I agree saying ‘taking a short cut’ does sound as if…if somehow, we are cheating! Yet, think about the excessive amount of the time struggling to find who and where we failed in the so-called Lesson’s Learned discussions we have after we’ve lost an opportunity.
Instead of Finding Blame after we have lost an opportunity, maybe the better question should be, “could we have done it differently; was there a better way?” After all, the blame game creates a keeping your head down contentment by doing the same thing repeatedly; especially if it keeps us from being blamed for the loss.
So instead of repeating Einstein’s definition of Insanity, let’s stop and truly work to understand what we are attempting to accomplish and determine if there is a better way! Take a page from top quality designers and truly identify the Customer’s Problem to ensure we propose the most effective implementation and resolution to their issue.
Top Quality Designers incorporate a “Desired Paths” approach early in their design process to help identify the Most Effective Use of their projects (e.g., short-cuts uncovering the most effective user experience into their over approach to their design). The UC Irvine architects took the desired paths approach literally when they allowed the users to identify the most effective use of their design by waiting until after the students identified the Short Cuts (worn paths in the grass) before they poured the sidewalks.
Tom Hulme, Designer, said, “The only time you know if there any good, if the designs are good, is to see how they are used in the real world…”
Maybe if we proactively established a What-if approach to our proposal approach, especially during the early stages, our Lessons Learn discussions may become more creative and valuable.
Who knows; they may even be more about understanding why we won this opportunity!
Until next blog, find your short cut!
Al McCormick
