Imagine you’re sitting in a dentist’s chair. They were a little behind schedule when you got there, and it’s the end of the day. The hygienist is rushing, and there’s one rough patch of plaque on a molar that your tongue keeps returning to. When you ask for a little extra attention to it, they say: “You don’t have any cavities. What we did today is good enough. See you in six months.”

When we call something good, we usually mean it’s favorable or of high quality. A job was finished, the expected steps were covered and nothing was skipped because of time or convenience. Enough usually means a sufficient goal was met to justify moving on. Sufficient itself implies something satisfactory — an expectation was achieved.

But the meaning of both words changes slightly when you combine them. Suddenly, context is involved, and satisfaction is achieved based on the conditions. It’s like following a mediocre meal with: “It wasn’t bad … considering we’re in the middle of nowhere.”

When someone says “good enough,” the stopping point becomes a decision shaped by conditions. The choice might come from the pressure to move on rather than the task itself (training to time, not to standard). It can also come from whether the task is deemed worthy, something that is often a subjective assessment based on personal relevance. This is why “good enough” never actually is; the standard keeps bending to the conditions, leaving unresolved pieces behind.

How to turn “good enough” into “really good”

Going from “good enough” to “really good” starts with defining good in concrete terms. To do that, you need a clear reference point and a way to measure it. For scenario-based training, that usually means choosing a small set of behaviors that you want every officer to demonstrate the same way, every time.

For example, you might decide that a good baseline includes:

• Controlled language despite being pressed for time
• A physical stance appropriate to the situation, as if it were real
• Head on a swivel — even if it’s a single-screen simulator

Documenting what good looks like helps keep everyone aligned. While I love a good rubric, there’s no need to be formal or complicated; just write down the few behaviors that matter most and use the same language every time. When multiple instructors work from the same reference points, the feedback stays consistent and officers know exactly what’s expected. It also reduces the influence of personal style or past history with a particular officer, because everyone is looking at the same behaviors rather than relying on general impressions.

Training beyond the minimum means asking a simple question at the end of a block: What improved?

Make “really good” a reasonable target

Narrowing the focus of training to isolate a skill makes “really good” a manageable goal to hit, even with limited time or resource constraints. In practice, that can look like:

• Running only the first 20–30 seconds of a scenario to isolate the approach or entry as a single objective, instead of covering an entire call
• Choosing just one scenario that matches a current issue officers are actually facing, and pairing it with a replay of bodycam to focus learning on the debrief
• Focusing on trying to find a creative response to a typical scenario (research shows you can get better results here without overloading officers with training anyway)^[1]VerPlanck, J. (2021), “The effects of simulator training on the development of creative thinking in law enforcement officers.” Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 44 No. 3 pp. 455–468, … Continue reading

If you keep the training tight and relevant, instructors don’t have to run the entire scenario to justify the block. They can point to one improvement that stuck and count it as a win for the day. Officers leave the training room knowing what they did differently, and the next session can build from there. The training standard improves incrementally, as long as progress is tracked over time.

Beyond the minimum

The minimum standard might keep a program compliant, but it doesn’t necessarily keep it sharp. Training beyond the minimum means asking a simple question at the end of a block: What improved? Not what was covered or what was demonstrated on the screen — what actually got better? If the answer is clear, the time was used well, and you can say the training was really good.

This shift from “good enough” to “really good” doesn’t require additional funding, more instructors or longer days. It just requires clarity about the standard and consistency in how it’s reinforced. It means the training can stop when the objective has been met, and keeping track of what needs to be revisited when it hasn’t.

“Good enough” lowers the bar to whatever the conditions allow. In a profession built on high standards, the difference between meeting a requirement and strengthening a skill matters a lot. Make it really good.