I think about this graph all the time.
I first encountered a version of this graph in the Ballast ARE Review Manual, where it accompanied a description of what the authors termed “Project Perfection Syndrome”:
In their efforts to complete a job, a project team spends time working toward some established or idealized level of quality. Early in the project, the time they spend results in rapid progress toward this goal. As the job continues to be worked on and refined, however, more and more time is needed to get closer to the “perfect” level of quality. Eventually, the point is reached where marginal progress toward “perfection” can be made only with a great deal of additional time (and therefore additional fees as well).
The desire to continue to pursue perfection is called project perfection syndrome. [A]n increase in project perfection from 80% to 90% requires half again as much time as was expended to reach the 80% level. […]
The most common situation in which project perfection syndrome can occur is when contractual and office quality standards have been met, but the designers or production staff want to continue refining and improving the design. Although this is a natural tendency, it can mean the difference between a profit and a loss on the job with no real improvement to show for the extra time expended. In order to curb this tendency, the project manager should make sure that everyone on the project team understands how much time is budgeted for each task and which tasks must be completed.
Every office has its unique project perfection curve. Its form depends on the skill and talent of the people involved and how efficiently design and production are managed. For some offices, the curve may not level out so quickly; for others it may not rise so steeply in the initial stages of work. The project manager must know the special characteristics of the office’s project perfection curve and be prepared to judge how far to go before stopping work. (emphasis mine)
What I like about this idea is that it takes us in a different direction from the typical conversation about driving for perfection—Perfect is the enemy of the good!—and asks us to consider the relationship between time expended on the task and its relative level of perfection a bit differently. Instead, we are forced to answer a question:
How much more time should I spend on this?
Not every project needs to be perfect. For many tasks, “good enough” is, well, good enough. My sales spreadsheet needs to meet “office quality standards” and that’s it—I’m not looking to change the world with my overly detailed Excel formatting. I’m looking to help my colleagues track their sales and stay accountable to their new business tasks. End. Fin. That’s it.
Some tasks, though, deserve that extra time. I will finesse certain proposals for hours even after reaching “good enough.” Why do I bother? One reason is that proposals and qualifications are competitive, and “good enough” may not be good enough to catch a client’s eye. For me, though, it’s past that “good enough” point, where the quality curve flattens out to stretch towards the elusive intersection of perfection and infinity, where the magic tends to happen, where I pull rabbits out of hats, identifying previously buried differentiators and creating eye-catching call-outs.
But this isn’t true for most tasks. Most tasks or projects don’t have a competitive edge to them; they serve a function or purpose and that is it. Do I need to workshop internal memos to the same degree that I do proposals. Hell no. Do I sometimes do that anyway. Um, yes.
So, I find myself frequently asking that critical question: How much more time should I spend on this? Sometimes, the answer surprises me.
Taylor Coe 