Why Acceptable Enough... Isnt

 31 December 18:00   Why "Good Enough"... Isn t

     by: V. Berba Velasco Jr., Ph.D.

    About a year ago, I had an befalling to accept banquet with the CEO of an engineering startup aggregation in Pennsylvania. As we discussed engineering architecture affairs over Chinese food, he took a few moments to allocution about his business philosophy. "As far as I m concerned," he told me, "if a artefact is acceptable enough, then it s perfect." He explained that in his view, artefact improvements should alone be performed with the specific ambition of accretion sales. "Anything else," he said, "provides no account to the company. It s just over-engineering."

    In a way, I could see his point; afterwards all, a aggregation should abstain spending too abundant accomplishment to advance appearance that cipher cares about. In alotof companies, time and manpower are adored bolt that haveto be invested wisely. Nevertheless, his account larboard a rather acerb aftertaste in my mouth, and actuality s why.

    First, his best of words suggests that the chump s needs are almost unimportant, and that bartering is the alone affair that matters. To my mind, this is a false dichotomy. It s true that a aggregation has to bouncer its basal line, and that its assets are limited. It s true that it haveto abstain authoritative absurd promises to its customers. At the aforementioned time though, a aggregation that adopts a blood-warm attitude against adorable its barter is absurd to arouse a abundant accord of applicant loyalty. A acknowledged aggregation is one that understands the accent of chump delight.

    Second, this angle treats "good enough" as admitting it were some acutely identifiable goal--a audible band of demarcation, amid the unsatisfactory from the unnecessary. In reality, this abuttals can be absolutely fuzzy. Often, barter don t understand what they would accede to be satisfactory--not until they accept acquired added acquaintance with the product. This agency that a aggregation is affected to assumption at what constitutes "good enough"--and if they belittle those requirements, they may accept a lot of aghast barter on their hands. That s why it s important for a chump to set its architect a little higher.

    Third, and alotof importantly, one can apprehend this angle to advance a accumulated ability of mediocrity rather than an attitude of excellence. If advisers are told that they should alone strive for what s "good enough," then that s absolutely what they ll deliver-not just to the customer, but to the employer as well! A characterless attitude will aftereffect in characterless products, which ultimately allowances nobody.

    That is why I advance that "good enough" just isn t acceptable enough. Humans charge to yield pride in their work, and companies charge to strive for excellence. Companies do accept bound resources, to be sure. Still, that should not stop them from gluttonous to contentment their customers, or from bearing plan that they can blow about. To put it addition way, a aggregation may not be able to bear the moon, but it should consistently ability for the stars.