Many (most?) of us are always trying to find and do the absolute best for us and our needs. As with many sports the difference between the ‘winner’ and the next few places is often tenths or even hundredths of a second, eg ‘noise’. Is ‘noise’ that important in every walk of life?
The differences in prize money for those precious ticks of a sports clock are huge but in the context of greatness celebrating a winner and essentially putting the rest fade into history? ie is a [product] good enough just because it is not the best? is a government policy [better than] even if not perfect or what the public aspires to, politics being the art of the possible?
While not addressing every issue in every walk of life this opinion piece could be helpful to some and cause reflection.
Australian culture of ‘Close enough is good enough’ might be the basis for our national character that focuses more on ‘she’ll be right’ rather than raging about everything that could be better? It might not always be right as is, but.
The final paragraph in that article seems like good advice:
The antidote to perfectionism would be to treat the new year not as a demand for transformation but as an invitation to experiment, set modest and attainable goals, be compassionate and encouraging when you hit a road bump, pivot when needed, and accept that our flaws deepen our humanity.
I read a while back, and I can’t find the reference now, of someone in the 19th century commissioned ‘the best’ instrument. When the bill arrived, the cost was astronomical and was disputed. But the manufacturer successfully argued that the best was asked for, and the best was delivered regardless of cost. Is it ISO90001 that says set an achievable standard, test that you product/service meets the standard? Part of that is not to exceed the standard as that is effort for no return. Set realistic goals, one has some chance of meeting them. Unrealistic goals are soon dropped and nothing improves. And if one sets too high a bar then trying to achieve it just leads to stress. There was an article on knowing when to quit in New Scientist 15 November 2025.
ISO9001 is about QA and improvement, not about stopping short. I was an ISO9001 management rep for a few years in a small tech company. ISO90001? Does it exist as more than a typo? Fake news? Simplified 9001 is 360 degree feedback for improvement, not setting a standard per se.
I should have stopped at the first glass. And I wasn’t in a position to research so I should have kept quiet. The question resonated with me as an ex IT person. When writing programs, good enough is acceptable. It isn’t the most efficient, might be able to shave a bit of memory off, could be structured better, documentation is adequate but could be improved. It just isn’t economic to perfect it.
ISO9001 does not go after perfect, just constant improvement as problems are recognised.
A comical reality pointed out to me decades ago was that a company develops a process and procedure. ISO9001 first tests that they follow it. If the process and procedure states the coder will pick up a piece of chalk, sharpen it in a blender, turn around 3 times and then sing an Abba song before each line of code - they need to be checking it is done or refine that process and procedure.
Assume they are checking and it is done every time, but the code crashes. The process and procedure in ISO9001 requires some reporting and thus analysis, so the process and procedure might get modified to include testing and maybe only humming not singing to help the staff focus (/satire), and around and around 360 degree feedback goes.
I am often confounded and somewhat appalled at how few businesses seem to have a clue about considering what they do and how they do it, they just forge ahead for better or worse. That is where ISO9001 comes in.
I resonate with PhilT on this one. For example I’m thinking of home renovations: do we really need ceiling high tiles in the bathroom? In the kitchen, do we need self-closing drawers? Or an island bench? Or zillions of drawers? Do we need to hide any unused appliances behind shutters? Not that I have any of these, but while house-hunting 3 years ago I’ve come across many of those luxury renovations that only serve one purpose: to bump up the price!
A bigger problem with apps and software / services in general is what some clever people have phrased ‘enshittification’ (hope I spelt it right). It’s about market dominant players releasing products to the public that would have been classed as Alpha stage prototypes before. Being dominant, they don’t care how much inconvenience and, sometimes, rage, they create within users. Users, who can’t work out whether they are too stupid for the latest technology or the technology is faulty. There never is adequate user support - mostly it is a forum where smart users share their workaround (if you are lucky!), or a chat bot or AI agent. The number of products I had to return in the last 12 months has never been higher. Thankfully, we still have some retailers who accept returns without giving you the run through hoops, but they are getting fewer. Ebay now always askes for a photo before processing a return even if a photo is of no value.
Our ACL is a great thing but becoming more and more toothless due to the ever increasing onslaught (and brazeness) of shysters.
Summing up, yes, we have become used to expecting too much perfection. On the other hand, the outright deception by sellers is increasing at an alarming rate. Even resorting to buying in physical shops as we used to is not that attarctive anymore as they are now asking for exorbitant prices… I haven’t worked out yet whether this is a rip-off on the unsuspecting or merely an exercise in survival. I’d appreciate your ideas on this!
It is not quite about rubbish being released but something good released to attract users/customers and then degraded over time to maximise profits until it becomes, well…
The application of enshittification beyond the internet is appropriate as many products and services seem affected by the management ‘style’.
This style has been around for a long time, especially for expensive products that a buyer can’t easily switch away from once they’ve adopted them. The process is that the vendor hooks a buyer on the product and gets them thoroughly invested in / dependent on it, then they can increase the ongoing costs and degrade the quality and support and maintenance service as much as they like, reducing their own costs and increasing their profit.
The more a buyer has had to spend so far, the less willing or able they’ll be to cut costs and go elsewhere.
The final paragraph in that article seems like good advice: