Is Quality the 2.0 word for quantity ?

Before starting anything in any context, knowing what one want to achieve is essential. Some say that the answer is obvisous : sell. The famous “Nothing happens until something is sold” by Thomas Waston is still unconsciously embebbed in many things we do and we have to admit that being the best at anything is useless if the company doesn’t sell anything. But there comes the second pitfall : selling is nothing if the organization is unable to deliver what’s been promised. We often hear that being “sales oriented” is the only way to success. That’s true provided the organization doesn’t put all its eneergy on sales operations and there are production and servirces team that keep the sales people promise.

In an industrial system, when strict norms and the use of machines  garantee a given level of quality (or make people think so), people have to focus on quantity. And, since optimizing the use of resources if a common concern, everything ends in productivity measurement, what is quite logical. Would organizations overlook this, they would the criticized for that.

In a system where production is more about intangibles, productivity is more complex. Everybody agrees that it matters, that the formula is still the same…but measuring its components is everyday more confusing and complex, what makes is a very touchy field.  The purpose is still to deliver what’s asked without waste. The resource factor being very hard to adjust for activities that are defined by their instantaneousness, the whole pressure is put on quantity and “always more” just to be sure nothing is wasted.

That’s when things get complicated.

[Read more...]

Branding without an improvement process is a flash in the pan

Now that people realize that the traces everyone (businesses or individuals) leaves on the net impact their economic activities everyday more, “branding” is becoming a very trendy issue. First “personal” then, logically, “corporate”.

Then, things should be as perfect as possible in a perfect world. Everyone will be able to know everything about anyone, so will be able to make the best possible decisions, companies won’t make “casting mistakes” anymore and applicants will be sure to find employer they perfectly fit with. I don’t know if you share my opinion…but this seems to be too easy to be true…and efficient.

There is, according to be, a big misunderstanding on the starting assumption. Whereas some undestand “transparent information”, some others understand “the most positive information. I’d rather say that everyone want the most transparent information about the others but only want to give positive information about himself. This leads to a win-loose game where everyone looses for a simple reason. The mechanism relies on trust, so, at the very moment the information is biased, trust will disappear and everybody will come back to the usual “it’s useless, it doesn’t work, it’s a sham”.

I feel hard to believe that, even if in a perfect world it would solve everything, the social side of the process, that’s to say the validation of the information by third parties, will change anything. Because there are a lot of people that are not comfortable with all these things and because companies, even if they know people don’t believe them anymore, are still reluctant to make speak those who are believed.

Is it a flash in the pan ? Not at all. But communication in the large sense of the word has to be rethought as a lever in an ongoing improvement process and not only as a way to deliver a message.

[Read more...]