In the Software industry principles like agile development, adaptive planning and early delivery are common practice. Similarly, in the start-up world the concept of MVP (Minimum Viable Product) is regarded as the only way to be successful. To what extent can this way of thinking be transferable to other functions or more traditional businesses?

In a recent internal presentation, one of our SAS leaders (Bob Messier, VP Global Technology & Industry Practices) coined the phrase:

“Progress, not perfection”

It relates to the issue of people often striving for perfection, resulting in longer development times before launch of, for example, a project, a product, or even a spreadsheet. Messier argues that ‘good enough’ can be sufficient to get things moving.

This is a concept I very much believe in as well, based on personal professional experience. I have seen people spending so much time on development and testing that by the time they were ready to launch their new tool or product, the need for it had disappeared or an alternative had been launched.

One colleague, however, once launched a new spreadsheet before it was fully ready. Some people were worried about it, but his view was that the tool was good enough to start using. And, more importantly, that it was about time to start a new way of working, which would be triggered by the launch of that tool. He turned out to be right: people started using the new tool, and making suggestions for its improvement. This meant that the ‘transformation’ started right there and then, instead of being delayed until the tool was perfected. Improvements were made along the way, while the tool was in use, in a way that is very consistent with an agile, developmental approach.

At the time, I remember, it was an eye-opener for me. Since then I have adopted this way of thinking as well. For example, when I joined SAS EMEA, there was a clear need for better communication and information-sharing between countries. There was no format available for it, so I took the initiative to start something as simple as a newsletter. It was a very basic version; my objective was ‘to just start communicating’ no matter what the template looked like. As expected, I received comments about the design and lay-out, which I then used to improve it over time, but the main point was that we had actually started sharing.

Even in a completely different context, like the world of arts, a similar way of thinking can be valuable as well. In her book “Everybody writes” author Ann Handley says: “You can always polish. You can always correct. You can always think of ways you could make it better.” She recommends giving yourself a hard deadline though: “Do the best work you can by the deadline you’ve set, and then consider your writing project finished.” At some point you must decide that something is ‘good enough’ and progress.

Summarizing all of this I would argue that:

The most proactive (i.e. progressing) person or organization has the best chance of being successful.

In business, the first company to launch a product has the best chance of capturing the market. In an organization, proactive people will be most valued. In the job market, the most proactive candidate will probably have the best chance of landing the job.

Be first, be relevant, fill a need!

I mentioned the concept of MVP in the introduction; in start-ups a Minimum Viable Product allows you to be quicker to market and in that way enjoy first mover advantage, even if the product is not perfect (yet). Using Handley’s words: If you spend too much time polishing, correcting or thinking of ways to make it better, someone else might beat you to launch!

The only distinction I would make here is between hardware and software, or products where security or safety plays a role. In such cases, there is very little room for error. With software, you might be able to do automatic updates, but this is not possible with hardware. I have personally been involved in a failed product launch due to a lack of product readiness, and it is not an experience I wish to repeat. The lesson I took from that was:

You only get the chance to launch once, so better make sure it’s right!

Clearly this must be balanced against the certainty that if you wait too long, you might have no chance at all. Make sure the minimum conditions are met and your product, service or tool is truly ‘good enough’. It can be a delicate balance to manage but in general I stand by my headline:

Snoozing is losing!

What’s your experience with this and do you agree with my arguments? I am looking forward to reading your thoughts here and I’ll do my best to respond.