18 min
Over the past three decades, I’ve had the privilege of working with businesses as both an attorney and an entrepreneur. Inevitably, the primary objective of these companies is to produce a superior product, surpass the competition in terms of speed, and achieve lower costs. Historically, however, the production industries in particular have widely believed that it is not feasible to simultaneously achieve more than two of these three essential goals, collectively known as the business trifecta.
The concept of achieving a better, faster, and cheaper balance was first introduced by the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in the early 1990s. During this period, NASA was revamping one of its space programs with the goals of shortening development times, reducing costs, and maximizing the return on their scientific investments.
NASA concluded that when it comes to the concepts of Better, Faster, and Cheaper, it is possible to select two of these goals, but it is not possible to achieve all three simultaneously. In other words, if you prioritize speed and cost-effectiveness, there is a risk that the product may not be superior. Conversely, if you focus on improving quality and speed, it becomes challenging to achieve cost-effectiveness.
NASA’s conclusion that only meeting two out of three goals is achievable has recently become widely accepted in the technology industry. However, we at clubcloud disagree and believe we have successfully achieved this trifecta.
One key factor in our success is our approach to staffing. We avoid falling into the Brook’s law trap, a software project management theory that suggests adding workforce to a late-stage software project actually prolongs its completion. While this law may seem counterintuitive, it makes sense when broken down. According to Brooks, adding new workers to a project requires ramp-up time for them to become productive and increases communication challenges.
It took us some time to arrive at our staffing approach. Initially, our development team held onto their work tightly. As their tasks progressed, it became increasingly counterproductive for us to bring on employees to assist them. However, once we started staffing projects before we began work, it was like a lightbulb went on. Our leaders were able to drive their vision of the outcome while their subordinates completed the tasks. By front-end staffing, everyone ramps up before we begin the task, and in most cases, they ramp up at the same pace.
Regarding Brook’s assertion that adding workers negatively affects communications, we respectfully disagree. With efficient work and attention to detail, we have avoided the combinatorial explosion problem to which Brooks alludes, and many companies have fallen victim. Regardless of the number of projects or tasks we have going on or how many people we have working on them, we have a single method and line of communication. That method may have multiple channels, but everyone knows where to find the information they need, and no one feels as though they are out of the loop. We are diligent in creating an organized channel for every new task or issue we face, but all those channels are in one simple and accessible line of communication.
We work swiftly, but we never rush. When businesses face pressure, they often compromise on time. This is primarily because they lack the resources or substantial budget to take their time. This concept was also something we had to learn after making mistakes. Initially, we correctly prioritized customer satisfaction but incorrectly rushed to fulfill their requests. We quickly discovered that rushing compromised the quality of our work. Now, we still put customer satisfaction first, but when a customer has a request, we establish clear, mutually agreed-upon timelines and strive to meet them. We constantly remind ourselves that “fast” is subjective. If we promise a specific date and deliver before it, that is fast.
I’ve noticed that the rush to production is often driven by financial constraints and considerations. Fortunately, we are bootstrapped by our members, who contribute financially, allowing us to control the pace of our development. Since we do not feel immediate pressure to recoup our financial investment, we are free to build a comprehensive, robust, and effective product.
We employ a Peer-to-Peer business model. Our company’s motto is that it’s more important to get it right than to be right. In line with this belief, we are painfully self-aware and recognize our strengths, building upon them. Conversely, we acknowledge our weaknesses and are not too proud to seek assistance from our peer partners. This approach is not novel in the modern technology landscape of API integration. However, where we differentiate ourselves is that we take the time to intuitively integrate our peers’ products into our platform, ensuring a seamless user experience for our end users. Additionally, our peer-to-peer business model enables us to incorporate well-built, established, and value-added features to our platform quickly and at a fraction of the cost if we had built them ourselves.
By putting aside our egos, staying organized, and setting reasonable and agreed-upon expectations, we have successfully and efficiently built a platform that we are proud of and that satisfies the needs of the fitness and racquet sports industry. We have accomplished this while we have also achieved the Better, Faster, Cheaper Business Trifecta that other companies maintain is impossible.
min
