Think about a house. That one, the first one that came to mind. Now think about a friend, any friend. Now think about asking your friend to think about a house. What are the odds of their mental picture of a house being exactly the same as yours? Same façade, same number of rooms, same distribution of space, same colour palette, same furniture… you get the point. It is extremely unlikely. This is because our mental picture of the things we think about and how we imagine the world to be is highly dependent upon our lived experiences, hopes and expectations.
But what does this have to do with quality and risk? Before launching into the discussion of risk minimization, it is worth defining what I mean by quality in this particular context. Because you may be thinking about the sturdiness of an object, or good finishes and visual appeal, or value for money… or you may be thinking about it in the context of quality time, a quality relationship, the quality of an advice.
If you are curious, you might have also done a quick Google search and found quality to be defined as “the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind”. But what other things are we referring to? So, in this context I will be referring to quality as something being fit for its intended purpose.
The relationship between quality and fit for purpose
As the generic definition might have given away, quality is about measuring certain parameters and comparing to either some other parameters, agreed benchmarks, or aspirational targets. The problem, like with the house experiment, is that these will vary depending on who is assessing them. I am not referring to any specific measurement being different because of the person measuring – the measurement might be exactly the same – but the interpretation of what the measurement means and the value it provides in that particular context is what will likely be different. But what makes it different?
This is where the end user comes into the picture. They are the ultimate judges of quality. And when we refer to things in terms of their ability to serve people, they are no longer right or wrong, but better or worse. Better or worse depending on who is assessing them and for what purpose. Which comes back to my earlier definition of quality as something being fit for its intended purpose, which is informed by the user and the jobs they need to get done.
That slick software interface you think is of great quality might not be that good quality for someone with a vision impairment that might need more contrast. That fantastic tech gadget you think is a marvel of engineering might not properly address the current needs of the intended audience and not generate enough sales. That new service offering that you think is worth the investment in systems, capabilities, and time might not be solving the right problem for your clients and the uptake might not even cover the costs.
And this is why new or improved products or services you may think are of great importance to spend time, budget, or resources on, might not hit the mark with your clients and customers. Yet you may see disruptors and new entrants with ‘lower-quality’ offerings (as defined by you) take some of your market share and profits. This is because when they are “measured against other things of a similar kind” in the eyes of the end user, they come out on top. The result: your change efforts were wasted, your capital allocation was ineffective, and the product or service missed the mark with the intended users.
Risk minimization as a quality outcome
What does the previous exploration on quality have to do with risk minimization? The ISO Guide 73:2009 defines risk as the “effect of uncertainty on objectives”. As we saw in the house experiment, there can be a lot of uncertainty in the human perception of quality and fitness for purpose. This uncertainty is a risk to your projects, your product and services, and ultimately, to your bottom line.
One of these specific risks comes in the form of developing a solution that is technically correct but does not fully or correctly address the underlying need that originated its creation in the first place. This may sound like an impossibility, but it happens when the brief or idea is not clear on the intended outcomes or, on the other side of the spectrum, is overly prescriptive because the client (or leader) believes that is what is needed and narrows down all other possibilities.
By focusing solely on designing a compliant solution you may not quite hit the mark on its intended purpose, potentially resulting in perceptions of low quality (from the intended users) that in turn create re-work, reputational damage, waste of time, loss of talent, litigation, cost, or any combination of these.
It’s all about user needs
So, how do you deliver outcomes that are truly beneficial for the communities, customers, or clients you serve? My suggestion is to start by addressing the underlying needs that those projects, products, or services are aiming to solve and truly testing if the solutions that you are being asked (or have decided) to provide will result in the outcomes they are meant to achieve. Focus on the outcome for the user, not the solution itself.
User-centric innovation techniques, in my experience, are not about creativity from the traditional conception of artistic creation. They are about implementing a rigorous framework of systematic exploration that yields a creative outcome as a result of engaging in structured conversations with individuals and groups that can provide diversity of thought to the tasks and approaches we are exploring to solve a particular problem or need.
A better understanding of the end users and their underlying needs will result in solutions that better address those needs, creating a perception of high quality for their intended purpose and minimising potential negative risks in the process.
What is one action you can implement this week as a result of reading this article? Give it a go and let me know how you go!
