In my last post, I attempted to make a few calculations around the return on conversation. Rather embarrassingly, I suffered a temporary mindfreeze regarding the definition of a percentage, and so my calculations were out by a factor of 100.
This is my blog, and – unless I am directly linking to someone else – everything here is the work of me and me alone. This has its upsides and drawbacks.
One of the obvious drawbacks is my idiosyncratic quality control. Sometimes I may dwell over a post and its formulation for an age, other times I will quickly bash something out without due consideration to checking grammar, logic and facts.
For the most part, the reader may know no different. Some posts may be perceived to be a better quality than others, but unless there is a really obvious error – like yesterday – there is little indication as to how long the post took, or how much effort was put in. As Mark Twain once alluded to, it often takes longer to craft a succinct output.
In my day job, this doesn’t happen. There are project leads, but there aren’t projects with only one person working on it. It may take slightly longer to coordinate around different individuals, but ideas are bounced off of one another, different perspectives are compared, and details are checked. Nothing leaves the office until at least two people – one of whom is normally at a senior level – are happy with it. This is a crucial component of our approach – we require absolute conviction in what we are doing.
Quality control is absolutely vital. Without it, there is no trust.
So, mea culpa – the quality control on this blog has been found wanting. I’ve relearned an important lesson, and I hope this doesn’t affect your impressions of this blog too negatively.
Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hotcherry/
Filed under: housekeeping, service | Tagged: quality control | 1 Comment »
Curiously Persistent 