Interesting question Greg. We (a consulting engineering firm) have a very good (meaning loyal) client that expects us to do our job well. He has jokingly said that does not expect 100%, but feels 85% is a good level of performance and he expects that from his consultants and his own company's staff. Upon reflection, I would estimate that we were in that 80 to 90% performance category he expected of us. We have really excelled in most areas, but perhaps not all. So, as I briefly ponder your question, the 3+2+2 performance model may actually be pretty good for an engineering design firm. By the way, when I say that he was "loyal" I meant that when we screwed up he took the time to call and say so. We then had a chance to stand tall and fix the problem rather than quietly lose a client and wonder what happened.
If you do not have a monopoly, you can become a commodity. The 3+2+2 formula seems to be a simple method to determine how a firm may fit within the market it serves. It cannot really address the level of saturation (commoditization if I may pen the term) within that market. The difficulty in attaining and maintaining a 3+2+2 rating would be proportional to the competitive level within the market served.
