I'm grappling with a concept again, which is no surprise - nothing comes easy to someone with my limited candlepower.  Malcolm Gladwell devotes considerable space in Outliers to the premise that exceptional intelligence might be of little incremental value in the real world, that being "smart enough" is good enough to provide a foundation for success.

I've been trying to apply the principle to the world of supply chain management and how the players in a given supply chain relate to one another.  Apologies if I'm twisting the author's meaning and intent a bit.  I do agree that a level of intelligence that makes people - and organizations - capable of operating only in some bizarre parallel universe doesn't help make things go well in everyday life.

But, if I were constructing a supply chain designed for success, I'm inclined to think that I'd pick participants who were somewhat better than smart enough.  It's like choosing up sides for a schoolyard game - you want players who are better than good enough, but you might avoid the superstar divas (unless you, yourself, are the diva).

Then, I'd be looking for supply chain partners who were also creative and innovative.  Not simply creative enough, but better than creative enough, without being completely undisciplined and wildly impractical, or even irrelevant.

The importance of - and difference between honest enough and better than honest enough is a discussion for another day, but you get the idea.

Am I wrong?  Aren't we all striving to create solutions, organizations, and business relationships that are noticably better than good enough, without losing traction in a fruitless quest for the diminishing returns of absolute perfection?

Note: Achieving perfect order performance is not a fruitlesss quest; it is a byproduct of being noticably better than good enough.