the rationale behind current actions or decisions. Without acknowledging the prior discussion, the rationale might be unclear or appear arbitrary. By citing the conversation as the reference point, it clarifies the underlying reasoning and ensures that all parties understand the motivations behind the actions being taken.
The utilization of the telephone conversation as a “Reference point” efficiently streamlines communication and reinforces accountability. By establishing a shared understanding rooted in a prior exchange, it provides a solid foundation for subsequent actions and discussions, minimizing ambiguity and promoting cohesive progress toward shared goals.
2. Agreement validation
The phrase “as per our phone conversation” inherently implies “Agreement validation.” It suggests that a mutual understanding or accord was reached during the dialogue. The subsequent actions or statements prefaced by this phrase are predicated on the validation of that agreement. Without it, the reference point becomes meaningless. For example, initiating a project task and prefacing it with the aforementioned phrase indicates that the task’s parameters, timelines, or specifications were explicitly agreed upon during the call. Failure to validate this agreement renders the subsequent action potentially misdirected or ineffective. The importance of this validation stems from its role in establishing a common operational understanding. It moves parties from simple communication to a shared, actionable commitment. This concept enhances accountability and reduces the ambiguity that can arise from informal discussions.
Further analysis reveals that “Agreement validation” serves as both a cause and an effect within this communication framework. The phone conversation is the causal element; the validated agreement is the effect. However, the continued adherence to the agreement then becomes the cause, leading to specific outcomes such as the successful completion of a task or the execution of a decision. Consider a scenario where a marketing team implements a revised budget allocation “as per our phone conversation.” This implementation is only justifiable if the budget revision was validated as part of that conversation. Regular checks against the agreed-upon terms ensure continued alignment and preempt deviations that could compromise the project’s success.
In summary, “Agreement validation” is an essential component of any communication referencing a previous telephone conversation. Its presence ensures that subsequent actions are grounded in shared understanding, promoting accountability and minimizing potential conflicts. The challenges associated with “Agreement validation” often lie in imperfect recall or inadequate documentation of the original agreement. Addressing these challenges requires a proactive approach to documenting key decisions and ensuring that all involved parties consistently reference these records to maintain alignment. Properly executed, this validation process underpins effective collaboration and contributes to the overall success of initiatives rooted in prior verbal agreements.
3. Contextual grounding
The phrase “as per our phone conversation” inherently seeks “Contextual grounding” for subsequent actions or statements. The preceding conversation establishes a framework of shared understanding, providing context that is critical for interpreting and executing related tasks. The absence of this shared context renders the phrase meaningless, as it implies a mutual awareness that informs the present action. A decision made “as per our phone conversation” is justified and understandable only when the context of that conversation is accessible, either through direct recall or documented notes. The importance of “Contextual grounding” as a component of “as per our phone conversation” can be illustrated through the example of a project manager assigning tasks. If the assignment is made referencing a past telephone discussion, the team members must understand the reasoning and objectives outlined in that conversation to effectively complete the task. The project manager’s instructions may lack sufficient detail on their own, relying on the shared context to provide necessary clarification and guidance.
Further analysis reveals that the creation of “Contextual grounding” is both a cause and effect within the communication cycle. The phone conversation is the initial cause, creating a shared pool of knowledge and agreements. The ongoing reference to that conversation then becomes the cause for specific actions, as team members implement decisions and strategies based on the contextual framework. Consider a sales representative adjusting pricing strategies “as per our phone conversation” with their manager. This adjustment is justifiable only if the conversation provided the rationale and guidelines for doing so. The practical application of this understanding requires systematic documentation of key points from telephone conversations. This ensures that even if direct recall fades, the context remains accessible to all involved parties. Technologies like call recording or detailed note-taking can facilitate this process, allowing for effective retrieval of the original context whenever needed.
In summary, “Contextual grounding” is a critical element of any communication referencing a past telephone conversation. It is essential for ensuring that subsequent actions are aligned with shared objectives and that all involved parties understand the reasoning behind those actions. Challenges related to preserving this context can be addressed through effective documentation and communication protocols. Proper contextualization enhances accountability and promotes cohesive collaboration, contributing to the successful achievement of goals that are rooted in prior verbal agreements. The success of any project or task linked to a previous telephone discussion hinges on the availability and understanding of the context established during that conversation.
4. Shared understanding
The phrase “as per our phone conversation” presupposes a “Shared understanding” established during the telephonic exchange. It functions as a shorthand to indicate that the current discussion or action is rooted in a mutual comprehension previously reached. The effectiveness of the phrase relies entirely on the accuracy and completeness of this “Shared understanding.” Without it, the reference is void of meaning and prone to misinterpretation.
-
Common Ground of Information
This aspect refers to the mutual possession of pertinent details discussed during the call. For instance, if the conversation involved a project budget, both parties must retain a consistent understanding of the allocated amounts, expenditure deadlines, and approval processes. Discrepancies in this foundational knowledge undermine the intended efficiency and alignment of the reference phrase.
-
Mutual Interpretation of Decisions
This facet extends beyond mere information recall, encompassing the aligned interpretation of decisions made. If the conversation concluded with a decision to postpone a product launch, both parties must concur on the specific reasons for the delay, the expected duration, and the subsequent actions required. Divergent interpretations can lead to uncoordinated efforts and project setbacks.
-
Alignment of Expectations
An integral element of “Shared understanding” is the alignment of expectations. The conversation should clarify the desired outcomes and the responsibilities of each party. For example, if the call centered on resolving a customer complaint, both the representative and the customer must share a consistent expectation regarding the proposed solution and the timeframe for its implementation. Mismatched expectations can erode trust and escalate conflicts.
-
Acknowledgement of Agreed Action Items
The reference assumes that definite action points were decided and recognized during the phone conversation. This facet highlights the significance of not just the dialogue but also the outcomes in concrete steps. For example, whether the call covered a task delegation, the involved parties should both acknowledge the assignment along with their respective responsibilities and deadlines. Lack of this acknowledgment can cause tasks to go unfinished or result in miscommunications regarding who is responsible.
In summation, the reliance on a “Shared understanding” when employing “as per our phone conversation” highlights the need for clear, concise communication during the original exchange. Documentation, while not always feasible during a call, becomes crucial for reinforcing and verifying the mutual comprehension achieved. When the parties refer to the shared background knowledge, the potential for errors is minimized, leading to increased efficacy and alignment. In its absence, the reference deteriorates into ambiguity, defeating its intended purpose.
5. Action trigger
The phrase “as per our phone conversation” often serves as an “Action trigger,” initiating subsequent steps based on agreements or decisions reached during the telephonic exchange. It signifies that the conversation has concluded with a clear directive or set of instructions that now necessitate execution. The call’s conclusion acts as the catalyst, transforming discussion into concrete actions. Without this “Action trigger,” the conversation remains theoretical, lacking practical application and impact. For example, consider a scenario where a manager instructs a subordinate to prepare a report “as per our phone conversation.” This directive sets the report preparation process in motion, relying on the subordinate’s understanding of the conversation’s details to guide their work.
Further analysis reveals a cause-and-effect relationship. The phone conversation, encompassing discussions and decisions, serves as the cause; the “Action trigger” represents the effect, translating dialogue into tangible tasks. Conversely, the “Action trigger” itself can become a cause, leading to subsequent effects such as the completion of a project milestone or the resolution of a problem. A company implements changes to its customer service protocol “as per our phone conversation” between executives. The initial “Action trigger” is the implementation directive. The subsequent effect is the altered customer service operation and its impact on customer satisfaction metrics. The practical implication underscores the importance of clearly defined outcomes during the telephone conversation. Ambiguous directives or poorly defined roles can hinder the effectiveness of the “Action trigger,” resulting in delays, misinterpretations, or unfulfilled objectives. The presence of a definitive task within the call solidifies that the task is to be acted upon from the conversation.
In summary, the “Action trigger” is a critical component of communication framed by “as per our phone conversation.” It ensures that the conversation’s purpose transcends mere dialogue, leading to tangible outcomes. Challenges in implementing effective “Action trigger” often stem from a lack of clarity during the initial conversation. Clear articulation of objectives, roles, and responsibilities is paramount. Regular review and follow-up reinforce accountability and contribute to the successful translation of telephone discussions into real-world actions. The significance of this understanding underscores the importance of structured communication and diligent documentation of telephone exchanges in professional settings.
6. Clarification basis
The concept of “Clarification basis” is inextricably linked to the phrase “as per our phone conversation.” This linking establishes the telephone dialogue as the primary resource for resolving any ambiguities or uncertainties that may arise during subsequent actions or interpretations. The phrase implicitly refers to the conversation as an established authority on the matter. For example, when a conflict of understanding between two employees arises, the reference point for solving the conflict would be the initial call in which the subject was addressed. It ensures that individuals have a pre-defined recourse for resolving disputes or addressing gaps in their understanding without necessitating constant recourse to external resources or superiors.
The phone call acts as the initiating cause; its contents and conclusions, however, act as the effective basis for all future clarifications. This structure emphasizes the necessity of precise communication during the original conversation. Vague directives or undocumented agreements undermine the credibility and utility of the conversation. Consider a project involving multiple teams. The leader utilizes the phrase to guide these teams, as per the initial phone conversation which provides them with the basis for solving any arising issues. Each team refers back to their notes from the phone call. The practical implication lies in structured note-taking and shared access to call summaries or recordings, when permissible. These resources would allow team members to independently resolve conflicts and maintain alignment without overburdening the team leader.
In summary, “Clarification basis,” when paired with “as per our phone conversation,” promotes autonomy and efficiency. It highlights the importance of clear, comprehensive communication during initial exchanges. Addressing potential challenges to implementing this concept involves establishing protocols for call documentation and ensuring that all participants have access to these records. Properly executed, this approach fosters a culture of self-reliance and problem-solving, enhancing productivity and minimizing communication bottlenecks. The established framework of conversation serves as a point of clarity for others to reference, reducing confusion.
Frequently Asked Questions
The following questions address common concerns regarding the use and interpretation of the phrase “as per our phone conversation.” The answers aim to provide clarity and guidance for effective communication.
Question 1: What constitutes sufficient documentation of a “phone conversation” to support its reference?
Detailed notes summarizing key decisions, action items, and agreed-upon details are recommended. Where permissible, a recording of the conversation serves as comprehensive documentation. The objective is to provide a verifiable record of the discussion.
Question 2: How does one address disagreements arising from differing recollections of a telephone conversation?
Refer to documented notes or, if available, a recording of the conversation. If discrepancies persist, seeking clarification from a neutral third party who participated in the call may be necessary. Reaching a mutual understanding is crucial for maintaining productive working relationships.
Question 3: When is it inappropriate to use the phrase “as per our phone conversation?”
The phrase is unsuitable when the referenced conversation involved only one participant or when the subject matter is confidential and should not be broadly disseminated. It is also inappropriate if the details of the conversation are unclear or ambiguous.
Question 4: What steps can be taken to ensure “Shared understanding” during telephone conversations?
Actively solicit confirmation from all participants regarding key decisions and action items. Summarize the conversation’s main points at its conclusion. Distribute a written summary or action list following the call to reinforce comprehension and alignment.
Question 5: How does one handle situations where a task assigned “as per our phone conversation” is subsequently deemed unfeasible or inappropriate?
Communicate the reasons for the infeasibility or inappropriateness promptly and clearly. Propose alternative solutions or approaches that align with the overall objectives discussed in the original conversation. Document the revised plan and obtain agreement from all relevant parties.
Question 6: What legal implications, if any, arise from referencing a telephone conversation in formal documentation or agreements?
The legal weight given to such references depends on the jurisdiction and the nature of the agreement. Documenting key terms of the conversation in writing strengthens its enforceability. Consulting with legal counsel is advisable when incorporating references to telephone conversations into legally binding documents.
Understanding these nuances is essential for leveraging the benefits of the phrase “as per our phone conversation” while mitigating potential pitfalls. Clear communication and meticulous documentation are paramount.
The following section of this article will address the limitations of verbal agreements and strategies for mitigating potential misunderstandings.
Tips
The following tips address best practices for utilizing the phrase “as per our phone conversation” effectively and responsibly. Adherence to these guidelines can minimize ambiguity and enhance communication clarity.
Tip 1: Document Key Agreements Immediately: Following a telephone conversation, promptly create a written summary of the key decisions, action items, and agreed-upon details. This document serves as a reference point and mitigates potential discrepancies in recall.
Tip 2: Distribute the Summary to All Participants: Share the written summary with all individuals involved in the conversation to ensure a shared understanding. Request confirmation of accuracy to identify and resolve any misunderstandings early on.
Tip 3: Specify the Date and Time of the Conversation: When referencing the telephone conversation, include the specific date and time. This enhances clarity and allows for precise identification of the referenced exchange. This avoids confusion.
Tip 4: Be Precise in Referencing Specific Points: Avoid vague references. Instead, directly cite the specific topic or decision being referenced from the phone conversation to minimize ambiguity. Precision improves clarity.
Tip 5: Acknowledge Limitations: Recognize that memories can fade or be imperfect. The documented summary takes precedence when discrepancies arise. Verbal agreements should be formalized in writing whenever possible.
Tip 6: Exercise Caution in Formal Agreements: When formal agreements depend on aspects of conversations, consider the legal implications. Where possible, formal documentation should follow to improve the overall outcome. In some cases, legal advise should be sought to determine the weight.
Adhering to these recommendations promotes clear and accountable communication when invoking past telephone discussions. Such practices contribute to efficient collaboration, minimized misinterpretations, and a strengthened chain of dialogue.
The subsequent section of this material provides real-world instances where this method can be put into practice.
Conclusion
The preceding exploration has clarified the significance of invoking prior telephone conversations as a contextual framework. “As per our phone conversation,” the discussions are an essential part of a business process. This article has emphasized the need for agreement validation, contextual grounding, shared understanding, action triggers, and a basis for clarification. These aspects are critical when referencing past dialogues. These guidelines serve to minimize ambiguity, promote clear communication, and foster accountability.
Effective communication practices require recognition of the limitations inherent in relying solely on recall and verbal agreements. The strategic use of documentation and clear communication protocols is essential. It serves as a catalyst for action and agreement validation. Consistent adherence to these principles will enhance collaboration, reduce misunderstandings, and contribute to the successful execution of shared objectives.
