Excellence fatigue: The normalization of defects
BUSINESS MATTERS BEYOND THE BOTTOM LINE - Francis J. Kong (The Philippine Star) - December 7, 2019 - 12:00am

When I read this article “Excellence fatigue: The normalization of defects” written by Steve Moore I immediately sent a request to Dr. Tim Elmore for permission to feature it in this column and he graciously granted me an approval. Steve Moore is the president of Dr. Elmore’s program “Growing Leaders.” Enjoy and learn.

If you’ve talked with programmers about the problems that come with the release of new software, you may be familiar with the running joke they use in response to early user complaints: “That’s a feature, not a bug.”

In sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek language, software engineers are simply relabeling something that isn’t working properly, a bug, as an intentionally designed feature of the program. Of course, pretending a problem doesn’t exist will only exacerbate negative customer feedback. You can call a bug a feature all you want, but there’s another saying that applies here: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well, it’s a duck.

Every industry learns to tolerate recurring problems rather than fix them. It is part of the cost/benefit analysis that is done up and down the organizational hierarchy all the time. This willingness to expect, tolerate, and assimilate recurring problems into the workflow and operations of an organization is technically referred to as the normalization of defects.

The highest-profile example of normalizing a defect comes from NASA. Foam insulation had broken off the launch vehicle on nearly every shuttle launch. These foam pieces became virtual projectiles that hit the underbelly of the shuttle. It happened so consistently that it was eventually viewed as a normal consequence of the launch process. The foam was not designed to break free and hit the shuttle underbelly. But it happened so consistently that it became a feature, not a bug. It was the normalization of a defect.

Abnormal expectations

Managers, scientists, and engineers at NASA stopped asking serious, rigorous questions about this defect. They fully expected it to occur and began to view it as an unintended, but normal part of the launch process. Eventually, the space shuttle Columbia, having been struck by a piece of foam the size of a briefcase, was damaged badly enough that the thermal protection system failed causing it to disintegrate upon reentry. The shuttle was destroyed, and an entire crew was lost, a tragedy that shook the agency out of its complacency.

We are tempted to tolerate and assimilate recurring problems into normal operations in the following circumstances:

1. We are still successful. Columbia had its first mission in April 1981 and flew 26 other successful missions before the disaster occurred. The temptation leaders face is to accept suboptimal conditions so long as the overall results are acceptable.

2. The impact is tolerable. Once a defect has been normalized, the urgency to address it goes away. When it became clear Columbia was again struck by foam, several people within NASA pushed to get pictures of the breached wing in orbit. The Department of Defense was reportedly prepared to use its orbital spy cameras to get a closer look. However, NASA officials in charge declined the offer.

3. The workaround is doable. After a successful mission, the shuttle underwent routine maintenance lasting for months to prepare for a future launch. Repairs associated with pieces of foam striking the underbelly of the shuttle were part of the workaround.

4. The cost/benefit is acceptable. Quality control experts often ask the question, “Why do we have time to do it again, but we didn’t have time to do it right the first time?” We convince ourselves the time repeatedly spent on a workaround is somehow better than investing a larger amount of energy to fix a problem now.

Thankfully the stakes associated with normalizing a defect are rarely as high as the Columbia tragedy. But every industry, every organization, every school, every team is vulnerable to excellence fatigue, where recurring problems that don’t appear to be debilitating are eventually normalized.

Shifting perspective

One of the danger signs associated with normalizing defects is comparing sub-optimal performance with disaster and rationalizing the status quo because it is so much better than the worst-case scenario. But that’s the wrong perspective. The better point of view is comparing the sub-optimal status quo with excellence and doubling down on a commitment to deliver the best possible experience for stakeholders.

So, here are some questions for you and your team to answer:

• What systems do you currently employ that seem a little clunky or less than optimal?

• Have you experienced near-misses or near emergencies that could have sabotaged your objectives?

• If you started over on your mission, would you attempt it the way you are currently?

What a great reminder. It’s easy to rationalize mistakes, but it may lead to disasters. Two words that can help prevent this from happening. FIX IT!1

(Reserve the dates: Jan. 29 and 30. Attend the highly acclaimed Level Up Leadership Seminar and Workshop 2020 edition. Learn inspiring leadership lessons and valuable life skills in this widely acclaimed program at the new wing of Seda Hotel, BGC. For further inquiries or advanced reservations contact April at +63928-559-1798 or register online at www.levelupleadership.ph)

1https://growingleaders.com/blog/excellence-fatigue-the-normalization-of-defects/?mc_cid=34d50616dc&mc_eid=7cb7716a53.

TIM ELMORE
Philstar
  • Latest
  • Trending
Latest
Are you sure you want to log out?
X
Login

Philstar.com is one of the most vibrant, opinionated, discerning communities of readers on cyberspace. With your meaningful insights, help shape the stories that can shape the country. Sign up now!

FORGOT PASSWORD?
SIGN IN
or sign in with