There's a new fad in the world of Software Development and every company that's worth its salt seems to be jumping on the band wagon. The exact phrasing differs slightly from place to place, but it usually goes something like this:
Done is better than Perfect
The idea is quite simple and I fully understand the sentiment behind it, but I completely disagree with the message that it sends out.
Are "Done" and "Perfect" mutually exclusive; the inference is that we can only have one, and not the other? That the pursuit of perfection is so challenging that we just shouldn't waste time trying to achieve it? You can analyse it extensively.
Some will argue that I'm missing the point that they are trying to make about the need to release, and maybe I am, but I feel that when you communicate with a message as strong as this that on at least some level all people will over-analyse it, and reach potentially alarming conclusions.
The IT industry does not have a problem with people sitting on software, fettling with every last detail in a never-ending pursuit for perfection. You don't have to look hard to find significant flaws in any website or application, regardless of platform or company size.
I think that the majority of users would rather our posters read things like: "Fix one more defect, it will make my experience so much better".
I think that the problem that the industry has mis-identified is actually one of an abundance of indecision, rather than an unnecessary pursuit of perfection.
Companies like Facebook are strong proponents of 'Done is better than perfect' - there are posters are all over their office walls saying just that. While there is no denying Facebook's success as a company, correlation does not equal causation and I ask you whether another company in another industry could get away with the decisions and mistakes that Facebook make?
You can afford to get a lot of things wrong when you've got a monopoly, or at least a significant market share, but that's something that most companies don't have the luxury of; there's almost always a viable competitor waiting to capitalise on every imperfection in their product and process.
So what would my posters say?
Strive for perfection without becoming overly obsessed by it
It sends out a more positive message and comes closer to addressing the root cause, while simultaneously promoting its own cause - it arguably isn't a perfect slogan but it serves the intended purpose, and any more time spent on it would arguably be wasted.
But while it is closer, it still doesn't really address the root cause. Nobody wants to be the person who brings down the site, costing the company money; a degree of cautiousness, indecision and fear is somewhat expected. With great power comes great responsibility.
If a company is keen to achieve frequent releases with a degree of controlled risk it shouldn't be achieved by saying 'imperfect releases are good', but rather by having a culture where 'mistakes are ok, as long as we learn from them'. It's not a problem that can be solved by posters, but rather should be an engrained culture that is fully supported and embraced from the bottom to the top of the organisation.
Sometimes the biggest critics aren't management, but rather a team's peers who openly criticise release decisions. Granted this is sometimes warranted, but their energy would be better spent creating a more supportive and collaborative environment where mistakes don't happen in the first place. As William Rogers did after the Challenger Disaster.
One of the biggest threats that comes from accepting imperfect software is that the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable becomes increasingly blurred. If we imagine an arbitrary quality (or user-satisfaction) scale of 0-100%, when you start accepting quality of 95% then you'll soon start accepting 93%, then 92%, etc., until ultimately your users choose a competitor. When you strive for perfection, it's still unlikely that you'll actually achieve it (in everybody's eyes at least) but you have at least a chance of getting close.
Imperfections are like broken windows - when you start accepting them they quickly appear everywhere
A/B testing, canary deployments (deploying to a subset of traffic as a [final] verification that the release is ok) and many other tools available to us today make achieving perfection easier than ever to achieve, and yet the industry seems content on using these tools as justification for releasing things that just aren't right. There's only so many times that you can frustrate and disappoint 0.1% of your active users before you've done irreparable damage. Imagine if a restaurant poisoned 0.1% of their customers - how long would they be in business?
If my case wasn't strong enough on its own, Facebook is down as I write this... http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/03/why-is-facebook-down/?ncid=rss