{"id":2748,"date":"2011-01-18T06:22:19","date_gmt":"2011-01-17T20:22:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/?p=2748"},"modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:16","modified_gmt":"2018-12-11T08:25:16","slug":"good-enough-or-perfect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/2011\/01\/18\/good-enough-or-perfect\/","title":{"rendered":"Good enough, or perfect?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>There was an interesting discussion being held on Twitter a day or so ago \u2013 the question of designing systems that are &#8220;good enough&#8221;, or systems that are &#8220;perfect&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>I used to believe in the pursuit of perfection in systems, until I realised it was trying to mould engineering concepts to reality, and is therefore an often misguided approach. I also think trying to mould cruel business concepts to reality (i.e., &#8220;make it as cheap as possible and hope for the best&#8221;) is as equally a misguided approach as a <em>meaningless<\/em> quest for perfection.<\/p>\n<p>Now, undoubtedly that&#8217;ll upset a few people, so I want to lay some ground-work here. When referring to a built system architecture, or even a proposed system architecture:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>&#8220;Good enough&#8221; <em>should<\/em> mean &#8220;within design specifications&#8221;;<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;Good enough&#8221; <em>should<\/em> mean &#8220;within acceptable failure tolerances&#8221;.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The term &#8220;good enough&#8221; suffers from, well, a distinct lack of bad press, and rightly so. If anything, what I&#8217;m suggesting is that we need to reform the <em>usage<\/em> of the term. This was perhaps best summarised in a discussion I briefly jumped into on Twitter. <a title=\"Phil Jaenke\" href=\"http:\/\/twitter.com\/#!\/rootwyrm\" target=\"_blank\">Phil Jaenke (aka @rootwyrm)<\/a> <a title=\"Good enough is rarely good enough\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/rootwyrm\/status\/26747964516995072\" target=\"_blank\">said<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8220;Good enough&#8221; is rarely &#8220;good enough.&#8221; Instead, it&#8217;s &#8220;meh, I don&#8217;t feel like trying harder.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>That&#8217;s actually the core of the problem for me: &#8220;good enough&#8221; is being abused. Phil&#8217;s attitude comes, rightly so, from seeing undoubtedly a long set of examples of something termed as being &#8220;good enough&#8221; that <em>actually wasn&#8217;t<\/em>. It&#8217;s also somewhat reminiscent of that leaked Sun marketing video from a few years criticising a competitor&#8217;s systems, with a customer of the competitor repeatedly saying &#8220;But good enough is still &#8216;good&#8217;, right?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>I think we need to classify &#8220;good enough&#8221; solutions that currently exist into three separate categories:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Those that are genuinely &#8220;good enough&#8221;.<\/li>\n<li>Those that are cobbled together\/work so long as nothing goes wrong because the person implementing couldn&#8217;t do a better job (either out of apathy or time constraints &#8211; the reason is irrelevant).<\/li>\n<li>Those that are not properly specified in the first place.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>There&#8217;s a lot of systems out there that are genuinely good enough. They should not be disparaged or lumped in with the other two categories described above.<\/p>\n<p>In my experience, the above 3 categories share about a 1\/3 split each of the entire pie. So that means there&#8217;s a lot of <em>inadequate systems<\/em> that are classified erroneously as &#8220;good enough&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>So, of the above list of three categories, only one is &#8220;good enough&#8221;. The second category should be rightly described as &#8220;not conforming to specifications&#8221;, or &#8220;incomplete&#8221;, if you want to make it short. The third category is &#8220;inadequately scoped&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>In reality, no-one should ever attempt to describe something that is incomplete\/fails to conform to specifications, or something that was inadequately scoped as being &#8220;good enough&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p><em>Good enough should not be a dirty expression.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Now, returning to something I said earlier, about a &#8220;meaningless quest for perfection&#8221;, I want to qualify that: I don&#8217;t mean that a pursuit of perfection is meaningless. However, &#8220;perfect&#8221; is a nebulous term that can, if misapplied result in significant over-engineering, significantly beyond the desired or required scope. Is this bad? Well, yes, it actually is if it hampers the completion of a project, or causes a significant blow-out in costs.<\/p>\n<p>Misapplied, a quest for perfection can result in a <em>worse<\/em> system or environment than &#8220;good enough&#8221; would have delivered. Take Toyota as an example. Toyota have a general rule that if you can see a way to improve efficiency by just a few percent, you should get it implemented. Other car companies won&#8217;t shift on anything unless they can see it resulting in a 15 or 20% improvement in the bottom line. Cumulatively though, Toyota builds a more improved environment by allowing &#8220;good enough&#8221; changes to their system.<\/p>\n<p>Perfection is nice; perfection is sometimes even required, and to be admired when it can be achieved, but if &#8220;good enough&#8221; is all that is required, then &#8220;perfect&#8221; may actually be inappropriate.<\/p>\n<p>Next time you see the term &#8220;good enough&#8221; being bandied around, ask yourself this: is it really &#8220;good enough&#8221;, or is it incomplete, or inadequately scoped?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>There was an interesting discussion being held on Twitter a day or so ago \u2013 the question of designing systems&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[3,12,13],"tags":[407,458,731,869,918],"class_list":["post-2748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-architecture","category-general-technology","category-general-thoughts","tag-good-enough","tag-inadequate","tag-perfection","tag-scope","tag-specification"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pKpIN-Ik","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2748","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2748"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2748\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7531,"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2748\/revisions\/7531"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}