In Search of Failure.  That’s the title of chapter seven in Frederick Reichheld’s book “The Loyalty Effect” (©1996).  In that chapter Reichheld points out that an investor who built a stock portfolio out of the companies profiled in the book “In Search of Excellence” (Peters and Waterman ©1982) would have seen their returns trounced by the mediocre performance of the S&P index during the ten year period following the books 1982 publication.  In fact, by time Reichheld’s book came out in 1996 only one-fifth of the original companies profiled as “excellent” had remained excellent.

If success breeds success, how in the “quest for benchmarking best practices” did those companies lose their lofty status?  In Reichheld’s opinion what really helps us to achieve excellence is actually the study of failure.  It’s not exactly in our nature to seek out failure though; in fact, your career is probably linked to success, which means that getting too close to failure may feel threatening.  However, most people will admit that mistakes are often better teachers than success.  In fact, QA experts will attest that when one component fails, it can cast a spotlight on the workings of an entire program.

The analysis of failure is not that easy; but when the analysis leads to sustained quality the pay-off is big.  In the Profit Impact of Marketing Strategy (PIMS) project the researchers (Buzzell and Gale, 1987) reported that the profitability of a business is affected by 37 basic factors. Based on analysis of information available in the PIMS database, Buzzell and Gale hypothesized that in the long run, the most important single factor affecting a business unit’s performance is the quality of its products and services relative to those of competitors.

The trick is to set up a process and system to track, test, analyze, and address potential issues, defects or problems before they negatively impact profitability.  In many ways quality and value are interlocked.  Customer value proposition models are based on the idea that customers with different needs require different experiences and different value propositions if the relationship between the customer and company is to be mutually beneficial.  And no value proposition will succeed in delivering profit to a company unless the customer perceives the product (or service) as meeting their needs best.

Share on Technorati . del.icio.us . Digg . Reddit . Slashdot . Facebook . StumbleUpon

1 Comment

Tags: , , , , ,

1 Comment to Quality and Business Performance are Linked

Markus Kemper
March 16, 2008

Much like your QA experts, in production sustaining engineering,
I have also found when you fix something (e.g. a queue processing
capacity problem) you will often uncover a new problem in the same
application or a dependent service.

For example: An applications subscriber base has tripled since it
was deployed causing increased message volume resulting in a queue
backlog and increased delivery latency. Multi-threading the queue’s
consumer easily removes the blockage and restores bandwidth but, as
a result the increased processing capacity has now overwhelmed the
downstream recipient consumer service.

Truly simulating production load can sometimes be a challenge for
QA organizations. However, application instrumentation, monitoring
and tunable settings (our ‘trick’) has helped us ensure that we can
detect and address live production issues before they cannonball
profitability with embarrassing SLA violations and costly charges.

In our case value (message latency) was definitely linked to service
quality (application stability). It has been vital to be able track,
analyze and thwart potential issues by having many dynamic service
configuration options (e.g. a max thread count setting) to ensure that
our customer’s varying needs are always met. When we have satisfied
larger population of our customer’s needs the overall perception of
service’s value and its profitability has also increased.

Leave a comment

WP_Big_City

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree