Efficiency and Econmoy
Barton Stanley (barton@tyrell.net)
Tue, 3 Jan 1995 15:50:43 -0600 (CST)
The Metaphor and Mental Models thread seems to be headed in a
number of different directions, so I thought I'd take the
opportunity to cast off a new thread, based on an exchange between
Charles Barclay and myself. To set the context for this thread, I
had asked the following question in an earlier post (the quoted
stuff here indicates stuff from an even earlier post by Charles):
>> Charles, is "a world looking for efficiency and economy in one's
>> purpose" really what we want *all the time*? I am dearly afraid
>> that in our unending search for "efficiency and economy", we may
>> *lose* rather than find that for which we *ultimately* search.
Charles then responded with a post, which I'll condense a bit here
(hoping that I will preserve his main points):
> Yes, Bart, we not only want efficiency & economy all the time in
> business--we need it. Leisure is different--by definition...Our
> collective humanity rests on continuous improvement in our selves as
> individuals and our communities to make powerful organizations...How
> will we fulfill our destiny if we do not as a society, and every
> individual as a member, increase efficiency, productivity and sustain
> growth through learning better ways and improvement in our existing
> way? How will we travel to the stars, learn & fight with new (to us)
> worlds and unlock the secrets of the universe if some members of our
> society refuse to learn, refuse to care for themselves, and insist on
> taking from society instead of giving to it through profitable activity?
I agree with Charles' main thrust here, which is (I believe) that
each member in a healthy, growing, and learning society is
responsible to contribute *something* that will encourage the
growth and learning. Those who do not are a drain on the
collective resources of the society, and only serve as a
detriment. I agree so strongly, in fact, that I am an active
member of Laubach Literacy, which helps illiterate (but motivated)
adults learn to read. There must be a support structure available
to help those who are a drain learn not to be a drain anymore.
I feel however, that there is no contradiction in espousing this
view and questioning whether we really want 100% efficiency *all
the time* (even in business), which was my original question. I
feel that while efficiency is important, we must be careful not to
practice efficiency to the exclusion of other (equally) important
things.
Perhaps my wariness of efficiency can be better understood if I
give a little bit of background. I have been growing and learning
with the discipline of software engineering for eleven years now.
Most of my career has been spent building systems which allow the
automation of industrial processes, such as grain terminals,
pollution control systems, and gas/oil pipelines. Since time=lots
of money in these industries, it is extremely important to build
efficient systems. Due to the relative immaturity of the software
engineering discipline, building these systems is almost always a
struggle. There are deadlines and pressures, and sometimes it
seems as though things will never ever be finished...
I was in one of these states of mind one day, when I happened to
look out the window (which introduced some inefficiency into the
project I was working on). It just so happens that I am fortunate
enough to live in the midwestern US (which is not to put down
those of use who are fortunate enough to live in Hawaii! :-) ),
which gives me the opportunity to watch the seasons come and go.
At the time I looked out the window, it was spring, and the wind
was blowing furiously. Leaves and other (natural) refuse from the
winter were blowing through the air, and I was thinking how
unpleasant it would be to be outside right then, because stuff
would get blown into your eyes -- when I realized something. I
realized that the wind *needed* to blow so furiously because all
the winter refuse *needed* to be cleaned out. The wind also
*needed* to blow furiously to carry the seeds from the nearby
cottonwood tree to fertile ground.
I had a revelation that day. There we were, sitting inside,
struggling mightily with our (comparatively) puny little system,
trying to bring it to life, and get it to the stage where it could
sustain itself. Outside however, nature was effortlessly
maintaining a *huge* system, which it has maintained (quite
successfully, I might add) for millions of years. The earth's
ecology is continually growing, learning, and adapting. If there
were ever a model learning organization this is it.
To me the most interesting thing about this learning organization
is that it is pretty darn inefficient sometimes. The furiously
blowing wind is such an inconvenience, and can cause a lot of
trouble (in the form of Dorothy and Toto's tornado here in the
midwest!). Why does *everyone* have to be affected by nature's
cleaning and distribution system? Couldn't it be more localized
instead of so broad-based? I get the uneasy feeling that those
want efficiency *all the time* would see this and say, "Oh, we can
build a better system for cleaning out the winter refuse that
would be so much more *efficient*!", or "Why, a more efficient
delivery system for cottonwood seed can easily be devised!", all
the while *selling* the idea with "Oh, you don't need that nasty
old wind. We'll get rid of that for you!" Of course, in removing
the old system and putting in the new, the whole balance would be
thrown out of whack, leaving the system bereft of exactly what it
needs to maintain itself -- a little inefficiency.
This is not to say that we should be inefficient for the sake of
inefficiency. It just seems to me that when we take a *systemic*
view of learning organizations (such as nature) that are healthy
and maintain themselves for long periods of time, we will see many
things which would be considered "inefficient" if considered with
a more narrow view. I also think it is all to easy to judge
something as being "inefficient", when in fact that "something" is
an integral part of the system. I have a very strong hunch that
it is a necessary part of our learning and evolution as a society
to come to the realization that more efficiency (like more of
anything) is not necessarily always good, but must be carefully
weighed against other factors before making a final judgment.
With this learning will come the willingness to wisely allow the
occasional bit of inefficiency for the good of the whole instead
of "systematically" eliminating any and all inefficiency.
Peace and blessings,
Barton Stanley
barton@tyrell.net