“Our team will own this issue and leverage our skills to bring about a win-win for us and our users. It will require us to think outside the box, but we will action this item until we develop a value proposition on the deliverables.”
Hey, I’ll play. Dunno if it’s any good, but here goes…
“FYI, we have accepted ownership of this concern. In actioning this item, please be advised that we have tasked Bob and Sue with confirmation and follow-up, thus maximizing our support capabilities from both a proactive and a reactive standpoint, and in doing so, providing the company with timely and accurate responses from the user base in the event of further concerns.”
One must know one’s enemy in order to defeat him/her. When I hear someone use the incredibly hackneyed “think outside the box” as a metaphor for fresh, creative thinking, it makes me want to slap the shit out of them. Oh, wait, that was a different thread…
“After 12 hours on eBay, item successfully auctioned. Winning bid of $3.43 submitted by 12-year old Melissa Hawkins of Ponca City, OK. Most departmental furniture and equipment thrown in to sweeten deal.”
Great response! But as someone who works as a government contractor, I worry that you’ve overdone it by using the active voice, an action verb, and worst of all, to have clearly identified responsibility: “we have tasked Bob and Sue with…”. Truly great corpspeak seeks the comfortable murkiness of plausible deniability. One doesn’t want to accidentally accept a new duty, especially one that might be permanent.
My recommendation would be to slightly amend as follows:
“…please be advised that conditional implementation of actioning will go forward on an ad-hoc basis, to maximize suport capabilities…” and insert “Please direct inquiries to Bob and Sue” at the end. Note that you’re not explicitly assigning to Bob and Sue, you’re just implying that you might have. Further note that using the lovely “go forward” buzzphrase has obscured whether you mean “this one will proceed thusly” or “future ones will be handled this way”. “Ad-hoc” protects you from claims that this is now a permanent arrangement, while implying that you had to scramble (Proactively, no less) as a manager to make it happen. In all the confusion, you get away with not having to spell out the condtions that might define “conditional implementation”.
Perhaps you could substitue “Bob and Sue” with an acronym. “We have tasked the SRT with…” No need to explain what it means. If they don’t know, they won’t understand.
However you end up replying to this, make sure you do the needful.