Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Just

As communication architects, we employ fresh thinking to develop creative solutions that provide our clients bottom-line results. These solutions occasionally encounter challenges of "newness" - cognitive assimilation, user resistance, system integration, and the like - which we address and minimize through our processes of iterative development, prototyping, low-risk phase I engagements, and positive feedback loops. But creative solutions face a greater enemy than the oft-preventable challenges of newness. More commonly, the idea itself is diluted before its merit is fully explored, signaled by the appearance of a fluttering red flag - "JUST."

As we are all guilty of its use, "just" becomes a universal excuse to underachieve. It rolls brilliant ideas lazily toward mediocrity, justifying cut corners and project sacrifices. It acknowledges the existence and possibility of the remarkable - and then discards the remarkable in favor of something else.

"Just develop this idea for now - we'll replace the system in six months anyway."

"Just build us what we're asking for, we've already created the solution."

"Just give them that idea that we know they'll like."

Unfortunately, when "just" announces its presence - often in moments of premature desperation - the most common casualty is the power of the marketing idea itself. All too often, development teams abandon the essence of a remarkable concept (which is invariably the greater challenge) in order to satisfy client and contract. The resulting communication devolves into an unremarkable shell of its former self - incapable of capturing attention, inspiring action, or implanting a memory - and destined, at best, to lukewarm success.

Admittedly, business is unforgiving, and "just" has its place. Time and budget constraints affect project breadth and enforce realistic objectives (while remarkable, it remains impractical to logo-plaster the pyramids). In these instances, "just" is an unfortunate reminder of a deadline, expectations, and the pressures of development.

But we can train ourselves to hear the word "just" as a ringing bell. When it sounds, we should take pause and temporarily refocus on the following questions:

1) What does "just" seek to sacrifice?

2) Does the sacrifice adversely affect the primary objective of the project?

3) If so, how might compromise be achieved without the adverse effect?

From that discovery, we're able to articulate the potential losses from compromise and deploy countermeasures from an archive of production experience and documented processes. Or try something altogether new.

Comments: 0
 

<< Home

 

 

This document has been prepared by Integrity for the sole use as a news aggregator for public viewing. The contents of this document are internal and should not be communicated to any other party without prior written approval of both parties. Integrity warrants that to the best our knowledge, those who prepared this document have taken all reasonable care in preparing it, have made all reasonable inquiries to establish the veracity of the statements contained in it and believe its contents to be true. We cannot, however, warrant the truth of matters outside of our control and accordingly do not warrant the truth of all statements set out in this document to the extent that such statements derive from facts and matters supplied by other persons. As information is produced and this system is populated, more knowledge will be gained over specific issues relating to the envisaged system and the environment, such that additional requirements may come to light or existing requirements deferred. Such requirements may affect the scope, content and p rice of any consulting services proposed or discussed within this document. The statements in this document are qualified accordingly.