(Pragmatic) Imperfection rules OK!

Life and business are full of perfectionists. Striving for perfection seems like a good goal; a virtuous starting point – right?

Targets are everywhere

Well, clearly, I would demand that perfectionists design and build the airliners in which I travel, but often is perfection (or close to it) what is really required? Does the trade-off with time, cost, risk and emotional capital not often play a part in such an extreme aspiration?

There’s nothing wrong with having a target…. “Aim high” they say: “Strive for excellence” a well-worn mantra (perversely, often in organisations where excellence has not paid even a fleeting a visit for a very long time!). I am all for doing a really great job and having high standards (non-negotiable) and in most cases there should be minimum standards of quality or performance. For some businesses quality / performance is a real differentiator for their product or service – or even their all.

But there’s a path to be carefully trodden through the minefield that separates us from perfection. A path where costs can escalate exponentially in striving for perfection. Is the benefit of moving from 99.5% to 100% achievement of a KPI worth the financial cost of achieving it? let alone the emotional investment required. Perfectionism can drive people towards regular (un)seen silent acts of self-flagellation because they didn’t achieve their goals or their output was less than perfect. Cut them some slack… or at least make a considered and balanced choice.

Define what is required. Usually, some level of imperfection is way more affordable, tolerable or even desirable. Perhaps an insignificantly small level of quality noise is preferable to the cost of eradicating it completely. Customers always want perfection but are usually less willing to pay for it.

Set targets appropriately, accept KPIs wisely. Continual improvement is good – but not always at any cost.

Pragmatic imperfection rules OK!

Postscript:  

Interesting to note that my first post, JFDI and this one Imperfection rules, live in the same neighbourhood as AGILE albeit using an Anglo-Saxon terminology rather than the infinitely more exotic Japanese nomenclature.

A mindset of do it / try it now (JFDI), iterate it until it until its minimally functional (imperfection rules) and then continually improve it over time relates to an AGILE approach. AGILE is a deeper subject…more than just a few simple concepts, but I can see that it binds together some resolute common (reusable) sense. Might be a while before I turn into an Agile Guru though :-)