There are many areas in which companies can shine. Three, however, Quality, Service, and Price, have stood the test of time as being the fundamentals.
Conventional wisdom holds that a given company can only survive and thrive when offering no more than two of the three. It’s the “pick any two” mentality. Often, a company will stand on just one. True, some companies try to break the mold and shine in all three arenas. They may even appear successful for a time. But in the end, at least one will fold. In my experience, no company can consistently offer all three—the finest quality and the best service at the lowest cost.
And that’s understandable. Trying to maintain excellence or market leadership in all three areas is a tremendous drain on corporate resources. Further, there are natural “rivalries” that take place between the three titans of market success. Price and quality, for example, are often enemies. (Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, “mind your ps and qs” doesn’t it?)
You might challenge yourself in attempting to discover the model used by various businesses.
Spotting the ones who operate on a single value is easiest. It’s not hard, for example, to spot the “low price leader.” By the same token, some companies are clearly driven by a singular mission of quality or stellar service.
Spotting those walking on two legs is a bit more challenging. Often, I find that the company itself is not aware that it has settled into a two-pronged approach to its market. And then there’s the added complexity of companies who have identified their approach and are heading that way but not quite there yet.
How about your company? What’s your approach to business success?
Us? That’s easy:
Quality has been a foundational principle at Continental. We are passionate about it. That’s not to say we’re perfect. But continual improvement is alive and well here.
We have focused a good deal of attention on improving our service. We have the delivery component down pat. And we’ve put the professionals and practices in place to be attentive to other customer needs.
Last but not least, we have proactively lowered our costs and increased our efficiencies in order to bring price-competitive products to the market. We know that this competitiveness is essential for your business success.
Yet, we will never be the low-price leader. Doing so would place us on an irreversible path to unacceptable quality and service. That is not our model. Instead, we prefer to discuss “value.”
In most industries and particular markets therein, there is always this price-value tug of war going on. We prefer to lend our hands to the value side. While the “how much does it cost” question is always valid, others become important when considering value. For instance: “How many returns and complaints am I going to get from that clearly inferior product?” Or, “How much more can I make as a result of higher turns due to more reliable delivery?”
But lest you think that I’m trying to pull a fast one on you, let’s conclude by reverting to our original three: Quality, Service, and Price. The only question remaining is this one: In the long run, which two are most important to you?
I use a similar model in evaluating my own work projects. On one memorable occasion several years ago, I was in a meeting with my boss and several other, more senior, professionals and managers discussing upcoming projects and priorities. An air of unrealistic expectations seemed to be settling in the room. Then, something I had read prompted me to stand, walk to the white board, and write: “FAST • CHEAP • GOOD.”
Then I turned to the meeting attendees and said: “Pick any two. If you want it fast and cheap, I can do it. But it won’t be good. Oh, you want it good? And you want it fast? I can do that. But it’ll cost you. You say you need to hold down costs and you need it to be good? I can do that too. But it’ll take some time.”
Now, I know what you’re thinking: Did I get a reference for my next job? :)
Actually, though, the gamble paid off. I was still employed and we left the meeting with more realistic expectations of deliverables.
|