Saturday, December 06, 2008
Excellence is meeting the spec - among other things
To produce 27 points anyway seems remarkably unhelpful on various levels, not least in that these points were supposed to be practical steps someone could take to transform their business. No-one is going to apply 27 points. It's like having 27 key objectives - all over the place. No-one can communicate 27 of anything to their team. No-one can remember 27 points either. To suppose that the client is going to select their favourite five is just abrogating responsibility - the client wants to say (presumably) that these are Peters' top picks, not their own. And, dammit, 27 is just nowhere near five, not even close.
[BTW, Peters' previous post had been extolling the absolute centrality of good design, which didn't even appear in his 27 points.]
It all smacks to me of a distance from reality, or privileged "clients-will-take-anything-if-it's-got-my-name-on" status that I had not suspected Tom Peters of suffering from. I have posted on his forum again (exerpt below) and will see what if anything comes back that doesn't sound like hefty post-rationalising. Meanwhile back to the real world where if a client asks for five they get five, and "by next Tuesday" doesn't mean next Friday is okay.
"bingo's plainly the name of the game here, where a client asks for five, when really they would be disappointed with less than ten, and in the event gets 27. And everyone's okay, or at least saying they are. I think we will have to differ on this one, Tom. Seems to me it's like saying why be content with just one USP when you could have twelve"
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]