Does anyone remember the triangle model that reflected the qualities of Speed, Quality and Price? The deal was you could pick any two, but all three were not possible. In other words you could have something (a product or a service) quick and cheap, but like fast food, its probably not going to be too high a quality, you could have fast and good, but it wont be cheap, or you could have good and cheap, but not get it very fast. I believe that this model still holds true, but the question is does anyone choose high quality during a recession? Does fast still matter during a recession. I worry that most people choose the low cost option no matter what the consequences.
We see Wal-Mart is doing good business during these hard times, but that most of the higher end retailers are reporting life-threatening results.
I for one, believe that higher quality is typically a better option. Quality has many components to it, including the characteristic of being appropriately sized and engineered (with regards to software development and technology architecture anyways). Over my career, I have found countless examples of how experienced teams of people who deliver high quality solutions save companies money in the long run. They also decrease pain associated with a project (on time delivery, done right the first time, etc.).
I find that paying for quality rarely leaves someone regretting their decision. I don't think this is true for the other options in the triangle. When wise people evaluate the real cost of the low cost option, they rarely find it was as cheap as they expected or that much cheaper than the higher quality option.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Marks Meeting Message
About once every year or so I feel compelled to remind people about how dangerous meetings have become to American business. Like so many Dilbertian characters, some people have literally made a career out of attending meetings. So once again, here are my suggstions for managing effective meetings:
1. Meetings should have a start time and a stop time. I once had a client tell me they wanted a system on the wall that identified the cost of each employee in the room multiplied by the time spent during the meeting to be reflected in a cost clock on the wall. Cool idea.
2. People should be on time for the meetings, that is simply out of respect for other peoples time. But the meeting start does not shift just because choose to not be on time (exceptions probably granted to certain royalty, and egomaniac CEO's).
3. Meetings begin and end on time.
4. A meeting should have an agenda, and that agenda should be communicated prior to the meeting in order for the attendees to be well prepared for the meeting.
5. The meeting should have a facilitator and a note taker. The facilitator may or may not be the person who called the meeting, but they should ensure that all participants are engaged and providing input. The facilitator also needs to be something of a time manager.
6. The meeting should have written action items, and the responsible party needs to be identified (no fair tapping people not present :) )
Some companies have adopted meeting free days. An interesting idea, with a good message, but probably not very practical for managing schedules and getting things done. More than ever I appreciate good communication and collaboration in companies today, but there needs to be a balance struck with efficiency and a need to get things done!
Mark
1. Meetings should have a start time and a stop time. I once had a client tell me they wanted a system on the wall that identified the cost of each employee in the room multiplied by the time spent during the meeting to be reflected in a cost clock on the wall. Cool idea.
2. People should be on time for the meetings, that is simply out of respect for other peoples time. But the meeting start does not shift just because choose to not be on time (exceptions probably granted to certain royalty, and egomaniac CEO's).
3. Meetings begin and end on time.
4. A meeting should have an agenda, and that agenda should be communicated prior to the meeting in order for the attendees to be well prepared for the meeting.
5. The meeting should have a facilitator and a note taker. The facilitator may or may not be the person who called the meeting, but they should ensure that all participants are engaged and providing input. The facilitator also needs to be something of a time manager.
6. The meeting should have written action items, and the responsible party needs to be identified (no fair tapping people not present :) )
Some companies have adopted meeting free days. An interesting idea, with a good message, but probably not very practical for managing schedules and getting things done. More than ever I appreciate good communication and collaboration in companies today, but there needs to be a balance struck with efficiency and a need to get things done!
Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
