Efficiency vs. Convenience

[sv Lorelei]

One of my evalutory metrics has evolved based on a perception that slowly but surely there has been a divergence between these two principles. Through much of history, that which has rendered a process or task more efficiently done has also produced greater convenience for those doing the task.

My prime example of this is our post WWII attraction to disposable dinerware. Paper plates are a shining example of a product that exists to render convenience without efficiency. Do plastic spoons work better than metal ones? Ask any 6 year old at the ice cream truck!

So at what point do these things start to justify their own existance? I recall walking down a beach in Barbados with Kris and hitting a backwater cove that was at least a quarter full of discarded floating styrofoam cups. Is this more efficient?

How pervasive is the issue? We used to value our leisure time. Now it appears we've sold that too. My wife does daycare out of our house. One professional couple arrives in the morning talking on their cell phones (work related) while dropping off their kids, and the other picks them up in the evening the same way. When do these folks have time to just be? When do they have time to think instead of just react? Are they more efficient or is it just background noise to their lives at this point?

[geeman]

Wife and I both have cell phones.We use them for emergency use mostly.WE found that if nobody has your number they cant call you.We also found that since we OWN the phone, there is no law that says we have to answer it when it rings.And we dont frequently.We havent allowed the phone to take over our lives.Same with the computer,I'm on it only when I choose to be on it.I know how to turn it off when I'm not enjoying the conversation or tire of it.We ALLOW these gadgits to take over our lives.We do it to ourselves by buying into the concept that we MUST do it.

[brad9798]

I think many folks get into ruts ... the daily routine. Talking on the phone while dropping off the kids that were probably watching a movie in the car on the way, is a simple way to avoid dealing with the kids.

Sure, it's easy to pop in a movie, light up the cell phone, and go through the motions ...

I think some folks do it because they are unhappy ... yet society 'tells' them to get married, procreate, drive a certain type of car, and live in the right neighborhood.

I think many folks are unhappy and don't know how to deal with their kids.

--------------------


I see the overall point of the post ... what makes sense and what does not? I don't know.

--------------------

I do love my cell phone ... only phone I have. No landline at home. No one gets me unless I give them the number!!!

[TomF]

I think that one of the strands of efficiency vs. convenience involves a conception of time.

Drawing on the involved/uninvolved parent example, it is more efficient to be an involved parent, if your goals include raising children to become entertaining and highly functional adults. It can be inconvenient as hell, in the short to medium term. In the long term, it's both more efficient, and more convenient than the alternatives.

Efficiency only works within its own domain; it is both more efficient and more convenient for the caterer to use disposable cups/plates - the efficiency/convenience costs only become apparent when the full costs are factored in ... the costs of the cups floating in the bay in Barbados. for instance.

[Donn]

We use paper plates and paper towels all the time. We buy Costco's largest packs. I recycle 90% of them via the compost bins.

My wife leaves the house at 6:15 each morning, carrying a laptop, a Blackberry and a cell phone. She uses all three, all day long. She gets back home at 18:45 and spends 30 minutes emailing an end-of-day memo to her boss. She couldn't do her job without them.

[PeterSibley]

and pretty soon everyone else in that or any other game has the same equpment, so the rates remain the same and overheads increase .The gear is fun...we're all tech junkies ...but there is little real improvement on the bottom line .Sometimes the opposite .

[Donn]

Good afternoon, Peter. :)

That is sheer nonsense. Technology has increased productivity by leaps and bounds. If the increase in productivity doesn't improve the bottom line, it's management's fault, and not the fault of technology.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

My business card, on the back, reads "A complicated system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works."

....

John Gall, Systemantics

A slim volume but one of the best Coefficient of fiction (http://www.aviationtoday.com/sia/20000701.htm)

[Keith Wilson]

To author Gall, no system is better than its sensory organs. Or, more precisely, the best systems are the ones that provide a clear view of reality to top management. Gall declared that the crucial variable is found in the fraction:
Cf= Ro/Rt
The numerator and denominator define the coefficient of fiction (Cf), where Ro is the amount of reality failing to reach relevant officials, and Rt is the total amount of reality presented to the system. Hence, Cf can range from zero (full awareness of outside reality) to unity (no reality is getting through). The closer the coefficient of fiction is to unity, the more likely managers are operating in fantasy land:D Unfortunately, high coefficients of fiction are all too common.



and pretty soon everyone else in that or any other game has the same equipment, so the rates remain the same and overheads increase .The gear is fun...we're all tech junkies ...but there is little real improvement on the bottom line .Sometimes the opposite . Perhaps not in the profitability of any given business, because competition keeps prices down, but overall productivity (output per hour or per dollar) increases. If you think otherwise, try competing without all the high-tech gear. Can't be done, unless you pay third-world wages.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

Anyone who has yet to become familiar with Gall's work is in for a treat.
While he lacks the reputation of a C. Northcote Parkinson and indeed the accessibility of a Stephen Potter his oeuvre is, within the small group of systematicians, considered seminal.

Might make a really good christmas present.

[sv Lorelei]

Donn: I see your point vis a vis productivity. And kudos for you for an awesome recycling rate. But part of my point is that based on an objective evaluation paper plates don't do the job as well as their predecessors. However they are unarguably more convenient. What was once a synergy is now a dichotomy.

Regarding the *need* for technology. It depends. In some professions the investment in technology has eclipsed the need for it. Kind of an industrial "keeping up with the Joneses". My boss is a sucker for every new gadget and adopts and abandons them with...well... adoptiveness and abandonment. Mostly they don't make him more efficient just more entitled and more irritable.

So let's turn to productivity. Take the surveyors above. We can now do the work of 4 surveyors with 1. Either this means we are 4x more productive on one end of the scale, or we've put 3 surveyors out of work on the other end of the scale. It all depends on how much demand there is for surveying work.

A good maritime example of the cell phone craze is the implication that if you attempt an ocean crossing without an SSB network and subscription to three different weather services you're acting irresponsibly. I'm not saying knowing the weather forecast isn't important, but the practicality of the matter is that the weather four days from now is a crapshoot. Pile on the technology if it makes you more comfortable, but it won't make the wind and waves any different a week from now.

So how much of what we perceive as *necessary* is due to us being told it is?

[Backfin]

Technology has increased productivity by leaps and bounds.

What are we producing? Really?

Aside from medical advances, I don't see much being produced that hasn't "evolved from a simple system that works."

Roger Waters: "Amused to Death" & "The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking"