The Customer Does Know Best

I'm staying with the "Cake Boss" theme, as there is one more point I'd like to make with the help of the Carlo's Bakery team, before I move on. First, if you haven't read my other post about the bakery, please read in now, so you know what I'm referring to here.

Cakes Parade

During the show you can see Buddy and other members of his family and team refer to the "Carlo's Standard". I think you can get a glimpse of that in this picture of their cake display (which I wish I took). As you can see the cakes are extremely tidy and similar.

In his spin-off show "Next Great Baker", a reality competition to gain an internship at the Carlo's bakery, Buddy had the contestants make the purple cake with the flowers. He had any cake that was not up to "Carlo's Standard" trashed. He trashed cakes because 2 neighbor flowers were the exact same colors (instead of different colors in each tier) or because the dots were not contrasting to the nearest flower. So, I'd say we were talking military precision.

Rehearsal for the Victory Day military parade in St. Petersburg 

In the military parade, by using uniforms and keeping all the details exactly the same, you make individuals look similar and create a single unit. There is, of course, nothing wrong with that. Well, at least if you are in the military and a parade is called for. I'm just not sure how useful a contribution this has for everyday life.

But, I promised we'll talk about customers, not about the merits of putting your cakes on military parade. So, let's get there.


Carlo's Bakery has set itself a standard. Standards are good, I'll be the first to admit that. But they are tools and just like any tool they are good if, and only if, they serve their purpose. If the standard becomes the goal in and of itself, it is no longer useful and it may even become a threat.

How do you decide where to set your standard so it is not so high that it's wasting your resources and not so low that quality becomes a problem? You turn to your customers. Now, in all honesty, customers do not always know best. Often the supplier is the authority on a subject matter, not the customer. But, and it is a great big But, there is just one part of life where the customer is always (and I do mean ALWAYS) right and does know best and no one but the customer is the authority on that subject. That is, of course, the customer itself. If a customer tells you there is no difference between product A and product B then, for all practical matters, A and B are the same. You, as an expert, may be sure these are different but they are not because, as far as the customer is concerned, they are equal in all important parameters. So you must only set your standards to appease your customers.

Consider the Carlo's Standard - would you notice if the color of the dot was similar to the color of the bottom layer of the nearest flower? and if you did notice, would you care? would that make the cake not as good as a cake with a good contrast, in your consumer eyes?

Many professionals start off by setting a high standard that is rewarded by the market. Then, to keep that lead, they keep pushing their standard up. This can work for a while but, eventually, the bar passes the indifference point, the point of satisfacficing and so additional improvement is not valued, or at least not values as much. This improvement still requires investment and so the market turns a cold shoulder to the offer, no longer willing to pay the ever increasing premiums as they no longer see additional value for themselves.

How does this all tie in with Theory of Constraints? easily, just 2 words - local optima. Optimizing, setting standards too high are just examples of local optima. Theory of Constraints holds local optima to be the original sin that leads to reduced performance in goal units.

How would you set your standards to avoid local optima?

The perfectionist's honey trap

Lately I've been watching old episodes of Cake Boss on YouTube. I'm enjoying it because I like cake decorations (I've already fessed up to that), and the show is funny and genuine. For those who have no clue what I'm talking about, Cake Boss is a TLC reality TV show following day-to-day life in Carlo's Bakery, a Hobolen NJ landmark establishment. Of course I also look at the situations from a Theory of Constraints point of view. Seems to me, although it could be just editing, that Dr. Lisa Lang, over at Science of Business, with their Velocity job shop scheduling system and maybe some Critical Chain Project Management skills could come in pretty handy for them. I'd also get his sisters, who run their store, to read "Isn't It Obvious" to get some new ideas about retail and expansion. But, that's not my subject for this post.

The reason I'm bringing this up is the fact that Buddy Valastro, the "Cake Boss" himself, is a self professed "perfectionist". After I brought up the subject of perfectionism Vs. satisficing is my last post, and following some reactions on LinkedIn groups, I started thinking if I can use Buddy as a test case (with all due respect, of course).

First off the bat, before I even dive in, I realize that one man's optimizing can be another's satisficing or it may not even make the bar. So, if you go back to my original Satisficing post, both of my cakes would have met with the inside of the Carlo's bakery trash can. My best is not good enough for them and that's fine. Optimizing and satisficing are subjective and maybe even personal. I write maybe because when your job's on the line the fact that you, subjectively, feel you've done good enough is just not that relevant.

Buddy's a pro, he's really good at what he does and he wants everything to be perfect. This leads, at least on the TV screen, to stress, outbursts, rework, hurt feelings and fear. It also creates a self enforcing loop (remember loops?) in which each time Buddy and his team step up to a challenge, delivering perfect cakes that are bigger, wilder and more impossible, someone (Buddy, his family or a client) comes up with an even harder challenge. Is this necessarily negative? I don't know. There are clearly positive implications, staying ahead of the competition and being interesting enough for your own reality TV show, to name a couple. Then there are clearly negative implications as these projects amplify and generate a lot of the stress, outbursts and stuff I already mentioned (and, yes, I know this can all be just editing).

I think this clearly showcases the honey trap of the perfectionist. Perfectionists always strive for more, for better. While they drive themselves and those around them nuts, they can also come through with amazing results. After all, being the best means doing something that has never been done before, otherwise it can't be The best with a capital T. Think about Nadia Comăneci's 1976 Olympic performance. She scored perfect 10s for her performance then, the first female to ever score a perfect 10 (the score watch did not have the 10.00 option as it was considered impossible). Had this exact performance been repeated now - would it be hard enough, impressive enough to justify the perfect score? Not at all, the bar has been raised. So, the more you strive to deliver, the higher the bar for best and perfect become, not just from you but from anybody delivering these types of outputs. So, to stay the best you have to do more and then even more. It's a never ending cycle, with all the positive and negative implications. Is it worth it? in the Olympics? Sure, in the business world? Maybe not.

I have an idea on how to break the loop with help from the customers themselves. It needs some thinking, but if you want me to work on it - press the Like +1 button and I'll know.