Getting it wrong

I just read this scathing article about a new MP3/cellphone hybrid called Chocolate. What is amazing about this is not the disappointment of the technology but the fact that somehow through an escalation of commit, through buffalo mentality, through group think, lack of robust testing process and systems or whatever, this terrible device made it though to the consumer market.

I haven't tried a Chocolate for myself (not available in NZ) so it might not be as dreadful as the reviewer makes outs. The problem however is that this journalist works for The New York Times and this article is linked from the papers homepage (this page gets massive traffic), so however valid, this opinion matters by warrant of its reach alone.

I'm sure that the people who work fro LG and Verizon (the makers of the Chocolate) on the whole want to create category killer products (like an iPod, like a Treo), yet they release something to market which is clearly not one. I bet that those who develop product concepts design these products, and develop marketing plans, dream of being involved in the next big consumer electronic craze. Yet most of the stuff that get shovelled out, like the chocolate, is crap. People will buy this, probably, but it won’t be something its makers will retire on.

• Why do we allow mediocrity to surface so often?
• What is it about people in organisations that cause us to tolerate average (or below average) performance?

I, like many, many others I’m sure, know some of the potential explanations from an organisational behaviour and management perspective. However, it seems what is readily available insight doesn't seem to register with decision makers very often (well at least at LG quality control department).

How can smart people be so dumb so much of the time?