I think there is one advice that is of questionable quality: the advice to "keep pushing for quality". "Make the highest quality". That sounds really good. But how easy that?
The problem is simply that you first have to be able to recognize what is quality and what is not. And that's the greatest difficulty of all. If you make something of really great quality that everyone thinks is quality, then it will work well. But what if it's really good for you, but not for anyone else?
Take for example all these YC companies. ALL of them are working on something they are constantly trying to make great. But a number of them just don't end up with something that people regard as being quality, and so they fail.
Before you can make something of great quality, you have to recognize what is of quality to other people. And that is an extremely difficult task that, dare I say this, most people cannot do.
Most people cannot properly place themselves in another persons shoes. They cannot look at their products from the outside. And so long they cannot do that, they cannot guage when something is of high quality, and will forever be unable to take that advice.
Performance and quality are rarely at odds with legitimate business interests or needs. In fact, if you sleight performance or quality it is exactly equal to sleighting future business needs or interests.
The trouble is when illegitimate (generally political) business concerns are allowed to be trumpeted as more important than legitimate business concerns, or when illegitimate views about how to discount the future value of quality are permitted to dominate the comparison with extreme short-term opportunities.
How could it persist? Companies optimize for profit, quality be damned. In contrast, craftsmen take pride in their work, and pride is what creates quality.
How many people have the ability to actually improve something? Should those people not demand quality?
I can't engineer a car - does that mean I shouldn't get mad when my airbags fail to deploy? I can't cook well - does that mean I shouldn't be disappointed by a substandard meal at a restaurant?
I want to create quality things. I'm sure this is shared by a lot of people, specifically entrepreneurs.
Quality to me is something that works well at doing something that is useful to me in someone's life.
When I achieve quality, I'd expect my return to be others wanting (or wanting to use) the thing I created.
But, how do I know if my venture is going to be worthwhile even if I create something of the highest quality? I may very well have created something awesome, but how am I to assume other people will even be aware of what I created just because it has quality?
I can spend all my time focusing on the quality in some thing I'm creating, but if I neglect the second factor, spreading awareness, I don't feel like I've achieved what I'm seeking out to do.
However, I feel like if I exert energy into spreading awareness, instead of spending 100% of my capacity on quality, that quality will be diminished as a result.
So, my question is this: How can I focus just on creating great things without the risk that the thing fading into the pit of disregard?
I haven't read the book, but isn't quality something of a continuum dictated mostly by economics? In other words, if you put huge efforts into making quality products that are really more than most customers need, and it costs you do to so, you're likely going to go out of business. That, or you'd do best to find a niche where people really do need that kind of quality.
...if you consider quality a lever, you're not the kind of person anyone should want to work with!
You agree on quality standards before you begin, and you deliver the quality level that you agreed beforehand, not more, not less (you deliver sooner if it goes better than expected giving the product-owner ability to add features or redirect effort actually using your "superpowers" if any to give the business a real advantage), at a profit or at a loss. Otherwise you're not a professional, you're either an amateur or maliciously dishonest/exploitative!
> It is important to say right up front that quality isn’t everything, and acknowledging it isn’t some sort of moral failing. Value is what you are trying to produce, and quality is only one aspect of it, intermixed with cost, features, and other factors.
It's not profitable and we should stop saying that. The issue is that there's just not enough quality out there so companies accept less quality and have to start managing for it.
If they could hire fewer people who crank awesome shit out they would.
There's no inherent incentive to produce a quality product when chasing profit either, just one that people will give you money for. Sometimes this aligns with quality, other times, it does not.
It’s not that consumers don’t reward quality. It’s that more consumers reward lower prices, and once outside money is involved you have to chase growth instead of steady profits.
Family owned businesses are often able to maintain very high quality. They’ll just never make enough to satisfy people looking for huge returns, which is nearly anyone who doesn’t have some deeper connection to the company.
This. And just to add, I remember the time when there was a decision between handmade stuff, and the worse quality industrial produced things. You could really feel the difference. An artisan would complain about the quality of the product, he would shred the workmanship and demand better attention to detail. But those decisions are made on the margins, how low can we go in quality to maximize profit.
So you better not tie your self worth to the quality of the things you produce.
reply