Are We Determined to Get Better? LO14500

JOE_PODOLSKY@HP-PaloAlto-om4.om.hp.com
Fri, 25 Jul 97 08:07:53 -0700

Replying to LO14307 --

Author: PETER NAUS at HP-Australia,om1
Date: 7/24/97 9:13 PM

Hi Joe,

Me again. I only read #74 today, so I'm not surprised if it's a bit late
for more opinion. I think the subject has been a challenging one for most
folks - well done.

Here's some sarcasm thinly draped over a nugget of 'I wonder...'.

Cheers,

Peter


Quick Thoughts:

3 words : Ownership. Change. Fault.

Ownership : that indefinable quality wherein an individual
(induhvidual) or group of individuals takes full responsibility for
good results.

Change : that fundament of life, whereby the universe expends energy
and so runs down to true entropy, while most individuals expend more
energy, and thus hasten true entropy, in futile efforts to withstand
change. (See : Change)

Fault : Something that is in remarkably short supply in individuals, but
is remarkably abundant in others.

Yes, I passed Cynicysm 401 with flying colours. I don't know if this
saying is an old one, or one that I truly coined, but my definitions for
cynics and skkeptics is that a skeptic does not believe a thing can be
done, while a cynic knows it's being done, but for the wrong reason(s).

Microspeak is a wonderful tool. Only in Microspeak can you claim that
dirty water exiting from the pipe (regardless of whether the pipe is
dirty or not) is clean. Foolish people, can't you see that it's not
dirty at all - it's perfectly pure! With additional colloids, suspended
vitamins and minerals, rare gases, and a wonderfully refreshing taste,
all thrown in (literally!) for free!

So who cares if the pipe is dirty or clean? Doesn't matter, because
we can sell any kind of water out of any kind of pipe! If it's clear,
it's "Crystal Clear". If it's murky, it's "95% dirt-free"! If it's
undrinkable, it's "Rich and Hearty". If it's poisonous, we can sell it
to the Third World as fertiliser!.

How the hell did I get to the Third World??

Anyway.

We all know the old problem with 1.0 version software. It's not going
to be any good - wait for version 1.5. The big bugs will be fixed, and
maybe the small bugs won't hurt us financially or productively, and
anyway, if they do, we'll sue!

The thing I am most surprised at is that no-one has sued Microsoft
for Windows 3.0 (or 2.1 or /386). Why is it that if a software house
fixes bugs and finally releases a product that works the way it should
have 6 iterations ago, they are praised for a "better" product? Claims
that a software product "Increases productivity" is a "buy me" sticker.
If Ford had advertised the Pinto 2.0 in similar terms, they would have
been annihilated by the market. Can't you just see it : "The NEW Ford
Pinto GLX. It has better fuel economy, more power, and free AIR! You
probably will survive until your next trade-in! (Disclaimer : cars used
on public roads and driven by humans are not covered by the previous
statement)".

This money thing is a bit of a worry, alright. I think James hit it
on the head. It's confirmed whenever you consider our "consumer"
products. HP used to make the BEST printers in the world. That's why we
sold so many of them. They were reliable, they worked. We weren't so hot
with our PC products at first - they tended to be slow, steady,
rock-solid performers. Not many of the bells and whistles, just well
engineered PC Volvos. We still have major customers using Vectra ES/10
and RS computers for business-critical applications.

But customer loyalty to HP isn't all it's made up to be. The
customers using the old equipment are pleased enough with the
reliability (and, yes, service too!); but they're also frightened to
buy a new PC - even from HP! Why should they fork out money for a
product with the lifespan of a honeybee?

I think a lot of big manufacturers, not just HP, have lost the plot
in a number of ways. They produce more flimsy, B-grade trash than ever
before. Their customers are deserting them in droves (our REAL
customers, I mean, not the 10 or 20 corporate accounts who don't buy
elsewhere because they can't afford to change their vendor). From my
vantage point as a hardware escalation engineer, I heard so many
customers saying that if it wasn't for the 2686 laser printer that
still sits in the corner churning out paper, they wouldn't have bought
HP equipment. Despite repeated hardware malfunctions, reliability
issues, and proactive information being fed back to the start of the
"pipe", we continued to build computers I wouldn't use as boat anchors
because they corrode too quickly. And they get worse. Our instruments?
They keep getting better, although I understand some loss of quality is
evident even there.

I think there has to be a capacity for honest appraisal of our work
by ourselves, before a corporate entity will be able to do the same for
itself, and learn from mistakes instead of apportioning blame. It's the
demographic, we cry; It's the market forces; It's the environment; It's
the stockholders; it's the competition. It's everybody but us.

What I don't like or understand is the gristle of corporate fear of
profits falling, and customers leaving, and public perceptions, if
they're SEEN to make a mistake. Then the blind twitching and squirming
and rictus of internal reorganisation as they scamper to avoid blame
(which is almost as good as learning from a mistake, but far less
costly) and then try to make more, instead of better.

I think Phaedrus had it right : there is a 'classical' Quality, and
an 'intrinsic' Quality in all things, and we can only do things better
when we understand that difference. It seems many people, myself
included, have lost to a greater or lesser degree that ability to
differentiate between 'better' and 'more'.

Whew. That's 'better'. ;)

TO: PODOLSKY_JOE/HP-PaloAlto_om4@hpcc08
CC: NAUS_PETER/HP-Australia_om1@hpcc08

-- 


JOE_PODOLSKY@HP-PaloAlto-om4.om.hp.com


     Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations
    For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>