Comments on: Second best is often good enough http://www.nigel-leech.com/subram/2009/09/09/second-best-is-often-good-enough/ living with human minds Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:29:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chris http://www.nigel-leech.com/subram/2009/09/09/second-best-is-often-good-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-12 Chris Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:02:42 +0000 http://www.nigel-leech.com/subram/?p=798#comment-12 Ah, well said that man - I wish I had had that clarity of explanation a few years back because your tale has parallels in businesses. You see, there was a small group of (extremely skilled) guys in my business who - whenever we got a project in - would always want to do the tip-toppermost job on it. The problem was that I knew how long it would take me to do, quoted on that basis, and then discovered they would take twice as long. Even when quizzed about this, the response was usually "Well, you quote what you like that will get the customer to pay, but it will take X days whatever you quote for - we refuse to do the work unless we can do it properly." They simply couldn't get into their heads that there is a sliding scale in the quality of project delivery and that it's important to hit the sweet spot on it. At one end there is 'Useless, this has made things worse, I'm not paying you at all, and in fact I'll probably sue you.', and at the other end there is 'This is the <i>best</i> possible job that could have been done - no stone has been left unturned and the engineer is clearly capable of leaping tall buildings in a single bound.'. The difficulty is that neither is commercially workable - the first is clearly disastrous, and the second will probably make you a loss, or at best break even - which is no good for paying the bills. What is needed is a happy half-way house where the customer is just slightly more than contented (i.e. he can see some quality in the work that is more than 'average' for the money he's being asked to pay), but which doesn't necessarily have all the finesse that a wine connoisseur will detect in a vintage bottle of Krug. It's about the balance between customer happiness (for which read 'propensity to come back next time he wants something and/or recommend you to someone else') and cold, hard, cash. On a first job for a customer, you might err slightly - and I do only mean <i>slightly</i> towards the 'tip top' end of the spectrum. (Incidentally, the 'tip top' job can be counter-productive too - if it takes longer than the customer wants then it may be perceived as wasting <i>his</i> time, which is Very Bad.) Ah, well said that man – I wish I had had that clarity of explanation a few years back because your tale has parallels in businesses. You see, there was a small group of (extremely skilled) guys in my business who – whenever we got a project in – would always want to do the tip-toppermost job on it. The problem was that I knew how long it would take me to do, quoted on that basis, and then discovered they would take twice as long. Even when quizzed about this, the response was usually “Well, you quote what you like that will get the customer to pay, but it will take X days whatever you quote for – we refuse to do the work unless we can do it properly.”

They simply couldn’t get into their heads that there is a sliding scale in the quality of project delivery and that it’s important to hit the sweet spot on it.

At one end there is ‘Useless, this has made things worse, I’m not paying you at all, and in fact I’ll probably sue you.’, and at the other end there is ‘This is the best possible job that could have been done – no stone has been left unturned and the engineer is clearly capable of leaping tall buildings in a single bound.’. The difficulty is that neither is commercially workable – the first is clearly disastrous, and the second will probably make you a loss, or at best break even – which is no good for paying the bills.

What is needed is a happy half-way house where the customer is just slightly more than contented (i.e. he can see some quality in the work that is more than ‘average’ for the money he’s being asked to pay), but which doesn’t necessarily have all the finesse that a wine connoisseur will detect in a vintage bottle of Krug. It’s about the balance between customer happiness (for which read ‘propensity to come back next time he wants something and/or recommend you to someone else’) and cold, hard, cash. On a first job for a customer, you might err slightly – and I do only mean slightly towards the ‘tip top’ end of the spectrum.

(Incidentally, the ‘tip top’ job can be counter-productive too – if it takes longer than the customer wants then it may be perceived as wasting his time, which is Very Bad.)

]]>