“Done is better than perfect” – in search of answers to how organisations should approach the idea of perfectionism vs. efficient project closure, where we refine projects for so long that we ultimately lose efficiency in favour of effectiveness. It is good to complete the process profitably, but this cannot be an excuse for a lack of consistency in the company, offering low quality or chaos within the organisation’s structures.
In one model, companies can spend months bringing projects to their ideal state, but in another – for example, in a start-up environment – projects are shown before they are completed in order to gather the feedback needed in the process, instead of painstakingly rebuilding a version of the product with flawed assumptions. Both approaches make sense because quality is the end goal. We have to find the right balance in our approach, which will tell us which working model to choose, but we should always assume high product quality as the ultimate goal.
Quite recently, I received a surprising question from one of the company’s new programmers: “Is it worth investing time for 2.5% of Internet users, when not even half a percent will visit our website?” War strategies and business strategies have a common denominator, so to answer this question properly, I will first recount the story of one battle and one nail.
In 1485, Richard III sat on the English throne. It was a time of political instability, and the king had to defend his crown many times. He was an experienced war veteran, valiant and courageous, and his army numbered between 8,000 and 10,000 men.
In the same year, the pretender to the English throne, Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, faced Richard in battle at the place from which the battle took its name – Bosworth. Unlike Richard, Henry was not experienced on the battlefield, and his army numbered only 5,000 men. Quite a difference, isn’t it? Henry had only one trump card – good advisors who were experienced in battles with Richard, but on the day of the battle, everything pointed to a victory for King Richard. The king and his army were preparing to face Henry’s forces. The winner of this battle would rule England. Just before the battle, Richard sent his groom to check if his favourite horse was ready. The groom ordered the blacksmith to shoe the horse quickly, but the blacksmith asked him to hold off on the decision. Over the past few days, he had already shoed the entire army, and in order to shoe another horse, he would have to obtain more iron (sounds like a lack of processing capacity, right?). However, the enemy was pressing forward, and the groom gave the order to use what was available. The blacksmith obediently used the remaining iron and did the best job he could. Unfortunately, he did not have enough nails to attach the fourth horseshoe. Casting takes time, which was no longer available. The stableman urgently ordered him to use what was at hand again.
King Richard fought valiantly on the battlefield, but his troops lost their enthusiasm and began to retreat. The king could only maintain the army’s position by encouraging the remaining troops to fight side by side. In a desperate gallop, the horseshoe broke and the horse stumbled, throwing the king off. Richard got up as the horse galloped on. Henry’s army pressed on, and Richard raised his sword and cried, “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!”
It was too late. The king’s troops scattered, and the fall, caused by a small nail, knocked the royal crown off Richard’s head, giving England to Henry Tudor.
Let’s return to the present day: “Is it worth investing time?” The above story is an allegory for a business dilemma: how small details affect a company. Not everyone is fighting for England. If a business model is fully implemented without paying attention to every detail, then that is a choice that companies can afford to make. In our case, as an agency, we are supposed to be a kind of model, a benchmark for quality and conduct. Agencies are scrutinised in their operating models, so we cannot accept the “the cobbler’s children have no shoes” approach. Companies, like people, mature. Three years ago, we were at a different stage of development and had different priorities, and it was easier to hide behind excuses. Today, after our first decade of operation, we do not allow ourselves to act without careful consideration. It happens that, in accordance with the principle of marginal utility, our clients decide to limit their investment in additional programmer hours if it does not bring measurable benefits and less than 0.5% of users will see the contribution made. The situation is different when we know that we are a kind of benchmark in terms of quality.
Does it make sense to make corrections after the customer’s approval has been obtained?
From a financial point of view – absolutely not. Any CFO would be appalled at the news of an additional 20 hours of work that cannot be billed. Wojtek Kmiecik, Creative Director at ADream and my irreplaceable partner, is a true perfectionist. He is responsible for the quality of projects in terms of design and programming implementations according to the Pixel Perfect standard. I must admit that he is great at it. There is nothing to complain about when it comes to the quality of his projects, but this series of minor corrections, requested after the invoice has already been issued, reduces the profitability of the project. You may ask what it has given the company? The QUALITY that is so necessary these days, which attracts more and more customers. We know from experience that once we let things slide, we will do so more and more often. Specialists will start to wave their hands, because “done is better”, and the customer has already given the proverbial nod. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. By ensuring that every element is of the highest quality, we translate this into our overall approach to work: design, procedures, safety standards, the project development process – and ultimately, no complaints and a high-quality portfolio.
It is worth bearing in mind that it is always easier, better and more effective to do something once and do it properly than to correct it several times. This approach has allowed us to develop a 30-point procedure for delivering website projects, and all these “nails” hammered in result in customer satisfaction. Procedures and systematic work often distinguish professionals from beginners. Experience allows us to develop a working methodology, and it is the small steps towards perfection that enable us to know how to deal with the “nails”.
As entrepreneurs, we have a lot on our minds, but in the rush of current affairs, it is worth setting aside one day a month to look for nails in your company in order to avoid damage in advance and not just learn from mistakes. I like to think of business as a sport. The best organisations would not have achieved their status if they had only followed the principle of “Done is better than perfect”, just as athletes do not rest on their laurels and try to beat their own records every day. Every day, we work to be a better company tomorrow than we were yesterday. We test various ideas for improvements, and they do not always work out. The road is long and even arduous, but one day someone comes along who is delighted with our contribution, and then we feel that it is worth the effort. As a local company on the Krakow market, we do not think we will change the world, but by changing our own approach to quality, we feel that we are a well-oiled cog in the machine of many local companies which, like us, need partners in business who do not give up.
Source: “For Want of a Horseshoe Nail”, in: William J. Bennett, ed., The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Great Moral Stories (1993), pp. 198–200.
