In order to determine deficiencies, one needs a reference point. With regard to quality, it is a classic when the employee says: “Everything was finished on time!” and the boss responds with “But I can see loads of mistakes!”, or maybe “Everything is tip top!” with a response of “Yes, but three days too late!”. What is a deficiency and what damage is caused by this, depends on the quality focus and is, therefore, a consequence of a decision.
This is often effectively forgotten in organisations. Deficiencies are principally viewed as objective facts. Thus, the evaluation methods act in secret. Evaluation conflicts, therefore, can no longer be favourably processed. It is consistently surprising how often, in consultancy, such conflicts play a significant role in the guiding distinction quick/thorough. This applies to daily communication as well as to strategic discussions about the positioning of products/services, or the brand. What is a deficiency for some, is a good characteristic for others and vice versa. As it is seldom possible to optimise both, speed and thoroughness, an organisation is well-advised to decide which deficiencies they would rather put up with.