A conversation this week with a client gave me an insight as to why the notion of Good Enough may sometimes be seen as a negative aspiration: Good Enough gets conflated with Close Enough. Despite their similarity, they are miles apart in meaning. My client didn’t like the idea of aiming to be good enough because, in his mind, I was suggesting he aim to be close enough.

While both can be used to describe different levels of satisfaction or achievement in relation to a particular goal or standard, there are some important differences.

Good enough means that something meets or exceeds the required level of performance. It is entirely satisfactory. It implies that the item, task, or outcome is at least at an acceptable level of quality or functionality. The minimum level required is attained without the need for perfection. This applies to situations where perfection is not necessary (or achievable), and settling for a satisfactory result is acceptable.

Close enough, on the other hand, implies that something is almost at the desired level, but falls short. It suggests that the item, task, or outcome is in proximity to the intended target but is not good enough. There are hints of non-attainment or even failure. Not outright failure, but definitely a near miss.

I use the following diagram to clarify the Good Enough concept. The market – i.e., customers – defines the good enough level of capabilities. On or above the line is meeting the requirements of the market.

But there is some variation in those market expectations, hence the ‘grey’ zone illustrated. For some customers, their requirements may be slightly above or slightly below the good enough line. This generally involves some degree of trade-off, the most common of which is price vs features.

Closer and closer

In some situations, the difference between the desired and actual outcome is negligible or insignificant enough not to warrant further attention or adjustment. In this sense, close enough lands in the grey zone. Subject to managing the trade-offs, this version of close enough is probably good enough.

In many cases, however, not reaching the minimum standard results in an unacceptable, inferior outcome. Below the grey zone. And an inferior outcome is something to be avoided: it requires rework, it is unsafe, or can’t be sold at normal price to customers. When you visit a factory shop and buy seconds, you are buying ‘close enough,’ but not ‘good enough.’

So in most cases, close enough is a negative statement about the quality of an outcome. And I think this is the connotation that is carried across to good enough, and this is (in some people’s minds) the problem. If you consider ‘close enough’ to mean acceptably close, to be an insignificant, minor deviation from the ideal, then it may not have this negative impact on ‘good enough.’

In my world, close enough is not good enough. If it is, you are redefining the definition of good enough, which happens. The good enough line shifts up and down with the market. Being on (or above) the line – being good enough – is the strategic goal.

Otherwise you are close, but no cigar.