There are two competing camps in management thought today.
Ok, there are probably 100 competing camps. I just don't have time to address them all, and a simple side by side comparison between two dominant thought processes seemed in order.
One one hand, we have the constant demand for perfection. Six Sigma, Lean, eliminating mistakes and errors to create an incredible, consistent, useful product or service. On the other hand, the need to innovate, to create something new and take new risks to dramatically change a product or market. Both approaches are correct, and relatively mutually exclusive. What does a manager do?
When choosing perfection, we make a series of assumptions about the product or service, its competitors and our ability to keep up with the market. Once a product or service is perfected - it it every really is - even a small change to the process or product can cause major disruptions for a customer, so we prolong the life of any product or process and minimize changes to achieve perfection. If you can dominate your market, or if perfection is important to your customer, then this is a great strategy. However, it assumes that there will be little or no disruption in the market, and that the customer demands perfection over innovation and new capabilities.
When you choose innovation, on the other hand, you will not be able to provide a perfect product or service. If your innovations are truly new, you can't determine in advance exactly what "perfection" is - you can only try to provide what you think customers will value and iterate from that point once you discover and uncover real wants and needs. This approach assumes that customers don't demand perfection, but do demand interesting, innovative products and services that solve unspoken or unmet needs. After all, if you can solve a problem that I have even fairly well that has never been solved before, I won't ask for perfection yet.
I'll call this thinking the Innovation/Perfection corollary to Moore's Crossing the Chasm. Many early adopters don't care about perfection - they want a new problem solved now, even if it means the product isn't completely ready and may suffer a few challenges. Late adopters and the traditional majority want perfection and don't care too much about innovation. They want products and services to work flawlessly, and are willing to wait for the second or third generation. The big question becomes - is the Moore Chasm curve the same for people today as it was when he conceived it, and is it the same for all industries?
I think, increasingly, the answer is "no" to both questions. I suspect in many markets the early adopter segments are getting larger as younger consumers are more willing to experiment with the "new" at the expense of the "perfect" - so the size and shape of the curve is shifting. I also suspect that the curve is dependent on the market. While I like to think of myself as an innovator, I want a car that starts every time, the first time I turn the switch or push the button. While I may sacrifice perfection for innovation in my phone technology, laptop, television, web application and so forth, I'm not yet willing to trade off perfection in my automobiles.
The real crux of the matter is that if your position is perfection, then you can't afford to make mistakes, and if you do, you need to quickly and completely correct them. On the other hand (aren't you glad we only have two hands) if your position is innovative, you can't afford not to make mistakes, and you want your customers to participate in and help you learn from your mistakes - you can't learn if you don't make mistakes.
When you said that innovation and perfection may be mutually exclusive, I quickly agreed. But now I'm thinking about the U.S. space program. That's an example of a highly effective organization that combines innovation and a quest for perfection. IBM, in its heyday, was an amazing innovator that at the same time had rigid policies and procedures. Or again, McDonalds turned the food business upside down by creating a nearly perfect and repeatable business model. Could it be that in some cases innovation and perfection are mutually reinforcing?
Posted by: brad shorr | June 01, 2007 at 04:09 PM