SI | metaFox working principle: speed vs. quality aka. the "good enough principle"
Expert: Tobi
TLDR
In content & product development we need to balance high quality and speed of production. Adopt a "good enough" attitude when errors have low consequences or when the result of your work can still be improved after release.
Information
At metaFox we strive to build great quality products through an iterative process (s. also SI | metaFox working principle: "Iterative Improvement"). When producing a new physical product 500+ times, we want to avoid errors like typos as much as possible. However, passing Asanas back and forth in several review rounds takes time. In striving for quality you always compromise on speed (and vice versa). There are examples when speed is more important than quality and we can strive for a "good enough" state.
When do I prioritise speed at the cost of perfect quality?
- When the product of your work can still be improved after release, it can make sense to strive for speed and a quick release. For example, when publishing a product listing: the earlier we are online and technically able to sell a product, the better – even if the listing text or visuals are not yet perfect. They can be improved step by step by iteratively updating the listing. The most expensive thing is to not sell.
- When the impact of an error has low consequences, e.g. when sending a product announcement Email: our followers will probably skim over the Email in 30 seconds, not pay attention to every detail and forgive a typo in a marketing text. But the later they learn about a new offering is available, the later we will start making revenue and receiving user feedback.
When do I prioritise great quality over speed?
- When the content is unfamiliar and needs to be researched, e.g., when developing new coaching tools using an unfamiliar framework or theory we've never used before. Understanding a theory or framework and knowing how to incorporate that into the product takes a lot of time and mental energy.
- When the content is very niched and specialized, e.g., when developing products for very specific use cases like the Agile Poker Cards – one learning we have from the feedback of this product is that it's a good idea to consult people we're creating our products for. This is especially true for products we're developing for the first time.
- When planning to use a product material we've never used before, e.g., when developing the coaching cubes, Louise had to research suppliers and get samples from them before we decided to go with wooden cubes and with Kara as our supplier. Finding a good supplier with a reasonable price range can be a challenge but worth the investment of time in the long run.
Theoretical background
In project management, this balance of speed and quality is also known as the "Iron Triangle", additionally including costs. For our internal purposes, costs and speed are somewhat interchangeable and we can simplify this model.
The model states that a good project manager can balance the necessity of all three aspects: speed, quality, and costs. This does NOT mean that a project can achieve all of them. Usually, at least one has to be sacrificed temporarily. So depending on the circumstances you can make a wise choice to either
Low costs & quick = low quality (perfect for non-critical marketing materials)
- Fast & good = high costs (perfect for product development of smart tailored products; here the realm of options is very limited and we only have to make a few good decisions to get to a decent product)
- Low costs & high quality = low priority (perfect for highly conceptualized products; here we have to make many decisions, need to consult with experts, and learn ourselves, all of which takes time; so deprioritizing speed is no issue)