Views from the Hills by R. E. Stevens, GENESIS II (The Second Beginning) E-Mail views@aol.com

It May Look Entirely Different From Another Perspective

I don't think there are many people that do detrimental things intentionally.  However, many times we do things for very good reasons but the result turns out to be less than desirable.  In most cases, this reversal comes from tunnel vision.  We just do not take the time to "Walk around the problem and view it from all perspectives."  For example, consider the following:

In Procter & Gamble, they had a ruling for years in the Market Research Department that was instituted for the purpose of restricting input from those respondents that did not give the test product a fair trial in the test.  To achieve this objective they instituted what they called an "invalid interview" designation.  This meant that when they were asked if they used the test product and how long they used it, if they said less than half the test duration, they were classified as an invalid interview.  Since we usually tested laundry detergents for four weeks, those who said they stopped after two weeks or less, were classified as invalid interviews.  This was not a real problem at this stage.  Unfortunately, they never asked the respondent "Why?" they stopped using the test product before the test was over.  From a system objective, only having those who tested the product for the total test duration was considered ideal.  However, from a researcher's point of view, without knowing why they stopped was disastrous.  Old standard procedures are hard to change.  Even after showing the types of information available by interviewing these early terminators, it still took over one and a half years to get the procedure changed.

In two other companies, I found a standard procedure that was hard to believe.  The procedure dealt with the evaluation of PARITY products.  We all have experienced these cost savings initiatives.  Those where we are reducing the production costs of a brand with the intention that the cost reduction will not negatively affect the consumer's perception of the brand.  All too often we have seen over the years a continual sequential step reduction in the quality of a brand where after a series of reductions, the change in quality is apparent.  In order to compensate for this slow degrading of the brand, these two companies instituted a policy that basically said a cost reduction initiative must maintain a 53/47-test superiority over the current product to be acceptable for a replacement.  I can understand the concern, but cannot understand the cure.  If there was a concern about a slow degrading, why not have a standard benchmark?  Instead, the probability of a 53/47 being a significant winner over the current product is greater than it is of being a PARITY product.  I wonder how many really good cost savings projects were discarded because they could not climb that mountain usually reserved for a PRODUCT UPGRADE?

We frequently standardize the use of questions, phrases and even words.  I have a number of examples of misuse of standards in this area, but because of space i will address them at a later date.

When instituting a procedure, it pays to walk around the mountain and view it from different perspectives before standardizing the procedure.  A view from a different perspective just may save you from the "shot in the foot" or even the "shot in the head."

It all depends on your perspective -- from a different viewpoint.

In a recent Views titled, "Is it really what you meant to say?" I covered how words mean different things to different people.  I think that thought also applies to this particular Views. With that in mind consider the following headlines from real newspapers:
 


More of these in the future, it is a promise.


[Back][Index][Forward]