Evan Coopersmith

In the world of technology, the well-worn adage suggests that those purchasing software development services are required to choose two adjectives from the “good”, “fast”, “cheap” list. While there is no shortage of internet verbiage opining on which pair should be selected, and the necessities of receiving all three, this particular tradeoff paradigm is well-understood and generally accepted.

Of course, this idea extends beyond the world of technology.

Most of us neither provide nor purchase software development services, but all of us are required to procure food from grocery stores. In this case a different triad of options emerges. The three features, from which we are required to select two, are “availability”, “quality”, and “price.”&nbsp;

Consider the large grocer in your area, with its endless aisles, ubiquitous processed snack food, fluorescent lighting, and the “soul-killing Muzak”1 designed to be maximally inoffensive. Which two features did it select?

The description from David Foster Wallace’s description of the modern grocery store in “This Is Water” reads, “the store is hideously, fluorescently lit, and infused with soul-killing Muzak or corporate pop…”

In all likelihood, that large grocer is part of a national chain that (implicitly) promises to deliver on availability and price. If you want a peach, it’ll be sitting there for the taking, at a reasonable price, recent inflation notwithstanding. If you need BBQ sauce, fish sauce, or some random spice for that Mexican jalapeno bean chili dip2 you’re bringing to your in-laws on the fourth-of-July, they have it. Will it be of particularly high quality? Who knows? Will they have that higher-end, gourmet brand that your persnickety family member swears is superior? Who knows? But you won’t be in need of another store or another mortgage when you reach the cashier.

Reference courtesy of George Carlin’s “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287460/characters/nm0137506" style="">Complaints and Grievances</a>”

Now, if you happen to live in a high-rent district, consider the Whole Foods as a comparison. Their promise eschews price in favor of quality. (Availability is still preserved). Whatever article of produce, whatever obscure spice, whatever condiment you prefer, they’ll have it in stock. It might cost more than your last car repair, but hey, sometimes out-of-season quality comes at a price.

Finally, there is one remaining pairing, that of quality and price (flexing on availability). This is a particular store that promises that whatever you find within its walls will be of sufficient quality and priced appropriately, but you just might find yourself asking someone “wait, you don’t have any marshmallows?”3 In other words, Trader Joe’s. If it weren’t so damned fun to wander around in search of your next guilt-inducing, addictive snack, they’d be bankrupt. Of course, they also generate more <a href="https://leaders.com/news/growth/trader-joes-secret-to-success/#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20grocery%20chain%20Trader,just%2019%C2%A2%20per%20banana.">revenue per square foot</a> than basically any relevant competitor.&nbsp;

This is ultimately a question of expectations and the delivery upon them. Walk into the Walmart expecting top-of-the-line groceries and you’ll depart unsatisfied. Walk into Whole Foods looking for a bargain or Trader Joe’s expecting to cross every item off your list and you’ll be similarly disappointed.&nbsp;

But if you enter with appropriate expectations, you’ll be well-serviced and well-fed.

One can wax poetic about the virtues of preparation. But, as the efforts to develop and execute are underway, so too must be the efforts to set expectations.

Projects are perceived as successes or failures not in objective terms, but rather, when juxtaposed against the expectations with which they began. All too often, efforts are seen as disappointments as a function of inappropriate expectations rather than subpar deliverables.

Adages about failure to prepare and preparing to fail might as well be rewritten to address the danger of unrealistic expectations. Unattainable outcomes lead to rancor among collaborators and criticism from onlookers, funders, and supervisors. Insufficiently ambitious objectives yield results that meet specifications but fail to inspire future efforts that build upon the last.

Therefore, perhaps the trio from which a duo must be chosen is neither good, fast, cheap nor availability, affordability, price, but rather, ambitious, attainable, and swift.&nbsp;&nbsp;

For a short-term goal to be attainable, it must avoid overexuberance. And similarly, ambitious goals require patience to be attainable.&nbsp;

So let’s aim for ambition and attainability, then have the clarity, perspective, and ability to delay gratification to reach those expectations.

Comments (2)