Skip to main content

Strategy: Efficient or Innovative

We haven't had a refresh on our strategy direction in my office for a few years. It seems like we are frequently torn between being efficient and being innovative.

Efficient

  • Lower cost
  • speed to production
  • minimal failures
  • maximum uptime
Innovative
  • Higher cost
  • lots of failures
  • freedom to pursue non-"approved" activities
  • shorter attention span
I'm part of an IT shop with nearly 200 services that we offer to campus and internally. I love the feeling of being innovative, but I'm concerned that our current push is to be innovative at the expense of being efficient. The result is that we can't accomplish as much near-term good for the campus because our focus is on the longer term. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sitting or Standing at Work

I've read some stuff about the negative effects of sitting for prolonged periods of time. As a consequence, I've been experimenting with standing more at work when the task will permit it. I've been enjoying it. I think the next step to make that work even better would be to get a desk that can quickly raise or lower. (The glacial speed movements of some electric raise/lower desks would discourage much use.) Here are some resources I've found interesting.

NY Times article is a good summaryThis piece from Exercise and Sport Science Reviews is co-sponsored by Steelcase, the furniture makers, so I must take it with a grain of salt, but it recommends standing as an activity that should be categorized as superior to sitting, whereas they have been both lumped together as "sedentary" in previous literature. An abstract with says standing or sitting on a therapy ball are about the same, and both more active than sitting in a chair. This survey of papers says the resu…

The "True Cost" Phantom in Project Cost Tracking

I want to know if I should wear a coat when I go out the door on an unpredictable spring morning. The temperature from the weather app on my phone isn't going to match exactly the temperature just outside my front door, but it will be close enough to make the decision. If the question at hand is whether or not I should wear a coat, it would be a costly mistake to set up an elaborate system of thermometers around my property to try increase the precision of my measurement of the temperature. The added expense wouldn't yield any better decisions about whether to wear a coat, so why bother?

We are interested in tracking the relative costs of the various projects we undertake in our organization. We must admit up front that we will never be able to measure the precise cost of each of our projects. Consider the following things you could include in the "true cost" measurement of a project. Where will you draw the line?

An engineer reads an article on the bus that gives her…

How much will you remember?

There is a commonly passed around "stat" that, according to a blog post I recently read, isn't true. You've probably seen it or heard it.

It is said that people remember:10% of what they read20% of what they hear30% of what they see50% of what they see and hear70% of what they write and say90% of what they say as they do
The blog author says:
Quite where these numbers come from is a mystery to many, and indeed it is difficult to understand what 90% retention actually means… 90% of what for how long? As a model it looks and on first thought appears to be credible, however as many of us will know some people have almost 100% retention for a considerable period of time if they read something, others teach others from a structure or procedure which they themselves do not understand!Thanks, RapidBI, for pointing out this common misconception!