First Time Right

A few years back, I was working with a client in the automotive industry. We were discussing about the quality of auto components from Low Cost Countries (sometimes euphemistically referred to as Leading Competitive Countries). That was the first time I heard the phrase “First Time Right” (FTR) with relation to quality. Simply put, this concept implies that the cost of the end-product can be substantially reduced in some cases if the amount of re-work is minimized. This in-turn implies significant upfront effort and planning (and sometimes investment) so that the end product is produced consistently without the need for re-work.

Yesterday, as I was re-arranging some folders in my computer, I noticed a presentation that had “Version 27” as the suffix. This was not a one off case. Almost all documents in my computer have multiple versions and I suspect that the average number of versions for important documents will be in the range of 6 to 10. And I know for certain that almost all my colleagues in the consulting industry suffer from the same affliction (or virtue, if you are the serious sort of fellow…)

This got me thinking – does the concept of First Time Right work in the consulting industry? Is it worth investing time and effort up-front to minimize the version number of the final deliverable? Or is it natural that a document improves through incremental feedback and updates till all involved (especially the client) is comfortable with it? I do not have a clear opinion on this – just a few observations.

In my experience, I have worked with two types of people. Type 1 – those who know exactly what they want from the start – and type 2 – those who are not very clear up front but know when they have hit the right version. Both these types differ in the way they handle the process of arriving at the right version. The final version for both types is usually of the same quality and often achieves the same end results. No prizes for guessing that the number of work-in-progress versions will be typically higher for type 2.

Of course, the experience of the people working with these two types may be quite different. Those working with type 2 have to handle significantly more ambiguity and re-work. It is not unusual for Type 2 leaders to give vague feedback such as “I am not getting a feel of this deck,” or “I don’t think the dots are connected” or “I don’t think that this deck demonstrates our level of understanding on this subject.” It is difficult to work around such non-specific feedback and often leads to frustrations (and maybe palpitations!)

But working with Type 2 also has significant advantages. While it may require some getting used to, Type 2 leaders allow significantly more creativity and freedom to innovate compared to Type 1. Type 2 leaders do not have a specific end in mind. They just know how the end is supposed to feel. As a result, they do not restrict their people within a rigidly defined framework. Instead, they expect team members to think independently and constantly innovate and improve till the “ideal” end is achieved. If handled properly, I believe that one’s learning curve is steeper with Type 2 bosses.

In contrast, Type 1 leaders know precisely what they want and issue unambiguous instructions. Working with them is typically easier, since there is limited ambiguity and the challenge is restricted to adhering to instructions. Of course, creativity is limited in such situations, as is the need to innovate, but the job gets done quickly and efficiently – a replica of the FTR concept in manufacturing.

There is clearly no better type. A soldier may prefer Type 1 leaders. A creative executive in the advertising industry may prefer Type 2. I have worked with both types and learnt from both – and been frustrated at times by both.

But the question remains – is the First Time Right concept applicable in the consulting industry?