A Torre de Babel, para mim, é também um símbolo da superioridade de Mongo, um mundo de diversidade, sobre Magnitograd, um mundo de normalização obsessiva e castradora.
Em 2008, em "O perigo da cristalização" expliquei porque achava que o mundo da Qualidade estava a perder a relevância conseguida nos anos 80 e 90 do século passado, ficou preso ao bezerro dourado da normalização. Porquê? Por que a normalização aumenta a eficiência.
"A minha evolução" abriu-me os olhos para uma realidade alternativa, uma que não ganha as capas dos jornais, nem o tempo de antena nos "prime-time".
Assim, é com um gozo tremendo que encontro este texto sobre a vantagem da heterogeneidade, sobre a vantagem da diversidade, sobre a vantagem da eficácia, no artigo "The Four Service Marketing Myths" de Vargo & Lusch:
"The focus of the characteristic of heterogeneity is standardization....historically, goods production has been characterized as heterogeneous. Preindustrial cottage industries typically produced nonstandardized output. Standardization, or more precisely the goal of standardized output, is an outgrowth of more recent mass production, not an inherent characteristic of tangible output, and even after 150 years of implementation, it remains a manufacturing goal, not a reality....The critical issue in the perception of relative homogeneity and heterogeneity is who is making the judgment. Fundamentally, standardization is concerned with quality, but this association between homogeneity and quality is relatively new and is a manufacturer-centered association, motivated primarily by the advantages in efficiency afforded by standardization in the move toward mass production that characterized the Industrial Revolution. In short, standardization is more efficient from the manufacture’s perspective and thus has (had) become the standard of quality. .Mongo é o futuro, onde we are all weird. Mongo é o mundo DIY:
From the consumer’s perspective, however, the issue is different. Homogeneity in production often results in heterogeneous judgments of quality by individual consumers, if not whole markets....Quite often, we deal with this heterogeneity with respect to demand by offering an assortment of standardized offerings to serve “relatively” homogeneous groups, that is, segments. On the other hand, what is often referred to as the heterogeneous nature of services is often seen as more harmonious with the individualized, dynamic demand of the consumer. That is, nonstandardization on a priori grounds may allow customization that is more responsive to demand. From a marketing perspective, nonstandardization (i.e., customization) is the normative goal..The inverted implications. Service scholars have rather easily accepted the idea that services have a disadvantage in relation to goods because they cannot be standardized as easily as goods. Thus, the normative prescription is that service providers must work particularly hard to find ways to increase standardization. As noted, in reality, the situation may be the exact opposite. Although standardization may provide for manufacturing efficiency, this efficiency comes at the expense of marketing effectiveness. The normative prescription of the consumer orientation screams heterogeneity. Thus, it is standardized tangible goods that may be at a disadvantage, rather than services....
Rather than trying to make service more goods-like through internal standardization, service managers should capitalize on the flexibility of service provision, and manufacturers should strive to make their goods more service-like through the customized provision of output that meets the heterogeneous standards of consumers....
from a marketing perspective, heterogeneous offerings are the normative goal regardless of whether the core offering is relatively tangible or intangible."