How Close Is Close Enough?

By
Steven K. Shapiro

sks@skscci.com


I am sure that everyone at one time or another has either used or heard the phrase "close enough for government work". It is usually said at a time when the work being performed is complete enough to pass inspection, but not as perfect as the worker would prefer. It implies that if given more time or resources, the work or product could be improved upon.

As consultants, we are judged by our work product. If our product is shoddy, we will gain a reputation for shoddy work. If we don't get the job done we will get a reputation for not being able to complete a project. We may have very good reasons why we were not successful on a particular project, but when viewed by those not intimately involved with the project, all they see is that it was not completed. To these people it doesn't matter too much what the reasons for the failure were. In short, regardless of the reasons, our customers pay for results and it is our responsibilty to give it to them. If we fail to do this, our ability to attract customers in the future may be jeapordized.

Sometimes the reasons for not achieving our results are due to our customers themselves. They may not fully understand the technology or may be apprehensive about using it. As such they may take half measures which compromise the ability of the project to be successful. Some customers just aren't ready to take the big step to new technology and because of their unwillingness to commit they wind up with a product which is worse than if they hadn't done anything at all.

Two of the problems with new technology is convincing clients that it is appropriate for them and convincing them how they should go about implementing it at their facilities. Sometimes a customer has expectations which we do not believe to be reasonable. Sometimes we have expectations which the customer does not believe to be reasonable. Somewhere there is a middle ground and it is up to us to find it. Since we are the experts in the technology, the responsibility for its application is up to us.

As proponents for this new technology we have a responsibility to create successes wherever we use it. Failures only provide fuel to our detractors who, upon our failure, will be apt to say "See, I told you so". In every new industry, the skeptics dominate and the visionaries are scoffed. It is not until the visionaries prove their vision with continued successes that they gain respect and viability. We are in a part of our industry which only a few years ago was looked upon as a fad. We have recently transitioned to where it is now considered viable, but with great skepticism. It is up to us to provide the successes with which it will become respected.

In a perfect world, everything goes as planned and works the first time. In the real world, this is hardly the case, and Mr. Murphy has a book of laws which demonstrate this fact. Even in the best of cases there are sometimes things which fail. How we manage this failure is probably more important than how we manage our successes. It would be easy to play it safe and only take on those clients who are well suited for our technology and who completely believe in it. It would certainly make our life easier and less stressful. Unfortunately, clients of this sort are few and far between and will only become available as we can demonstrate success after success.

In investment circles it is said "The bigger the risk, the bigger the potential for a big success". It is the same here. In order to become an industry leader, it is neccessary for us to take risks and find a way to achieve the big successes. Only then will we gain the credibility within the industry as the people who can get the job done, regardless of the obstacles. Sometimes we can't get the level of succes which we prefer. Sometimes we can't convince a client to implement a system as fully as we suggest. In either case, what do we do? How close is good enough? When is it time to decide that its a no-win situation, cut our losses and get out? Most importantly, what can we do to achieve success?

To push a client too hard towards a technology which they are uncomfortable with doesn't do anybody any good, especially if they are going to drag their feet when it comes to backing it. I see this repeatedly with my kids. When I tell them to do something which they don't want to do they go out of their way (and spend more time and energy) to show me how difficult it is to do what they were told. Some clients are the same way. They are so resistent to change that they either directly or indirectly sabotage the success which can be achieved.

Technology in and of itself is useless. It must be applied and used. How it is applied and where it is used make a big difference in its success. Many industries are filled with examples of superior technology which is relegated to obscurity. Just because something is technologically superior doesn't mean that it will inevitably triumph. Betamax video tape technology is superior to VHS technology, but you will have to look far and wide to be able to find Betamax video units and accessories. It is up to us to ensure that the superior technology wins out and that we are part of the solution.

Recently, a company in St. Petersburg Florida decided that a client-server architecture was totally inappropriate and that the technology was not viable. They decided to revert back to their mainframe implementations. Was this due to the inability of their consultants to get the job done due to incompetence? Was it due to the client's inability to manage the project? Was it due to the client's lack of commitment? Regardless of why, the fact is that the company backed out of using the technology and shines as an example (for whatever reason) of the failure of a client-server conversion.

Many of my contracts with clients have involved cleaning up the messes left by other consultants and consulting companies. Some of these messes take twice as long to clean up as they did to mess up, and significantly longer to get right than if they had just been done correctly to begin with.

Ken Olsen, the founder of Digital Equipment Corporation had the philosophy that his company should know their client's industry as well as, if not better, than the client. This way they would be able to apply their technology to their client's needs even before their clients realized that they had the need. His company was very successful with this philosophy for quite some time. Unfortunately there came a time when all his company really knew was its product. Digital rested on its laurels and expected clients to realize the superiority of its product and buy from it. The industry changed, the markets changed and the technology changed, but Digital did not change along with the industry and is now relegated to obscurity within the industry.

I see a lot of this in our industry. There are many consultants who do not fully understand the business of their clients. While these consultants understand their technology, they don't understand the details and implications of how their clients do business. They believe so fully that the technology is the solution that they tend to overlook their clients business practices and existing implementations. Without the knowledge of how the client does business, and the business rules of the client's business, they open themselves up for a failure. Unlike some fashions, in our industry, one size does not fit all. We must make adjustments in the fit and cut of each system to integrate seamlessly into our clients business.

Some clients have so much invested in their existing systems that it is impractical to expect them to commit to a full conversion all at once as the risk may be excessive. Therefore it sometimes becomes neccessary to implement a series of half-measures, done in sequence to eventually achieve the goal. These half-measures may wind up costing more by the time the entire conversion is completed, but it reduces the risk.

We must remember that if we fail, all we have risked is our time and effort on one project. We can always overcome a failure or two. The client is risking his entire business. If we fail, he may go out of business or lose a lot of his business to a competitor. It does no good to push a client for an `all or nothing' commitment and wind up with nothing, when, by compromising, we can at least start moving the client in the right direction. It is up to us to assist in his risk management. We must be willing to set aside our quest for perfection in order to get him on the right path. We must be willing to sacrifice perfection for excellence. Sometimes close enough is good enough.

Click here to return to my HOME page